Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: The origin of East Asians?

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    69
    Sex

    The origin of East Asians?

    One of the biggest dilemmas I faced since joining this site is figuring how modern East Eurasian population came into existence. For over a decade, i believed that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians/Melanesians were the first or among the first humans who migrated from East Africa over 60,000 years and migrated through a southern Route from the gulf to Sundaland, crossing over India, before arriving to Australia via small canoes or boats from what is now Papua. I also believed that there was a second migration event from africa that produced the bulk of Non-Africans/Eurasians that subsequently followed followed a Northern route of migrations, into the cold of Ice Age Eurasia and split with into West Eurasians/Upper-Palaeolithic Europeans (then called 'Cro-Magnons) and East Asians who further east into Siberia and Northern China, with both meta-populations building on top of a basal cold adapted phenotype such as Straight Hair and a somewhat lighter skin tone. Since, following the aDNA revolution that occurred since 2013/14, the biggest shock I had is finding out that Australasian and East Eurasians are closer to east other than to other Eurasians groups such Europeans.
    Scientific publications since 2014 have designated East Asians, South East Asians, the non-ANE ancestors of Native Americans and Australasian (Onge, Papuans/Malenasian, Aboriginal Australians) as Eastern Non Africans (ENA). I remember how an anthro-blogger asked Davidski in 2016 for the validity of the Eastern Non African clade. For example, would a ethnic Japanese or Koreans be closer to to ANE, EHG or WHG (West Eurasians HG with no or minimal Basal Eurasian) than 'Australoid' populations like Jawaras, Onge and Papuans. This was his reply:
    ENA drift.pngENA drift.pngENA drift.png

    From those stats, it is clear that East Asian such as Han Chinese are closer to onge than to the various hunter gatherer populations of Western Eurasia, which indicated that the Australasian and East Eurasians split must have occurred much later than the West-Eurasians and East-Eurasian split (now ENA). Previously, most researchers believed Ust Ishim was this 'Basal' Crown Eurasians that was somewhat closer to modern ENA groups like Tibetans than to Europeans due basal admixture in the latter. But now, recent papers have shown that when you insert Crown West Eurasians like EEMH/Gravettians and other Europeans HG populations, then Ust-Ishim seem to be slightly in the West Eurasian Clade and some EEMH aDNA samples such Goyett Q-116 and MA-1 having an affinity to ENA samples such as the 40,000 BY Tianyuan, with Sungir being outlier in Upper-palaeolithic West Eurasian samples (Basal?).

    But I am still confused on about the origin of East Asians, are they a drifted and an cold adapted version of Onge and Australasian populations? When did Onge-like ENA and East Asian like ENA Diverged, and where? South East Asia? Clearly the genetics show a 'south of the Himalayas' type migration. And why the relatively poor affinity with the 40,000 year old Tianyuan sample? And where did outlier populations such as the Jomon come from? I remember a member of this forum stating a paper that modelled East Asians as MA-1/ANE + Tianyuan or MA-1/ANE + Onge or MA-1/ANE + Tianyuan + Onge, but all models flopped as Chad Rufulson proved.

    All these questions puzzled me for the past few weeks, so I decided to look into recent aDNA papers, starting with Mark lipson et al 2018. The paper gave me the impression that much of South East Asia was inhabited by an Onge-like ENA population before the subsequent migration of East-Asian groups resulting in modern ethnoligustic groups such as Austroasiatic. It described Aytal and Ami as a discrete East Asian population and can model as a pure East Eurasian population, and Vietnamese_N and Man Bac was modelled as 70 % Aytal and 30 % Onge-like with subsequent East Eurasian migration into region from the bronze age onward. Modern nibcobarese are largely derived from Man Bac like group with 5% Excess Onge admixture. So I had come to the conclusion that East Asians were probably largely derived from an distinct population that exist in the cold North China Plain after splinting from Onge/Australasian populations from the south and Tianyuan in the North, with groups like the Ami and Aytal migrating to Taiwan and East Asians subsequently displacing Onge-like populations from the direction of the colder north after developing adaptive SNPs in EDAR and ABC11 gene around 30,000 mya.
    In the 2019 jomon paper, IK002 (a jomon sample) seem to have diverged before the the Native American-East Asian split around 23-26,000 years ago but after the appearance of tianyuan, supporting the hypothesis that Jomon-like populations were the direct decedents of the original people of japan the arrived around 38,000 years ago, hence did not inherit traits that are common Native Americans and Modern East Asians such as Sinodonty (EDAR?)and the mutation in ABCC11 gene responsible for decrease in body order and flaky earwax. The Jomon also belonged to a group that basal to modern East Asians, the Non-ANE ancestery of Native American and Siberians, and the non-Onge-like Ancestry of South East Asians called Basal East Eurasian (bEE), supporting a scenario in which the ancestors of East eurasians came through south of the Himalayas mountains and migrated from Southeast Asia towards the north.

