Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 122

Thread: Recent developments in aDNA and Interpretation in China

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,083
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    C-F5481
    mtDNA
    M8a

    Kyrgyzstan
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Update: a user has produced an STRUCTURE run where the highland component is very well-defined. It appears in N Chinese at 15% and Naxi at 45%. Once again, the N Chinese are most similar to Tujia.

    Attachment 15252
    I can't see it.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to rozenfeld For This Useful Post:

     Hando (04-18-2017)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    819
    Sex

    Here it is, reattached:
    reich_nea_kor10_k16.jpg

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Hando (04-18-2017)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ren View Post
    Those "Tibeto-Burman sheep herders" are actually derivatives of the Yangshao Culture. Yangshao Culture in the western highlands started off as agriculturalists and gradually turned more pastoralist as the weather deteriorated. The Yangshao Culture, when it migrated into the western highlands, turned into the Majiayao Culture, which developed into the succeeding cultures that most likely led to the Tibeto-Burman tribes documented in Chinese history. The Yangshao Culture originated in the Wei Valley, tucked in the Loess Plateau to the north and west and the Qin Mountains to south. This region is west of the North China Plain, which was non-Yangshao and probably non-Sino-Tibetan. But Chinese civilization gradually develops from the lowland Yangshao that gradually expands eastward. There is no highland nomad invasion. And Yangshao Culture remains have been tested to be mainly O3-M134, M117 - - archetypal Sino-Tibetan markers.

    This whole nomad invasion theory is actually an old theory that drew inspiration from the whole Indo-European and Indo-Aryan invasion archetypes in Europe and South Asia. But, there is no corresponding process in East Asia.

    "2. They also claim (correctly) that current archaeological consensus places the origin of the Longshan culture--the precursors at the 'complex chiefdom' level of social complexity, directly leading to the first Shang state, which we know spoke Sinitic languages because they had writing--towards the lowlands of the East, near Shandong."

    The Longshan is not a culture perse but an interaction sphere that became very advanced. The Eastern Longshan develops from the Dawenkou Culture. The Western Longshan derives from the preceding Yangshao Culture, and the 3 early states Xia, Shang, Zhou seem to all derive from the Eastern Longshanoid.

    "Instead, the Yangshao culture and Northern China in general was characterised by Nx(N1a, N1c)."

    I think you are talking about the Hongshan Culture remains. That's not the Yangshao Culture nor is is even in North China. The Hongshan is in eastern Inner Mongolia, which is separated from North China by the Yanshan Mountains. The Yangshao Culture was a culture originating in the Wei-Fen Valley. It expanded eastwards into eastern North China Plain and westwards onto the Loess Plateau and Tibetan-Qinghai Plateau. This is the culture that corresponds to the Sino-Tibetan language family, except they weren't originally nomads! The eastern branches were never nomads and the western highland branches only gradually turned pastoralist but mostly remained semi-pastoralist agriculturalists, except for particular branches such as Tibetans.
    And Yangshao Culture remains have been tested to be mainly O3-M134, M117 - - archetypal Sino-Tibetan markers

    This is bullshit,there is no Yangshao remains have tested,and you said they are O3-M134, M117 -?
    By thw way,M134, M117 -(mainly the F444 branch) have nothing to do with the Sino-Tibetan language family,maybe the F444 people were the early agriculturists of northern China,but they didn't speak the Sino-Tibetan languages and they were not from the Yangshao culture.
    They are from the Cishan culture(in Hebei) I think,maybe tht's the reason the F444 branch mainly found in north,not common in southern China and southern minorities,nor in Tibeto-burman populations
    Accord to Yfull,the F444 branch formed 17600 ybp, TMRCA 13600 ybp.in 13600 ybp,this branch divided into two branches,one branch is F1725(formed 13600 ybp, TMRCA 11100 ybpinfo,the famous Korean Jeonju Lee clan belong to this branch,Jeonju Lee clan is the royal family of the last Korean dynasty) and Y12(main branch is F46,the TMRCA is 8600 ybp)
    Last edited by sahaliyan; 04-15-2017 at 01:43 PM.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sahaliyan For This Useful Post:

     palamede (04-15-2017),  Pribislav (04-17-2017),  Ryukendo (04-15-2017)

  7. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    179
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by sahaliyan View Post
    And Yangshao Culture remains have been tested to be mainly O3-M134, M117 - - archetypal Sino-Tibetan markers

    This is bullshit,there is no Yangshao remains have tested,and you said they are O3-M134, M117 -?
    The Taosi site is in the Longshan period, but as I said the Lonhshan in Shanxi, Shaanxi, and western Henan evolved out of the Ysngshao. The Longshan is not a culture but a period when different cultures formed an interaction sphere.

