Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia

Chapter VII

Javan is the fourth son of Japheth and his sons are the second and last, recorded grandsons of Japheth in the Bible.

Genesis 10:4-5

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

4 And the sons of Javan: Elisa and Tharsis, Cetthim and Dodanim. 5 By these were divided the islands [isles]in their lands… and their families in their nations.

Living Bible

The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim. Their descendants became the maritime nations in various lands, each with a separate language.

1 Chronicles 1:7

English Standard Version

The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.

The sons of Javan are associated with Islands – and the sea. Dodan is called Rodan in 1 Chronicles. Recall, a similar situation with Gomer’s son Riphath [and Diphath] – regarding the reverse transliteration of the first letters R and D. Either, another scribal error has occurred, with a different reference to the same Dodanim who once lived on the Greek Island of Rhodes… or there is an additional son of Javan, [or even a grandson, via Javan’s son Dodan].

I paused, wondering which word to use to describe the situation and checked transcription, which had come to mind, though I did not know what it meant. I then found the following definition, much to my surprise.

‘Transcription is the first of several steps of DNA based gene expression in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA (especially mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase. A molecule that allows the genetic material to be realized as a protein was first hypothesized by Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod. Severo Ochoa won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1959 for developing a process for synthesizing RNA in vitro with polynucleotide phosphorylase, which was useful for cracking the genetic code.’

I was struck by the coincidence of the letters D and R for DNA and RNA, with the first letters for Dodan and Rodan. [I found this coincidence interesting, but had no reason to pursue the mRNA aspect in 2020, when I began writing this series of articles. It did attract my attention though, when I first heard the term: Covid 19 mRNA vaccine. Please see related article on website, Covid 19 Injection.]

The Book of Jubilees provides the location of Javan some time after the flood when Japheth’s children lived in southern Central Asia, Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe.

Book of Jubilees 9:10-11

And for Javan came forth the fourth portion every island and the islands which are towards the border of Lud.

This is a reference to when Javan lived throughout the Greek Islands and Lud [son of Shem] was located in the west of Asia Minor.

Book of Jasher 7:6 and 10:13

And the sons of Javan were Elisha, Tarshish, Chittim and Dudonim… And the children of Javan are the Javanim who dwell in the land of Makdonia [Macedonia].

We will study Javan, his eldest son Elishah and his youngest son Dodan. Javan’s other two sons, the Kittim [Kitti] and Tarshish, we will discuss separately.

Israel A History Of – emphasis theirs: 

‘The name Javan is the original form of the name Ionia. Ionia is synonymous with Greece. The same Hebrew word is translated “Javan” in some passages, and “Greece” in others. It is recognized and agreed upon by scholars that of the sons of Noah, Japheth, and his son Javan, were the initiators of the Greeks. Hellas, as in Hellespont and Hellenists, is a form of the name Elishah [Javan’s firstborn son], and came to be applied to Greece as a whole. The Tell el Amarna and Ugaritic documents, dating from the 1400’s to the 1300’s B.C., make mention of the Alasians. It appears that the Alasians were from Cyprus, yet another Greek connection to the sons of Noah and their descendants. [Dodan] are apparently the same as the Rodanim, mentioned in I Chronicles 1:7. The influence of Dodanim can be seen in the geographical names of Dardanelles, and Rhodes.’

Ancient Civilisation: 

‘The name of the next grandson, Javan, is the Hebrew word for Greece. Greece, Grecia, or Grecians appears five times in the Old Testament, and is always the Hebrew word Javan. Daniel refers to ‘the king of Grecia’ (Daniel 8:21), literally ‘the king of Javan’. Javan’s sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim (Genesis 10:4), all of whom have connections with the Greek people. The Elysians (an ancient Greek people) obviously received their name from Elishah. Tarshish or Tarsus was located in the region of Cilicia (modern Turkey). Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Kittim is the biblical name for Cyprus… Dodonaeus, possibly a reference to the fourth son of Javan… His oracle was at Dodena.’ 

At the time of Daniel [circa 500’s BCE], the Greeks mentioned are the forerunners of the Greco-Macedonian Empire that would supplant the Medo-Persian Empire. These Greeks are a very different proposition to the original founders of the Greek isles and coasts after the Flood. The sons of Javan dispersed from the Middle East at the time of Peleg and the Tower of Babel circa 6755 BCE and into the Aegean. The later inhabitants of Greece, long after Javan’s descendants had begun their eastward arc towards the Far East [and after the Minoans and Mycenaeans had arrived beginning circa 3500 BCE], began populating Greece from circa 1700 BCE. Please refer to point number two in the introduction.

A H Sayce, page 46-47: 

‘Cyprus was called the island of the lonians by the Assyrians… Tarshish is usually identified with Tartessos in Spain, not far from the modern Gibraltar. It was the furthest point reached in the western basin of the Mediterranean by the Phoenician and Greek traders. The ships which made the voyage were consequently known as the ships which traded to Tarshish, or more briefly, ships of Tarshish. The phrase gradually came to be applied to any kind of merchant vessel, even to those which had never visited Tarshish at all. Kittim was Kition in Cyprus… It was, however, a Phoenician and not a Greek settlement… Dodanim, on the other hand, may represent a Greek colony…. Rodanim is an alternative reading of Dodanim… In this case, it will denote the natives of the island of Rhodes.’

The sons of Javan as the original ‘Greeks’ founded civilisations on the islands of Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Malta and beyond all the way to Spain – its islands and coastal regions. Much later, the Phoenicians [a maritime people descended from Shem] occupied the Island of Cyprus and many of the other isles located in the Mediterranean Sea.

Dr Hoeh adds the following – emphasis mine:

‘… where are the Greeks, South Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese mentioned in prophecy? Turn to Genesis 10:2, 4. Here is the answer. You find Javan, a son of Japheth, listed. Javan had four sons… In I Chronicles 1:7 the last name is spelled Rodanim. The Bible itself proves how often names were changing in ancient times.

Where are the sons of Javan today? The Bible makes the answer very plain. No need to look for any evidence outside of the Bible this time. Look in either STRONG’s or YOUNG’s CONCORDANCE. There you will find that in the Old Testament, wherever the words “Greece” or “Grecia” are used in English, the word “Javan” is used in Hebrew! Javan is the father of the Greeks, and of the other Latins. His son Elishah spread into “Hellas” —the Greek Isles in the Aegaean Sea and to Cyprus, anciently called “Alisha”. His son Dodanim or Rodanim spread through the Dodecanes, and the Isle of Rhodes and parts of the French Mediterranean coast along the Rhone.’