    But then came the Haobinhian paper. In this paper, they sequenced a group ancient south east asian samples such the 7,000+ year old Haobinhian sample (La238) in laos, which belonged to an group 1 population which was a sister clade to Onge. Ok, so what? Then I looked into the genetic affinity between the Jomon samples and La238, saw that IK002 had significant affinity La238 and other group 1 samples, which puzzled me. What puzzled me further is discovering how the paper model Modelled Ami (proxy for East Asians) 24% Tianyuan-like and 76% La238-like or a sister clade to the common ancestors of La238 and onge. Also, the paper explains the strange affinity between group 1 haobinhian samples and IK002 by modelling IK002 as 68% East Asian (Ami - which is a mixture of an Önge-like population and a population related to the Tiányuán individual ) and 32% Hōabėnhian (La368). Modern Japanese are modelled as 79 % East Asian and 21 % Jomon. This is by far the strangest conclusion I have ever read in any aDNA paper. Honestly I have a hard believing this is the case for the origins for Modern East Eurasians. I mean could anyone clarify me how modern Asians are a mixture an Onge like Haobinhian and an dead end population like Tianyuans, which is barely closer to Ami or Aytal compared to Clovis/Native Americans, despite the West Eurasian Ancestry in Native Americans. How where did non-Neo-Siberian/Ancient Paleosiberian North East Asians such the oroqons, Hezens and the partial Devil Gates ancestry of northern Han, Japanese and Koreans originate from considering the lack of ANE? South of Lake Baikal but north of the Yangzhe? Manchuria?
    Last edited by Diictodon; 08-06-2019 at 04:21 AM.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Diictodon For This Useful Post:

     Arlus (08-28-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019),  Max_H (03-16-2020),  Nino90 (08-10-2019),  poi (08-21-2019),  VytautusofAukstaitija (08-07-2019)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,742
    Sex
    Omitted

    This tangent I posted in the general discussion thread may be of interest.
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....459#post584459

    Also of note, there's no special relationship between Hoabhinian and Jomon. Hoabhinian is equally related to Jomon, Devils_Gate_N, Baikal_EN, XiongNu, and the ancient Nepal samples.
    Last edited by Kale; 08-06-2019 at 04:29 AM.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     agent_lime (03-17-2020),  Hando (08-06-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019),  loxias (08-08-2019),  Max_H (03-16-2020),  okarinaofsteiner (08-09-2019),  poi (08-21-2019),  Varun R (08-28-2019),  VytautusofAukstaitija (08-07-2019)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    69
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    This tangent I posted in the general discussion thread may be of interest.
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....459#post584459

    Also of note, there's no special relationship between Hoabhinian and Jomon. Hoabhinian is equally related to Jomon, Devils_Gate_N, Baikal_EN, XiongNu, and the ancient Nepal samples.
    Still does not address the strange relationship between Onge and East Asians/Jomon samples outside of south east asia. I mean can East Eurasians be modelled after option 2 in that thread? I think option 1 is more likely but tianyuan put a screw into things. Why do most qpADM model East Asians are more Onge related if there is a stronger genetic affinity to tianyuan (which makes more geographic sense). What is you opionion for the origins of East Asians?

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Diictodon For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-06-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,742
    Sex
    Omitted

    What puzzled me further is discovering how the paper model Modelled Ami (proxy for East Asians) 24% Tianyuan-like and 76% La238-like or a sister clade to the common ancestors of La238 and onge.
    Well this is basically option 2. I think that's probably the best explanation at this point.

    Why do most qpADM model East Asians are more Onge related if there is a stronger genetic affinity to tianyuan (which makes more geographic sense). What is you opionion for the origins of East Asians?
    D: outgroup East-Asian Tianyuan Onge = 0
    If the proportion of Tianyuan is smaller than the proportion of Onge, that just means the drift in the Tianyuan side has to be higher. Given that the drift in the Onge/Hoabhinian side is pretty low, seems plausible.

    Of course though, we need more ancient samples from Asia. I hope we get some surprises.
    Last edited by Kale; 08-06-2019 at 04:50 AM.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-06-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    69
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    Well this is basically option 2. I think that's probably the best explanation at this point.


    D: outgroup East-Asian Tianyuan Onge = 0
    If the proportion of Tianyuan is smaller than the proportion of Onge, that just means the drift in the Tianyuan side has to be higher. Given that the drift in the Onge/Hoabhinian side is pretty low, seems plausible.