    As for F444, it's most likely the Yangshao that remained in the Wei-Fen Valley that expanded to western Henan, while M117 is Tibeto-Burman. M117 was later brought into Chinese by the Zhou and later assimilation of Di-Qiang peoples

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ren For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (04-15-2017)

  9. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    179
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Here it is, reattached:
    reich_nea_kor10_k16.jpg
    This is anecdotal, just like the Chinese character evidence. It can be used to complement the narrative in either way. One can say that this highland component is actually a Tibetan signature.

    As for Chinese characters with sheep:

    1. Sheep is still a widely herded animal in north China now. It doesn't make them nomads, just as European shepherds are not.
    2. As I said, these semi-pastoralist highland Tibeto-Burman people are descended from Yangshao migrants in the Wei Valley. There is a well-documented archaeological record of the progression from Yangshao to Majiayao to the later highland Machang, Qijia, Siba all the way in Xinjiang, etc.
    3. It is well-known that the founders of the Zhou dynasty, having been chased westward by the people of Shang dynasty, became semi-pastoralist for a few decades before settling down again in the western Wei Valley, so sheep were indeed important.
    4. A lot of those characters has a sheep headdress motif. It is like the feather tribal people wear. 義 didn't originally mean "justice" but "tribal council", with a literal-pictorial representation of a sheep head on top of a weapon.

    This doesn't change the fact that the Xia, Shang stratum comes directly out of the Longshanoid Yangshao and Mair's tireless campaign to make the Shang elite into Indo-Europeans is quite absurd. There is just no evidence for it.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ren For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (04-15-2017)

  11. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    F444 tree,data based on 1000genomes、HGDP、SGDP、KPGP、FT、yfull and so on QQ??20170415231145.jpg

  12. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ren View Post
    The Taosi site is in the Longshan period, but as I said the Lonhshan in Shanxi, Shaanxi, and western Henan evolved out of the Ysngshao. The Longshan is not a culture but a period when different cultures formed an interaction sphere.

    As for F444, it's most likely the Yangshao that remained in the Wei-Fen Valley that expanded to western Henan, while M117 is Tibeto-Burman. M117 was later brought into Chinese by the Zhou and later assimilation of Di-Qiang peoples
    This is so wrong,I think F444 were in the north of both M117 and JST002611
    And the reason I think they were from the north is beaucause F444 is the only major Chinese Y branch has big branches expanded in 5000-3000 years,for example,F152 tmrca 3400 ybp,F634 tmrca 4700 ybp,CTS335 4800 ybp(Z26258 4200 ybp),FGC16889 3000+ ybp(downstram of L1360,the Kazakh naimans are also FGC 16889).What these expansions mean?While F444 maybe were early agriculturists,but their main expansions came from bronze age expansions,and we already know China's bronze technology came from central asia ,F444 branches lived in northern frontier that era,so they can learn the advanced tech and used the advanced tech as weapons,conquered large parts of northern China
    While both M117 and JST002611 Lack those kind of branches,their expansions are agricultural expansions,not the bronze age conquerors.(there are some branches of M117 expanded in 2000+ ybp,but even those branches mostly limited to south China,and there is no major branch of M117 and JST002611 expanded in 5000-3000 ybp,period)
    There is no reason to link F444 with Yangshao,it's just your wishful thinking,and I don't think there will be any evidence to prove your theory.
    Last edited by sahaliyan; 04-15-2017 at 05:05 PM.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sahaliyan For This Useful Post:

     Pribislav (04-17-2017),  Ryukendo (04-15-2017)