It is a common assumption interpreting Javan as the Latins of Italy and the Iberian peninsula – due to the apparent Greek-Greece connection. Remembering points one and two in the introduction, the original sons of Javan [from Japheth] travelled throughout the Mediterranean leaving their presence behind them through names of cities. 

Peoples descended from Shem, followed and settled. They may have assumed the original names, for instance ‘Greece’, though todays Greeks are not the sons of Javan, nor are they the remnants of the mighty Greco-Macedonian Empire, as we shall learn. As the constant reader will already know or is beginning to see, it is inaccurate to assume otherwise, merely based on place names.

Javan in Hebrew means: ‘Mire’ from the noun yawen and translated as Ionia, Grecia  or Greece. It has a similar meaning to the root word H3196 effervescing, as in hot and active [like the amazing four hundred Volcanoes in Indonesia, of which one hundred and thirty are active]. In Persian it means ‘young.’ 

Abarim Publications:

‘The name Javan comes from yawen… which is wet [swampy, boggy ground] or soft mud and represents the transitional state between water… and dry land… water (seas and rivers) denote liquidity, growth and potential… in the Bible the great cultures are always associated with their respective great rivers. For a meaning of the name Javan, Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Supple, Clay. NOBSE Study Bible Name List simply reads Greece.’

An appropriate name when considering Javan’s relationship with water and where his sons are dwelling today. The descendants of Javan are located [adjacent to their cousins from Gomer] in the principal archipelago nations of South East Asia – Malaysia [Singapore], the Philippines, the Pacific Islands… and Indonesia, to be discussed in the next chapter. 

Elishah in Hebrew means: ‘God supports’, ‘God is my salvation’, also ‘to set upright, to stand.’ Abarim Publications adds that the verb, Sasha means ‘to be unrestricted’ and thus to be free, to be saved from oppression and ultimate demise. The adjective Shoa means: ‘(financially) independent’ or ‘freed in an economic sense’. This definition is indicative of modern Malaysia.

Ezekiel 27:7

New English Translation

Fine linen from Egypt, woven with patterns, was used for your sail to serve as your banner;

blue and purple from the coastlands of Elishah were used for your deck’s awning.

Footnote: This is probably a reference to Cyprus.

The word translated as coastlands is H339 ‘iy meaning: coast, island, shore, region and a desirable, habitable spot. Translated in the KJV as mainly isles [30] or islands [5]. Many translations translate Elishah as Cyprus, which can also mean Kitti the third son of Javan. This is a fascinating connection as Elishah and Kitti both lived on Cyprus, before it became associated mainly with the Kittim. Kitti does work as an identity, for the simple reason they too are a maritime nation sharing territory with Elishah today. Anciently, Elishah lived on islands as well as the Grecian mainland. 

Today, Malaysia is the only nation from Javan that is not entirely comprised of islands. It is divided as West Malaysia on the peninsula and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo [the world’s third largest island]. Malaysia has a long history of maritime activities, whether it be trade through shipping and its practical location for ports or its many shipyards.

Located In the Malay Peninsula, the first inhabitants were Negritos. Traders and settlers from India and China arrived as early as the first century CE and established ports and coastal towns in the second and third centuries. Between the seventh and thirteenth centuries, most of the southern Malay Peninsula was part of the maritime Srivijayan Empire. In the early fifteenth century, Parameswara, a runaway king of the former Kingdom of Singapura [linked to the old Srivijayan court], founded the Malacca Sultanate. Malacca was an important commercial centre attracting trade from all around the region.

Malacca was conquered by Portugal in 1511, after which it was controlled by the Dutch  from 1641. In 1786, the British Empire established a presence in Malaya, when the Sultan of Kedah leased Penang Island to the British East India Company. The British later acquired the town of Singapore in 1819and in 1824 took control of Malacca following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. By 1826 the British controlled Penang, Malacca and Singapore. Under British rule, the immigration of Chinese and Indians to serve as labourers was encouraged. 

Peninsular Malaysia was unified as the Malayan Union in 1946 and restructured as the Federation of Malaya in 1948, achieving independence in 1957. Malaya united with North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963 to become Malaysia, though in 1965, Singapore was expelled from the federation. Half the population of Malaysia is ethnically Malay with the additional minorities including Chinese, Indians and indigenous peoples. The population of Malaysia is 32,855,036 people. The Malays account for 13% of the total population in Singapore of 5,903,392 people.

The mtDNA Haplogroup E [2% in the Malay Archipelago] is found throughout Maritime Southeast Asia. It has been detected in populations of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia [including Sabah of Borneo] as well as Taiwan. It is nearly absent from mainland East Asia, where its sister group M9a [a sub-clade of E also found in Japan] is common. The references to Japan and Taiwan, we will study further. Even though Taiwan is predominantly Han Chinese, there is a residue of haplogroup E because the Malayo-Polynesian [Austronesian] peoples originally entered Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. 

The main mtDNA haplogroups for Malayans include Ma [39%], B5 [11%] and F1a [17%], compared with Thailand that we looked at earlier, of B5a [9.4%], F1a1a [8.9%] and M [8.9%]. Though these are shared Southeast Asian mtDNA haplogroups and Thailand and Malaysia are neighbours, the dividing line between Gomer and Javan is evident in the significant difference in percentage [excepting F1a]. Other key haplogroups for the Malays include: M21a [6%], B4 [8%], N9a [3%] and R [8%].

Dodan in Hebrew means: ‘Leaders’ from the verb dada, ‘to move or lead slowly’

Abarim Publications:

‘In the parallel text of 1 Chronicles 1:7, the Dodanim are called Rodanim. Some scholars believe that the Chronicler made an error and read a Hebrew (resh) for the somewhat similar (daleth — which would be comparable to a professional writer today speaking of Oatar instead of Qatar; rather unlikely), and threw an additional waw) in for good measure. Another possibility is that the Dodanim of old were known as Rodanim in the Chronicler’s days. It’s even possible that by speaking of Rodanim, the Chronicler indicates that his text is not a copy of but rather a commentary on the established text…

The name Dodanim appears to be a plural form of a name similar to Dedan, and is closely similar to the name [Dedan]. The Dedanim, however, are either descendants of Japheth’s brother Ham (Genesis 10:7) or else Jokshan, a son of Abraham and a distant descendant of Japheth’s other brother Shem (Genesis 25:3).’