    Of course though, we need more ancient samples from Asia. I hope we get some surprises.
    Do you believe an Onge-East Asian split occurred or that that East Asians are a mixture of an older ENA subtrate and an Onge like population that adapted to the cold? By the way how cold was Ice age China?

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Diictodon For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-06-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019)

  11. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,742
    Sex
    Omitted

    Tianyuan eliminates the possibility of a simple split. Onge/Hoabhinian and East-Asians had to have mixed, the question is which way, but probably the former into the latter.
    I have no idea about paleoclimatology, but would love to get some introductory links if anyone is knowledgeable in that regard.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Helen (08-06-2019),  Kopfjäger (08-09-2019)

  13. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex

    How does the relationship between Tianyuan and present-day people in the Beijing area compare to the relationship between Tianyuan and Mal'ta (or Tianyuan and Afontova Gora), Tianyuan and indigenous Americans, Tianyuan and Devil's Gate Cave, or Tianyuan and Onge?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-06-2019)

  15. #8
    Naturally, East Asians originate from mixtures of different ancient populations migrating from the north and the south. These include Onge-like ancient populations, populations basal to ANE and even archaics we have no idea about just like we didn’t know about the Denisova years ago. The fact is human genetic ancestry is highly complex, especially moreso in Asia than in Europe. It will take decades and an actual large number of ancient samples for us to get a picture that’s close to reality than the very basic outline we can gather today.

    What’s somewhat becoming clear to us is that Eastern populations included many “cousin” lineages that have become extinct or absorbed by the more successful ones. Tianyuan is not a direct early East Asian but an ancient cousin that did not leave descendants. On the other hand, the “Onge family” was very successful in spreading around the East Eurasian continent. The ancient Jomon are not East Asians, but relatives with a different proportion of southern and northern genes.

    East Asians emerge from this melting pot of admixture and competition as the main victors, with a sheen of “homogeneity” when the smoke cleared. Having defeated their Tianyuan cousins, driven their Onge-like uncles further south and pushing their Jomon relatives way east. There were also other distant relatives in the Tibetan plateau who were absorbed by Tibetans. Siberians are like their paternal twins, but having received additional ANE-like mixture. To top this all off there are sprinklings of West Eurasians, coming from Central Asia, the steppe and India that made their way here and there. The Ami/Atayal show up as distinct because they received virtually zero ANE and Western contributions after the formation of early East Asians.

  16. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to talljimmy0 For This Useful Post:

     Arlus (08-28-2019),  artemv (08-06-2019),  Caius Agrippa (03-15-2020),  Hando (08-06-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019),  Kopfjäger (08-09-2019),  loxias (08-08-2019),  Nibelung (08-06-2019),  observer_t (10-27-2020),  okarinaofsteiner (08-09-2019),  VytautusofAukstaitija (08-07-2019)

  17. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by talljimmy0 View Post
    Tianyuan is not a direct early East Asian but an ancient cousin that did not leave descendants.
    So, the Tianyuan Cave specimen is no more closely related to present-day people in the Beijing area (where Tianyuan Cave is located) than the Tianyuan Cave specimen is related to present-day Amis people, present-day Onge people, or any other people or specimen whose ancestry belongs entirely to the ENA clade?

    The Tianyuan Cave specimen has been determined to share genetic drift with members of the ENA clade vis-ā-vis predominantly "Western Eurasian" > ANE specimens like Mal'ta or Afontova Gora, correct?

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

     Hando (08-06-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019)

  19. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,742
    Sex
    Omitted

    F3: X Tianyuan Mbuti.DG
    Ami.DG 0.258562
    Atayal.DG 0.256778
    Dai.DG 0.257718
    Han.DG 0.258104
    Japanese.DG 0.25718
    Korean.DG 0.257022
    All equal.

    Onge.DG 0.247083

    MA1 0.234261
    Yana 0.241404
    Pretty different, but I expect this may be noise, they are both equally related to Onge, Papuan, and Paleo-Europeans

    Sunghir 0.227742
    Ust_Ishim 0.227507
    Last edited by Kale; 08-06-2019 at 02:11 PM.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     artemv (08-06-2019),  Ebizur (08-06-2019),  Hando (08-07-2019),  Helen (08-06-2019),  palamede (08-09-2019),  VytautusofAukstaitija (08-07-2019)

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. origin of SE asians?
    By Censored in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-03-2020, 03:21 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-24-2019, 10:35 AM
  3. Jewish East Asians
    By mrjohn in forum Jewish
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-18-2017, 04:37 PM
  4. Origin of East Asians, Native Americans
    By ren in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 05:29 PM
  5. Earliest East Asians
    By Jean M in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2013, 12:08 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
  •