  14. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    And some branches is worth mention
    One is L1360,we already know Kazakh Naymans belong to this branch,but it seems there are other branches of L1360 In dasht-i-kipshak based on Y-str
    DYS393, DYS390, DYS19, DYS391, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS426,
    DYS388, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS392, DYS389II, DYS447, DYS437, GATA H4, YCAIIa, YCAII
    b, DYS438
    7510 N010Bash Bikatin O3a-M134
    12 23 15 10 12 17 11 12 12 12 13 28 ? 15 12 19 21 10
    7634 N012Bash Bikatin O3a-M134
    12 23 15 10 12 17 11 12 12 12 13 29 32 15 12 19 21 10
    Karakalpak
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults
    262290 Kungrad
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
    184825 Kiyat,the two samples differed only in 385b
    So there are at least 3 branches of L1360 in Dasht-i-Kipchak
    From the Afghan Hindu Kush paper,we found two Kyrghiz samples are interesting
    DYS385 DYS388 DYS389 DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS394/19 DYS426 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439 DYS441 DYS442 DYS444 DYS445 DYS446 DYS447 DYS448 DYS449 DYS452 DYS454 DYS455 DYS456 DYS458 DYS459 DYS459a DYS459b DYS460 DYS461n(TAGA)n DYS462 DYS463 DYS464 GGAAT1B07 YCAII YCAIIa YCAIIb YGATAA10 YGATAC4/Y_DYS635 YGATAH4
    O-M134 KG2_16 Kyrgyz-Central 12-17 12 12-17 23 10 12 12 16 11 14 10 12 16 17 13 13 12 25 20 34 30 11 11 16 17 9-9 9 9 11 12 12 22 13-13-13-15 9 19-22 19 19 17 nd 12
    O-M134 KG2_17 Kyrgyz-Central 12-17 12 12-16 23 10 12 12 15 11 14 10 13 16 17 13 13 12 25 20 34 30 11 11 15 18 9-9 9 9 11 12 12 22 13-13-13-15 9 19-22 19 19 17 19 12
    based on the data,235462,146056(this sample tested as M134-,but maybe an error,I tested as F507- in FTDNA ,but as F507+ in BIGY),496862 of Ftdna Belong to this cluster,they are very similar to the branch F4249 437=14,635=19,but 448=20,so maybe they are close relatives of F4249,if those samples can get a deep test,it will be helpful to the reserch origion of F4249.F4249 make up 2% of Han males,most F4249 TMRCA 2400 ybp,this branch also found in Kalmykia,Mongolia,Korea and Japan

    Kazakh Zhagalbaily
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults
    Issengaliyev 277578
    K2150 Zagalbaily
    247938 Kenbaev
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults
    247940 Aybek
    Based on Y-str,these samples are cts335
    Last edited by sahaliyan; 04-15-2017 at 05:09 PM.

  15. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex

    By the way,there is no Taosi anciet Y,Li Hui's so called anciet DNA is widely doubted in this forum(even this forum is set up by one of Li Hui's student-Wei Lanhai,http://www.ranhaer.org/index.php),and one of Fudan insider already admited Li Hui's early anciet Y-dna shouldn't trusted.In that so-called Taosi anciet Y study,Li Hui said one of the four samples is M134(not O3-M134, M117 -,because he didin't mention M117 in that paper),the other three samples are M122+,m134-.But now we know all of his anciet samples can't be trusted(Taosi,Liangzhu,Wucheng and Daxi,not just one site)
    As for the anciet dna from the Jilin university,maybe not worthless as Li Hui's,but there are many problems in their results too,you just compare the Y-str result to the y-snp result in their early papers,you will know how serious their problems are.Now it seems the Jilin university doesn't add y-str results in their aDNA papers anymore

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sahaliyan For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-23-2017),  Megalophias (04-15-2017),  Ryukendo (04-17-2017)

  17. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    819
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ren View Post
    This is anecdotal
    Ren, you can consult Jeong et al, Jeong et al and many other formal stat based analysis to find that the Sherpa and the 'highland component' forms even an outgroup to that East Asian ancestry found in Nganasan and Siberians. This is not an artifact of ADMIXTURE. In the treemixes that were posted earlier, the 30-20% highlander ancestry in Naxi and Yi were sufficient to pull them to an outgroup to both Northeast Asians such as Hezhen and Southeast Asians such as Cambodian, which are about as far apart as Finnish and Italian in Europe. This is not a trivial or drift-dominated level of genetic divergence we are talking about here.

    This appears repeatedly in basically all ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE runs focused on East Asia and the allele frequencies, when extracted and run in formal stats like is done for Jeong et al in the first image, still preserves its level of divergence. It appears in the Nepalese 3kya genome at the same level (i.e. its not caused by recent drift in Tibetan after 3kya, unlike for Kalash which would have started drifting after Iron Age IAr input) so I would say its about as well supported as the Iran_N or EEF autosomal metapopulation in West Eurasia.