Two Dedans are mentioned in the Bible: one a grandson of Cush, son of Ham and the other a grandson of Abraham, descended from Shem. Two different Dedans, though commentators have invariably tried to equate them as one and the same person. Dodan’s name is very similar, though he is a separate person, resulting in a total of three people – two Dedans and one Dodan.

‘It’s not immediately clear where the name Dodanim may have come from, but to a Hebrew audience it would have looked related to the following root group: The root (yadad ) has to do with love… in the affectionate, physical sense. Adjective (yadid) means beloved or lovely… an identical verb (yadad II) means to cast a lot… originally meant to cast but which evolved to praise… our root has to do with physical fondling… [and]… to move slowly.’ 

The Filipinos represent the descendants of Dodan today. The writing of Dodan in the plural as Dodanim in the Bible may be linked to the diversity of the Filipino people over such a large volume of island territory. The same maybe true of the Rodanim and Kittim.

The Republic of the Philippines incredibly consists of approximately 7,641 islands that are categorized under three main geographical divisions from north to south: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The capital city is Manilla and the most populous city is Quezon City, both within the single urban area of Metro Manilla. The Philippines has a population of 111,265,058 people. It is the 13th most populated country in the world. Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands, with Negritos, some of the archipelago’s earliest inhabitants and they were followed by successive waves of Austronesian peoples [Malayo-Polynesian].

In 1521, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived and claimed the islands for Spain. In 1543, Spanish explorer Ruy Lopez de Villalobos named the archipelago Las Islas Filipinas in honor of Philip II of Spain. Colonisation began when Spanish explorer Miguel Lopez de Legazpi arrived from Mexico in 1565.In 1571, Spanish Manilla became the capital of the Spanish East Indies which encompassed Spanish territories in Asia and the Pacific.The Spanish considered their war with the Muslims in Southeast Asia an extension of the Reconquista. From 1565 to 1821 the Philippines was governed as part of the Mexico based Viceroyalty of new Spain. Later it was administered from Madrid following the Mexican War of Independence. Manilla was the western hub of the trans-Pacific trade and Catholicism became the dominant religion. 

In 1896 the Philippine Revolution began, which then became entwined with the 1898 Spanish-American War. Spain ceded the territory to the United States and Filipino rebels declared the First Philippine Republic. The ensuing Philippine-American War ended with the United States establishing control over the territory, maintained until the Japanese invasion of the islands during World War II. The Philippines gained independence in 1946.

Oxford Business Group – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘Over the last 50 years, the Philippines has grown to become a leading provider of maritime professionals and is subsequently considered by many to be the seafaring capital of the world.  At present there are over 10.5m Filipinos living and working abroad, and in 2013 they sent total remittances of around $23 [billion] back home to the Philippines. The maritime industry is a major contributor to this: nearly 400,000 Filipino seafarers were working overseas in 2013, contributing a total of more than $5.2 [billion] in remittances. “Seafaring is the Philippines’ biggest strength, currently supplying roughly 30% of the world’s seafarers, which is miles away from the second-largest source country.”’ 

Pommie Travels, Victoria Brewood – emphasis mine:

‘Asia is the last place you’d expect to find an English-speaking nation. A lengthy occupation by the United States introduced Filipinos to English. Today, most Filipinos [5th biggest English speaking nation in the world] speak the world’s most-spoken language… Filipino culture – it stands out noticeably from the rest of Asia. Thanks to 500 years of Spanish and American colonization, you could be forgiven for thinking you’ve arrived in Latin America rather than Asia.’

Philippine Mitochondrial DNA Diversity: A Populated Viaduct between Taiwan and Indonesia? Multiple Authors, 2010 – emphasis & bold mine:

Comparison of the mtDNA haplogroup frequency distributions in the three major island groups of the Philippines showed similar haplogroup profiles. Southeast Asian populations cluster closely together in an MDS plot including groups from Near Oceania and Polynesia. However, an MDS plot of Asians and Southeast Asians reveals genetic differentiation between these groups.’ 

‘Plot of first two dimensions produced by MDS analysis of mtDNA haplogroup frequencies in selected East, Southeast Asian, Near Oceanic, and Polynesian populations, including Borneo (BOR), Hakka (HAK), Hlai (HLA), Java (JAV), Maluku (MAL), Nusa Tenggara—Austronesian (NTA), Northern Han (NOH), Philippines (PHL), Southern Han (SOH), Sulawesi (SLW), Sumatra (SUM), Taiwanese Aborigines (TAB), Thailand (THL) and Vietnam (VTN). (A) Including Nusa Tenggara—Non-Austronesian (NTN), Polynesian (POL), and West Papuan (WEP); Borneo and Sumatra overlap. (B) East Asian and Southeast Asian groups only.’

The Philippines, Taiwanese Aborigines, and Sulawesi cannot be clearly separated in the first dimension of the MDS plot; these groups can only be distinguished in the second dimension. However, the MDS plot does enable us to differentiate between the latter populations and other Island Southeast Asians (Maluku, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, and Austronesian-speaking groups in the Nusa Tenggaras). Han Chinese populations from Taiwan (Hakka) and southern China group closely together, whereas mainland Southeast Asian populations from Vietnam and Thailand are interspersed with other East Asian groups. Genetic distances between these populations are most closely correlated with the distributions of haplogroups B5b, M7b3, and M7c3c (r ≥ 0.25); less so with other frequent haplogroups such as E1a1a and B4a1a. Lineages that comprise a significant proportion (≥5%) of the Philippine population and are generally shared with both Island and/or Mainland Southeast Asians include B4b1, B4c1b, B5b, E, and R9c. Among these mtDNA lineages, haplogroup E is unusual in that it is virtually absent in mainland Asia .’

Frequencies of major mtDNA haplogroups in East Asian, Southeast Asian, Papuan, and Polynesian groups.

‘Haplogroup B4a1a is highly diverse in Taiwan, but the subclade (B4a1a1) characterized by a mutation at np 14,022 is absent there. The identification of haplogroup B4a1a1 in the Philippines may indicate a stage of development of the Polynesian Motif along the north to south pathway proposed in the general Out of Taiwan model for the Austronesian population expansion. This apparently completes a series of genetic links from Taiwan (where the B4a1a motif may have originated), through the Philippines (where the np 14,022 mutation might have evolved) and finally to Indonesia (where the full Polynesian Motif first occurs). However, the observation of a B4a1a1 sample in the Philippine population is not necessarily incompatible with models that argue for an extended development period for the Polynesian Motif in ISEA, if the proposed area of development of the motif is expanded to include the Philippines. Another alternative explanation is that the B4a1a1 lineages might have been brought to the Philippines by a back migration from Indonesia.’

The cluster of island Southeast Asia and Polynesia mtDNA [maternal] haplogroups confirms the genetic link between Polynesia with the rest of southeast of Asia. The article also supports that migration from Taiwan to Indonesia and Polynesia went via the Philippine Islands. The most common Filipino haplogroups include: B4a1a [11%], B5b [8%], D6 [1%], E1a1a [11%], F1a4 [4%], R9c [5%], M7c3c [11%]  and Y2 [5%].

Other mtDNA haplogroups that the Filipinos possess in common with Taiwan include: M7b3 [3%], E1a1a, B4a1a, B4b1 [8%], M7c3c, and B4c1b [5%].

The most common mtDNA haplogroups for Filipinos and Malays compared to Thais and the Vietnamese.

Vietnamese:  M7  [10]%   B5   [7%]    F1    [19%] 

Thais:             M     [9%]    B5a [9%]    F1a  [9%]

Malays:          Ma   [39%]  B5   [11%]   F1a  [17%]

Filipinos:       M7c [11%]   B5b [8%]    F1a  [4%] 

The Filipinos possess more E1a [11%] and this accounts for less F1a, distinguishing them from the other three peoples; otherwise they have similar levels of M and B5 as the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese have a higher level of B4 [17%], with F1 that separates them from the others. The Malays are as high in these three haplogroups [M, B5, F1] as the Thais, their neighbours are low; highlighting their respective difference from each other as well as the Vietnamese and Filipinos. The Malays have a lower, yet still quite high level of B4 [8%], whereas the Filipinos are between the Malays and Vietnamese for B4 [11%].

Complete mtDNA Genomes of Filipino Ethnolinguistic Groups: a melting pot of recent and ancient lineages in the Asia-Pacific region, Multiple Authors, 2013 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The Philippines is a strategic point in the Asia-Pacific region for the study of human diversity, history and origins, as it is a cross-road for human migrations and consequently exhibits enormous ethnolinguistic diversity. Although some mtDNA haplogroups can be associated with the Austronesian expansion, there are others that associate with South Asia, Near Oceania and Australia that are consistent with a southern migration route [from Taiwan] for ethnolinguistic group ancestors into the Asia-Pacific, with a timeline that overlaps with the initial colonization of the Asia-Pacific region, the initial colonization of the Philippines and a possible separate post-colonization migration into the Philippine archipelago.

Haplogroups B4b1a and B5b1c are of appreciable frequency (> 5%) in [Filipino Ethnolinguistic] groups. However, population comparison was limited to FE groups and Japan because Japan was the only population-based and geographically defined group in the reference data set that possessed B4b1 and B5b1 lineages.FE group and Japanese B4b1a and B5b1 coding sequences fall into distinct clades that diverged some 15–20 kya… suggesting an ancient link. But as macrohaplogroups B4 and B5 and their sublineages are generally associated with mainland East and Southeast Asia, more population-based samples of complete mtDNA genomes from these regions are required in order to verify the observed Filipino–Japanese association.’

We will refer back to this paragraph and the genetic link between the Filipinos and Japanese. It is as revealing and vital as the link we found and investigated between the Vietnamese and Koreans – Ashkenaz and Togarmah of Gomer.

‘In conclusion, this study has demonstrated various features of the mtDNA landscape of the Philippines… mtDNA showed that the Filipino population is heterogeneous and composed of diverse FE groups and Regional Centres groups, with no simple dichotomy between FENegrito and FEnon-Negrito groups… there are different trends in Ne changes that could suggest different demographic histories for the Filipino Ethnolinguistic groups included in the study… FE groups have genetic affinities primarily with northern East Asia and Southeast Asia…’

The most frequently occurring Y-DNA [Paternal] haplogroups among modern Filipinos are haplogroup O1-M119 [O1a] and haplogroup O2-M122 [O2a1], which is found with high frequency in many populations from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Polynesia^. Haplogroup O1-M119 is shared especially with Taiwan, Western Indonesia and Madagascar.^ Filipinos also possess O1-M268 [O1b] the clade that Vietnam and Korea share. The main Y-DNA haplogroups for Malays and Filipinos:

Malaysia:       O1b – O2a1 – O1a – K – C – F – [R1a – D1 – H1a]

Philippines:  O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b 

The Malays and Filipinos share five main key haplogroups and are clearly siblings; though the difference between them is marked by the significant percentage of O1b Malaysia has [32%] – the same haplogroup that Vietnam and Korea share in equal measure of 33%. Certain lesser clades show influence of migration from Indo-China and Thailand in to Malaysia – R1a, D1 and H1a – plus the influence of the Vietnamese with the high percentage of O1b.

Malaysians [apart from the Philippines] are not closely aligned with the other nations mentioned and have a distant affinity with cousins, Vietnam; while the Filipinos [apart from Malaysia] have a distant affinity with cousins, Thailand.

Malaysia:       O1b – O2a1 – O1a – K – C – F – [R1a – D1 – H1a]

Vietnam:        O2a1 – O1b – Q1a – O1a – C – D1 – N 

Philippines:   O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b 

Thailand:       O2a1 – O1a – C – D1 – K 

The key Y-DNA East and Southeast Asian haplogroups of O, K and C represented in percentages.

Malaysia:        O1b  [32%]      O2a1 [28%]     O1a  [8%]     K [8%]       C   [6%] 

Philippines:    O1b  [3%]        O2a1 [39%]     O1a  [28%]   K [20%]     C  [5%] 

Vietnam:         O1b  [33%]      O2a1 [40%]     O1a  [6%]                        C  [4%] 

Korea:              O1b  [33%]     O2a1 [42%]     O1a [3%]  K [4%]        C  [13%]

Haplogroup K shows the affinity between brothers Elisha and Dodan – Malaysia and the Philippines – as distinct from their cousins from Gomer. The higher percentage of C, separates Korea. The higher percentage of O1a, coupled with the lesser of O1b distinguishes the Filipinos.  

Turning our attention to [the relationship of Dodan with], Rodan – the Polynesian [and Micronesian] Peoples of the Pacific [Oceania]. 

Their locations include such diverse regions as Madagascar to the west, Hawaii to the north, Easter Island to the eastand New Zealand to the south. 

Riphath and Diphath of Gomer [Cambodia and Laos] were not a scribal error but an indication of two peoples closely aligned, historically, culturally and ethnically, one possibly deriving from the other, or Diphath is a later son of Gomer. Javan’s youngest son Dodan[im] strangely mirrors, the same relationship with Rodan[im].

Herman Hoeh – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘The Mauri, Milyaes and Gasgars migrated from the Mediterranean via Asia Minor… The Gasgars live on the Island of Madagasgar. The word “Madagasgar” means “Gasgars of the land of Madai! “The Milyaes are the Malayas of Southeast Asia; the Mauri are the Maori of the South Pacific, The Maori claim to have come from the West by ship from the land of “Raiatea”(AN INTRODUCTION TO POLYNESIAN ANTHROPOLOGY, by Peter Buck, p.14). Where was Raiatea? Some lost continent? NO! Raiatea was a land familiar to the Romans. They called it Raetia. It was located south of the Danube River… (SMITH’s CLASSICAL DICTIONARY).’

A number of researchers maintain the Polynesians sailed from South America across the Pacific Ocean to the Pacific Islands. In 1947, the Kon Tiki voyage by Thor Heyerdahl using a a Polynesian balsa wood raft sailed across the Pacific, westward from South America, beyond Easter Island to prove it could be done. Polynesians did sail that same direction… only after they had first sailed eastward to South America circa 1100 CE. When they returned, they brought with them bottle gourds, the paper mulberry tree and sweet potatoes [Kumara]. All are found throughout the South Pacific, yet they are sourced from South American varieties. This transference of vegetation has confused some into thinking the Polynesians migrated originally from South America.

The Milyaes or Malays are linked to the Polynesians. Sayce comments on page 32 – bold mine:

‘It was the philologist, for example, who first suggested the common origin of the Malayo- Polynesian race. He found that the languages spoken by the race implied a common mother-speech at no very distant period, and thus made it possible that the speakers also were derived from a common stock.’

The Journal of the Polynesian Society Volume VII: The Malayo-Polynesian Theory III, John Fraser, 1898 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Scientists have also done much to spread the Malayo-Polynesian theory, chiefly Wilhelm von Humboldt, who, on the very first page of his great work (Über die Kawi Sprache auf der Insel Java), says, “Under this name—the Malayan race—I include the inhabitants of all the islands of the great Southern Ocean.”

The view which I take is a “new theory” so far as I am concerned, for I have never seen it stated by any other. It is shortly this: Whereas others maintain that a conspicuous portion of the Polynesian language has come from the Malays, I hold that these words were Polynesian before they became Malayan; that is, that the Malays, when they came into the Indian Archipelago, found a Polynesian language there from which they borrowed largely. And further, I hold that in Indonesia the first dwellers were of the Melanesian stock, that the ancestry of the present Polynesians was grafted on that, and that the Malays are the last and latest settlement there. Thus I account for the well-known fact that the ground-work of the purely Melanesian languages shows many root-words in common with the languages both of the brown Polynesians and the Malays. Others say that these words come through the Malays; I say that the Malays were the borrowers. “The truth,—the more it’s shook, it shines,” and every question as to the origin of our Polynesians and their speech ought to be worthy of a place in your Journal… for the Malay itself is a borrower from far earlier forms which came originally from India.”’

Ancient Origins, Caleb Strom – emphasis & bold mine:

Although it is plausible that Polynesia was settled by ancient South Americans; all the genetic, linguistic, and ethnographic evidence points toward a predominantly southeast Asian origin. The two main theories today are called the Express Train Hypothesis and the Slow Boat Hypothesis. The Express Train Hypothesis says that Polynesians originally come from Taiwan by way of the Philippines and Melanesia. According to this view, Polynesians are mainly a part of a migration wave that came out of Taiwan.

The western part of Polynesia was settled between 3000 and 1000 BC by people from Taiwan via the Philippines as well as parts of New Guinea. Eastern Polynesia was settled beginning around 900 AD as Polynesian voyagers began to set out from Tonga and Samoa and other islands of western Polynesia to settle the Hawaiian Islands, New Zealand, and Easter Island, among other islands of the region.

According to the Slow Boat Hypothesis, the ancestors of the Polynesians are of Austronesian descent and still have a connection to Taiwan, but the ancestors of modern Polynesians spent several centuries intermarrying with people of Papuan and Indonesian lineage before setting out to Polynesia.

The first view is supported by linguistic and ethnographic data, but there is genetic evidence for the second hypothesis.Genetic studies have shown, for example,that a significant percentage of the Polynesian population has y-chromosomal DNA [father] haplogroups coming from Papua New Guinea while most of the mtDNA [mother] comes from haplogroups in Taiwan and Southeast Asia.

This suggests some degree of intermarriage between Polynesians and other Austronesian groups as well as non-Austronesian groups [Melanesians]. Another possible line of evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that there is a gap in the language evolution of Polynesian Austronesian languages. 

Polynesian languages have features that no other Austronesian languages possess. This could be because of interaction with Papuan and Indonesian populations.

A study in 2020 has suggested that the date for Polynesians meeting South Americans should be pushed back even further, to around 1150 AD. The nature of those genetic links and the location for that first contact also differs from previous beliefs. As Ed Whelan writes: 

“Genetic evidence appears to prove that Polynesians are related to present-day Indigenous people, especially from the coast of Colombia and Ecuador. Interestingly, the DNA study concludes that the earliest contact was on Fatu Hiva, an island in the South Marquesas islands, sometime around 1150 AD, and not Rapa Nui which is much closer to the coast of South America.”

Is it possible that Amerindian cultures are partially responsible for the colonization of Polynesia, or at least part of it, after all? Although it is possible that South American voyagers sailed to Polynesia to meet the Rapa Nui or another group of Polynesians, the Polynesians are known to have been more skilled at seafaring at the time, so it is more likely that it was the Polynesians who came to the Americas. The Polynesians may have come to South America to trade with the natives, and as a result may have ended up also bringing home South American brides. Intriguingly, there is circumstantial evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Native Americans and Polynesians – chicken^^ bones that have been found at an archaeological site on a beach in Chile that appear to predate the coming of the Spaniards.

Regardless of where the Polynesians originally came from, their ancestry appears to be more complex than initially thought. The more we learn about historical genetics the more we realize just how convoluted the communication and intermarriage between different populations was in the past. If we go far back enough, current thinking is that we are all a mixture of many lineages of mankind which originally diverged from a single lineage that goes back to Africa, perhaps 200,000 years ago.’

All the way back to [mitochondrial] Eve, though both the time frame and the origin in Africa is gravely disputed.

Ancient Origins, April Holloway – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Research into the origins and dispersal of Polynesian chickens^^ has helped scientists reconstruct the early migrations of the Polynesians and the animals they carried with them. The results revealed that the Philippines is the most likely ancestral homeland of the Polynesians, whose forebears colonised the Pacific about 3,200 years ago.

Polynesian seafarers explored vast areas of the Pacific and settled nearly every inhabitable island in the Pacific Ocean well before European explorers arrived in the 16th century. However, the ancestral relationships of people living in the widely scattered islands of the Pacific Ocean have long puzzled anthropologists. 

The predominant theory is that the Polynesian people are a subset [Rodanim] of the sea-faring Austronesian people who have their origins in Taiwan, having arrived there through South China about 8000 years ago. From there it is believed that the spread out across the Pacific to Polynesia, a sub-region made up of over 1,000 islands scattered over the central and southern Pacific Ocean.’

Eight thousand years ago would be circa 7000-6000 BCE. This fits the time frame after the dispersal of all the nations at the time of Peleg and the Tower of Babel, about 6755 BCE.

‘It is thought that by roughly 1400 BC, the ‘Lapita People’, so-named after their pottery tradition, appeared in the Bismark Archipelago of northwest Melanesia. This culture is seen as having adapted and evolved through time and space since its emergence “Out of Taiwan”. Within a mere three or four centuries between about 1300 and 900 BC, the Lapita archaeological culture spread 6,000 km until it reached as far as Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa.’

It is now held that between 3000 and 1000 BCE speakers of Austronesian languages began spreading from Taiwan into Island Southeast Asia. There are three theories, regarding the spread of peoples across the Pacific to Polynesia. These are outlined by Kayser [2000]and are as follows:

  • Express Train model: ‘A recent (c. 3000–1000 BC) expansion out of Taiwan, via the Philippines and eastern Indonesia and from the northwest of New Guinea, on to Island Melanesia by roughly 1400 BC. Reaching western Polynesian islands around 900 BC. This theory is supported by the majority of current genetic, linguistic and archaeological data.’
  • Entangled Bank model: ‘Emphasizes the long history of Austronesian speakers’ cultural and genetic interactions with indigenous Island Southeast Asians and Melanesians along the way to becoming the first Polynesians.
  • Slow Boat model: ‘Similar to the express-train model but with a longer hiatus in Melanesia along with admixture — genetically, culturally and linguistically — with the local population. This is supported by the Y-chromosome data of Kayser, which shows that all three* haplotypes of Polynesian Y chromosomes can be traced back to Melanesia.’

Polynesians acquired a reputation as great navigators – their canoes reached the most remote corners of the Pacific, allowing the settlement of islands as far apart as Hawaii, Rapanui (Easter Island) and Aotearoa (New Zealand). The people of Polynesia accomplished this voyaging using ancient navigation skills of reading stars, currents, clouds and bird movements – skills passed to successive generations down to the present day.

Fast Trains, Slow Boats, and the Ancestry of the Polynesian Islanders, S Oppenheimer & M Richards, 2001 – emphasis & bold mine:

Our study provides evidence for a dual genetic origin of Pacific Islanders in Asia and Melanesia. This is in agreement with the Slow Boat hypothesis of Polynesian origins (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000) according to which Polynesian ancestors originated in Asia, moved eastward, and mixed extensively with local Melanesians before colonizing the Pacific Islands. Although dating methods revealed somewhat similar entries of NRY/mtDNA haplogroups into Polynesia, haplotype sharing suggests that haplogroups of Melanesian origin may have appeared earlier in Polynesia than those of Asian origin, although more extensive sampling in Melanesia is needed to confirm this observation. The striking difference observed here between Asian and Melanesian contributions to the paternal and maternal gene pool of Polynesians suggests an admixture bias toward more Melanesian men, perhaps as result of uxorilocal (matrilocal) residence and matrilineal descent in ancestral Polynesian society (Have and Marck 2003)… Fiji played a pivotal role in the history of Polynesia: humans probably first migrated to Fiji, and subsequent settlement of Polynesia came from Fiji.’

After analysis of mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA, female] and Y Chromosome DNA [Y-DNA male], Atholl Anderson stated: ‘the ancestors of Polynesian women came from Taiwan while those of Polynesian men came from New Guinea. Subsequently, it was found that 96% of Polynesian mtDNA has an Asian origin, as does one-third of Polynesian Y chromosomes; the remaining two-thirds from New Guinea and nearby islands; this is consistent with matrilocal residence patterns.Polynesians existed from the intermixing of few ancient Austronesian-Melanesian founders, genetically they belong almost entirely to the Haplogroup B (mtDNA), which is the marker of Austronesian expansions.’ The high frequencies of mtDNA Haplogroup B within the Polynesians is the result of ‘founder effect’, representing the descendants of a few Austronesian females who had intermixed with Papuan men.

A 2010 study using meta-analysis of the most reliable radiocarbon dates available, suggested that ‘the colonisation of Eastern Polynesia [including Hawaii and New Zealand] proceeded in two short episodes: in the Society Islands from 1025 to 1120 AD and further afield from 1190 to 1290 AD,with Easter Island being settled around 1200.’More recent archeological models have projected dates between 300 to 800 CE for the settlement of Easter Island and a date of 500 CE has been suggested for Hawaii. Linguistically, there is a very distinct East Polynesian subgroup, sharing a number of innovations not seen in other Polynesian languages. Hawaiian and Maori oral histories support this, for the earliest varieties of New Zealand Maori speech have multiple sources from around central Eastern Polynesia.

Genetic History of Polynesians and New Zealand Maori… Edana Lord – emphasis and bold mine:

‘As people moved throughout the Pacific and into Polynesia, genetic interactions took place. 

The movement of mitochondrial haplogroups represent the migration of people from South East Asia through Near Oceania into Polynesia. B and Q are two such haplogroups which made it through to Polynesia. The B4 subclade arose… [and]… diverged into many more subclades including B4a1a which is restricted to Taiwan, Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The lineage B4a1a1 is prevalent in Near Oceania and has become almost fixed in Polynesia, making up more than 90% of all Polynesian mtDNA haplotypes. Haplotypes from the Q1 lineage have also been reported in Polynesia, in particular Gambier and the Cook Islands.

The majority of the haplotypes can be found within the B4 clade, which is well represented in South East Asian and Pacific regions. Within each of the three populations, haplotypes derived from the B4a1a1 haplogroup was the most common. This haplogroup is seen in high frequency throughout Polynesia, Micronesia, Coastal Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Philippines. As this is common to all of the populations investigated here, it shows that they have a shared ancestry.’ 

This is confirmation of a genetic link between the Filipinos and the Polynesians and Micronesians. One that we would expect for the Dodanim and Rodanim.

‘One haplotype common to all three populations is B4a1a1a…^ which is thought to have arisen in the Bismarck Archipelago11. The haplotypes can be separated into those from West Polynesia (Tokelau) and those from East Polynesia (French Polynesia and New Zealand). The haplotypes seen in West Polynesia are found deeper in the B4 clade than those from East Polynesia. This can be used as further evidence of population migration from West to East.

There are also haplotypes present in East Polynesia that are not seen throughout West Polynesia, such as the B4a1a1c haplotype… This can represent novel mutations in the expanding Polynesian populations or possibly genetic interactions with other groups of Polynesia and Micronesia.

The haplotypes present in the New Zealand population [Maori] are most similar to those from French Polynesia, for example haplotype B4a1a1m… This haplotype is restricted to the French Polynesian and New Zealand Maori populations. This contributes further to the hypothesis that New Zealand Maori are descended from Eastern Polynesians.’

Complete mitochondrial DNA sequences provide new insights into the Polynesian motif and the peopling of Madagascar, Multiple Authors, 2009 – emphasis & bold mime:

‘The ‘Polynesian motif’, popularly named for its high frequency among Polynesians, is characterized by a well known series of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymorphisms that now define haplogroup B4a1a1a…^

This lineage probably developed in eastern Island Southeast Asia or Near Oceania, during the mid- to late-Holocene, with recent dates suggesting an origin around 6,200 – 10,900 years before present (YBP)… The haplogroup’s immediate precursor… has been found in Taiwanese aboriginal groups with an estimated age of 13,200 YBP… This incremental series of dates are consistent with a model whereby Austronesian speaking populations expanded out of Taiwan during the mid-to-late-Holocene… Ultimately, the Austronesian expansion spread the immediate ancestor of the Polynesian motif, and later the motif itself, over a vast geographical area – from Taiwan in the north, New Zealand in the south, remote Polynesia in the east, and finally, Madagascar in the far west.’

These dates selected by scientists are closer to events recorded in the Bible than they realise. If we could marry scientific data with the Biblical record, then it would be difficult for either side to continue disbelieving the credentials of each other. The date of 10,900 – 6,200 years ago would be 8880 – 4180 BCE. The flood occurred circa 10,837 BCE. If we calculate enough time for the migrations of Japheth’s descendants and allow for the dispersion of peoples during the Tower of Babel incident [6755 BCE] then the movement of Javan’s grandchildren the Dodanim [Filipinos] and Rodanim [Polynesians] from Taiwan into the Philippines and beyond, was very likely during this time frame. 

The date of 13,200 years ago would equate to 11,180 BCE and this is interesting, as it falls between the birth of Japheth and the time of the flood. Japheth was born circa 11,837 BCE. Japheth as we have discussed, would have inherited and carried the [DNA genetic code] haplogroups that we now associate with the East and Southeast Asian peoples. This would have obviously included the mtDNA B haplogroup received from his mother and that would mutate into all the B clades; including B4a1a1^ that Rodan [the Polynesians] exhibit.

The Polynesian motif is currently found at highest frequency in Polynesia, where it approaches fixation in some populations. It is also common in Micronesia and parts of Near Oceania, where it is not necessarily restricted to Austronesian speaking populations, but also occurs in some rare Papuan speaking groups [proof of ancient admixture with Melanesians]. The motif is much less frequent in Island Southeast Asia, although it has been found sporadically in both central and eastern Indonesia. In Madagascar – the western edge of the Austronesian expansion – the Polynesian motif reaches a frequency of around 20%, thus leading to proposals that the island was settled by an Indonesian population, which later colonized the Pacific Islands, or even more speculatively, by direct migration from Polynesia itself.

Furthermore, these studies revealed that Indonesians have a major role in the colonization of Madagascar, and highlighted Borneo as a likely source of the Asian-derived Y chromosomes found in Malagasy today. This is consistent with linguistic evidence suggesting that the Malayo–Polynesian language spoken by Malagasy is related to the Barito language of southern Borneo. 

Currently, our best model for the settlement of Madagascar suggests that the first settlers reached the island [some] 1500–2000 years ago, when there is clear archeological and paleoecological evidence of their occupation. Ultimately, a complex – and largely unknown – genetic and linguistic admixture process between populations of African and Southeast Asian descent produced the Malagasy we recognize today.

We observed the Polynesian motif at relatively high frequency in all three Malagasy groups: 50.0% in Merina, 21.8% in Vezo, and 13.4% in Mikea… Indeed, the first and second phases of our analysis revealed that 58 of the 266 Malagasy shared a set of mutations… which assign them to haplogroup B4a1a1.^’

There is a genetic line through the mtDNA B4a1a1 haplotype, from the Polynesians [and Micronesians] from Rodan, to the Filipinos of Dodan and then to their ancient ancestral home of the Island of Formosa or Taiwan.

Polynesian regions with significant populations include: New Zealand 887,338, the United States 820,000, French Polynesia 215,000, Australia 210,843, Samoa 192,342 and Tonga 103,036.

Melanesian and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the Pacific – Molecular Biology and Evolution, Kayser, 2006 – bold mine:

‘Y-DNA RESULTS (Males) These are reported as: HAWAIIAN PATERNAL – Direct paternal line reported as Native Hawaiian

According to researchers, Y-DNA (direct paternal lines) in Polynesia has more haplogroup variations than mtDNA (direct maternal lines); however, about 75% reporting their paternal line as Polynesian are in one of the below three* Y-DNA haplogroups:

1) Haplogroup [C1b3a* (M38)]

This is the haplogroup of about 34% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. C1b3a [formerly C2*] is found in Polynesia, Melanesia, New Guinea, and Indonesia.

2) Haplogroup O (M122)

This is the haplogroup of about 24% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. O2a1 is typical of populations of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and culturally Austronesian regions of Oceania [Polynesia and Micronesia], with a moderate distribution in Central Asia. 

3) Haplogroup K (M9)

This is the haplogroup of about 18% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. K is an old lineage presently found only at low frequencies in Africa, Asia, and in the South Pacific. One descendent line of this lineage is restricted to aboriginal Australians, while another is found at low frequency in southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East.’ 

A comparison of the main Y-DNA [paternal] haplogroups of the principal Polynesian centres of population, including their original homeland of Taiwan and the stopping off point the Philippines, before migrating into the Pacific proper. 

Taiwan:                         O1a – O2a1 – O1b – C – [K – B – E]

Philippines:                   O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b – [B – E]

Tonga:                           O – C – K – [M]

Samoa:                          C1 – O – K – M – S 

Maori:                            C1 – O – K – [B – M – H]

Tahiti:                             C1 – O – K

French Polynesia:         C – O – K

Micronesia:                    K – C – O

Australian Aborigine:   C1b2b – K2b – C – O2a – [F]

Negritos Philippines:    K – O2 – C – P 

Fiji:                                  M1 – K – C1 – O – C – [R2a – R1a  – H1a – J – S]

Papua New Guinea:      M1a – S – C1 – K – O – C2 

Madagascar:                 E1b1a1 – E2b – B – J – [O1a – O2a1 – R – L]

The original indigenous Taiwanese [as opposed to the later Han Chinese immigrants] and the Philippines share at least seven main key haplogroups, supporting the genetic link proposed via migration. The Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians share the key Asian Y-DNA haplogroups O, either C or C1, and K. The Melanesians, particularly with their darker skin are a bit of a mystery. The Fijians in part and especially the Papuan New Guineans and Australian Aborigines have facial features and skin tones more reminiscent of the Dravidian Indian of southern India and the Sri Lankans than the Polynesians. Their higher percentages of haplogroup K, plus M show they are different to a degree, but neither of these haplogroups are indicative of the Indian or Sri Lankan – M not all and K partially.

As scientists claim, it certainly seems that the Polynesians have intermarried with Melanesians [from Papua New Guinea and Fiji] while fanning out from Taiwan and the Philippines. The shared K and M haplogroups between the Polynesians and Melanesians, is highly likely to be the evidence of intermarriage. The haplogroups used for Papua New Guinea are an average between the haplogroups for Eastern and Western Papua New Guinea.

The Malagasy [and Malayo-Polynesian] population of Madagascar have a rather random sequence, though the reasonable percentage of haplogroups B [8.6%] and O of the Gascars, supports their including Polynesian haplogroups due to admixture.

The key Y-DNA East and Southeast Asian haplogroups of O, K and C represented in percentages – with the addition of M.

Taiwan:                         O1a  [66%]    O2a1 [11%]    O1b [10.6 %]   C [0.4%]

Philippines:                  O1a  [28%]    O2a1 [39%]   O1b [3%]         C [5%]       K [20%]

Tonga:                            O  [60%]   C  [23%]    K [1%] 

Samoa:                           O  [26%]  C1 [61%]     K [3.2%]   M [3.2%]  S [1.6%] 

Maori:                             O  [6%]     C1 [43%]     K [2%] 

Tahiti:                              O  [29%]   C1 [67%]     K [4%] 

French Polynesia:         O  [37%]    C  [53%]      K [8%] 

Micronesia:                    O   [9%]      C   [19%]      K [65%]

Australian Aborigines:   O   [1%]      C1  [60%]      K [22%]    C  [6%]

Negritos [Philippines] : O2 [14%]    C    [11%]       K [51%]     P  [5%] 

Fiji:                                   O   [13%]    C1  [22%]      K [25%]    M [35%]    C [1%] 

Papua New Guinea:       O   [4%]      C1  [15%]      K [9%]      M [54%]     S [18%]   C [2%] 

The Tongans have the highest ratio of haplogroup O, in common with Taiwan and French Polynesia is next and compares with the Philippines. The peoples of Melanesia, Micronesia and the New Zealand Maori have considerably less haplogroup O. The Aborigine of Australia virtually none. 

Haplogroup C and C1 is common amongst both Polynesia and Melanesia, though not in Micronesia. Haplogroups C1/C are high amongst the Aborigines. Haplogroup K is quite rare amongst the Polynesians; whereas the Melanesians have similar ratios to the Filipinos. This could well be influenced by the Negritos of the Philippines and their high lebel of Haplogroup K. Micronesia also has a high level of haplogroup K. Both Fiji and Papua New Guinea exhibit haplogroup M in larger quantities, supporting the hypothesis that Polynesia originated from Fiji and Papua New Guinea [chronologically after the Philippines] as well as the fact, that Y-DNA haplogroups can be traced to Melanesians, such as M, K and S .  

The branches of some of the principal Y-DNA haplogroups for the Southeast Asian and related peoples of the Pacific, of M, O and S.

Happy is the person who finds wisdom, the one who gets understanding. Wisdom is worth more than silver; it brings more profit than gold.

Proverbs 3:13-14 New Century Version

“If the majority doesn’t laugh at you, beware that you must be saying something wrong. When the majority thinks you are a fool, only then is there some possibility of you being a wise man.”


© Orion Gold 2020-2021 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to

3 thoughts on “Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia

  1. I absolutely love reading all that is written on your blog and learning from you. I can state pretty clever stuff. Keep the posts coming. You should take part in a contest for the greatest blog on the net. I would nominate this website!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s