    Quote Originally Posted by ren View Post
    This doesn't change the fact that the Xia, Shang stratum comes directly out of the Longshanoid Yangshao
    Ren, you are ignoring a lot of recent research, which has strongly destabilized some of our prior notions about what even constitutes the 'cultures' at this time. For example, the later Yangshao is characterized by intense influence from the South and Southwest, with red and patterned ware replaced by black and grey ware, huge increase in proportion of polished stone tools (note that early and Middle Yangshao, despite being a Neolithic culture, used mainly flaked and other non-polished/contact-broken stone technology(!)), and the first appearance of the ritual vessels that we so strongly associate with Chinese sacrificial and ritual culture of the first sinitic states, like dou, ding and so on. It appears now that the earliest appearance of the various tripod vessels, as well as the first culture dominated by black ware, were in fact in the Taosi and later the 屈家岭 Qujialing culture of Southwest-central China. The Qujialing are especially characterized by frequency of 鼎 Ding vessels, which are conspicuously absent in early and middle Yangshao. The Liangzhu culture East of Yangshao underwent the same process of replacement of ware, even the burial rites were changed--which should be particularly glaring given the recent comments by Kristian Kristiansen regarding the close connection between cultural institutions and ideology and burial rite. Given these changes, some archaeologists are asking how we can even call early and late Yangshao and Liangzhu the same 'culture' and why we should stick to the older periodisation? The map must fit the territory, not the other way round.

    Note that the Qijia culture of Tibet is derived from middle-late yangshao after the post 5.5kya transformation, as opposed to having a purely local origin after introduction of earliest Yangshao. Also, its now widely recognized that the Erlitou city-state (the first state in China for those not in the know) received its elite burial rites and many cultic and cultural influences from the Shijiahe culture of Central-Southern China: 石家河文化, as opposed to being a purely local development.

    Lastly, the expansion of O-M117 in Han Chinese males (all the O-M117 in them comes from a recent subhaplogroup) is >1000 years offset from the expansion of the other two neolithic O3 'super grandfather' clades in China, O3-JST002611 and O3-F444--not quite in the Metal ages, but towards the terminal neolithic ~5.5kya, which almost exactly coincides with the period of centrifugal influences with the late Yangshao. This is not the case for the other two O3 subclades, as described in Shi yan et al. This was striking enough for them to state:

    Since all the sequenced Han Chinese M117+ samples are under the Oα expansion, and M117+ subclade exists in moderate to very high frequency in many Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups [28], [29], [30], it would be of interest to know when the M117+ individuals in other ethnic groups diverged with the ones in Han Chinese, and whether they are also under the Oα expansion, in order to trace the origin and early history of Sino-Tibetan language family.
    Given that no O-M117 has been found in Miaozigou, a descendant of Yangshao, which is not expected if we analogize the situation to G2 and European Neolithic farmers, these are valid questions to ask.

    4. A lot of those characters has a sheep headdress motif. It is like the feather tribal people wear. 義 didn't originally mean "justice" but "tribal council", with a literal-pictorial representation of a sheep head on top of a weapon.
    Mair is well aware of that fact--he points out that the pictogram of sacrificed goats or goats+weapon is associated with many juridical concepts in writing. The question here is, given that the animal most associated with sacrifice and ritual in the Yangshao is the Dog, why is it that the 'dog' radical is, in fact, associated with pejoratives in Chinese writing? Why are juridical, social, ritual, normative and positive concepts associated with ovicaprids in earliest Chinese writing, who appear on the scene much later than the Yangshao? The idea that the earliest Sinitics were confederated with Indo Europeans is indeed weird (not completely weird, because Sinitic has loanwords from Indo-European e.g. mi *myit 蜜 'honey' that other Sinotibetan languages don't have), but we should not thereby dismiss all his other work as crackpottery. This is a very real motif at work here.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 04-15-2017 at 08:24 PM.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Jean M (04-20-2017),  okarinaofsteiner (03-26-2018)

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New developments in L448>YP355
    By ocleirigh in forum R1a-Z283
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-29-2016, 08:31 AM
  2. Interpretation of 2 Gedmatch Tests
    By MBW1986 in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 03:59 PM
  3. Gedmatch data interpretation
    By Kdckaw in forum Inquiries Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2015, 07:08 AM
  4. DNA Ethnicity Interpretation
    By RR_1 in forum General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-17-2015, 03:30 PM
  5. Has there been any recent developments in SNP age Calculations?
    By Peter MacDonald in forum R1b General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2015, 10:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •