Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: okarinaofsteiner's East Eurasian GEDmatch megathread

  1. #101
    Registered Users
    Posts
    267
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    "I'm guessing this has more to do with historical Han settlement patterns and intermarriage with the pre-existing local populations."

    But 6,000 years ago was way before any Sinitic settlement in the far south, even slightly before rice-farming reached this part of China. At that time Guangdong-Guangxi were probably still dominated by Longlin-Dushan-Baojianshan-Hoabinhian like populations.

    I think this has more to do with a smaller sample size from the Lingnan region compared to other regions.
    I don't think their "effective population size" analysis was based on who actually lived in these different regions 6,000 years ago..... That would've required finding and analyzing DNA from ancient inhabitants there, and not the present-day Han Chinese who were part of this study.

    I'm fairly certain that modern-day Guangdong and Guangxi Han aren't as southern-shifted genetically as Zhuang- let alone Dai (who are more "pure" and more "southern" than Vietnamese). Fujian Han aren't as southern genetically as She and Miao either. I have enough 2018-2019 GEDmatch samples in my private dataset to have a good idea of where these groups relate to each other autosomally.

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

     Tsakhur (09-15-2021)

  3. #102
    Registered Users
    Posts
    37
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    I don't think their "effective population size" analysis was based on who actually lived in these different regions 6,000 years ago..... That would've required finding and analyzing DNA from ancient inhabitants there, and not the present-day Han Chinese who were part of this study.

    I'm fairly certain that modern-day Guangdong and Guangxi Han aren't as southern-shifted genetically as Zhuang- let alone Dai (who are more "pure" and more "southern" than Vietnamese). Fujian Han aren't as southern genetically as She and Miao either. I have enough 2018-2019 GEDmatch samples in my private dataset to have a good idea of where these groups relate to each other autosomally.
    I'm fairly certain that modern-day Guangdong and Guangxi "Han" (especially Guangxi "Han") are quite close to Kinh, Zhuang, and Dai, being only slightly northern than those three. This has been shown in countless autosomal graphs, whether the ones made by you or in the papers.

    I'm also rather certain that Fujian Han are at around a similar position as She and Miao, or perhaps slightly northern. She and Miao aren't that southern-shifted, according to what I've seen they are even slightly more northern than some Lingnan "Han".

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     Tsakhur (09-15-2021)

  5. #103
    Registered Users
    Posts
    267
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    I'm fairly certain that modern-day Guangdong and Guangxi "Han" (especially Guangxi "Han") are quite close to Kinh, Zhuang, and Dai, being only slightly northern than those three. This has been shown in countless autosomal graphs, whether the ones made by you or in the papers.

    I'm also rather certain that Fujian Han are at around a similar position as She and Miao, or perhaps slightly northern. She and Miao aren't that southern-shifted, according to what I've seen they are even slightly more northern than some Lingnan "Han".
    Guangdong Han are still more northern-shifted than Kinh, Zhuang, and Dai, because they also have "Northern" Han ancestry that balances out their Dai-like ancestry. Same with Fujian Han compared to She. From what I've seen in the MDLP K23b reference populations, "Cantonese" is roughly equally southern as "Miao" and "Yao".

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Tsakhur (09-15-2021)

  7. #104
    Registered Users
    Posts
    37
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    Guangdong Han are still more northern-shifted than Kinh, Zhuang, and Dai, because they also have "Northern" Han ancestry that balances out their Dai-like ancestry. Same with Fujian Han compared to She. From what I've seen in the MDLP K23b reference populations, "Cantonese" is roughly equally southern as "Miao" and "Yao".
    It isn't as simple as what you stated here.

    It's wrong to generalize Guangdong as a whole, cause Guangdong has three different ethnolinguistic groups and each of them has different ancestry proportions. The one with the highest Northern Han ancestry is Chaoshan, which is around 20% to 25%. The second one is Hakka, which has around 15% Northern Han ancestry; and the Cantonese speakers only have about 10% or even less. Some Cantonese speakers (particularly those from western Guangdong and Guangxi) can match the southern-ness of Kinh and Zhuang.

    It's more wrong to group Guangdong with Fujian, cause on almost all autosomal graphs I've seen, Fujianese are more northern-shifted than Guangdong people (including Hakka and Chaoshan).

  8. #105
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,406
    Sex
    Location
    CANZUK
    Ethnicity
    Bengali
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-Z2432
    mtDNA (M)
    A11-a* , M4a
    Y-DNA (M)
    H-Z12547*
    mtDNA (P)
    M30g , Z7

    Canada Bangladesh Jammu and Kashmir India Pakistan Sri Lanka
    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    It isn't as simple as what you stated here.

    It's wrong to generalize Guangdong as a whole, cause Guangdong has three different ethnolinguistic groups and each of them has different ancestry proportions. The one with the highest Northern Han ancestry is Chaoshan, which is around 20% to 25%. The second one is Hakka, which has around 15% Northern Han ancestry; and the Cantonese speakers only have about 10% or even less. Some Cantonese speakers (particularly those from western Guangdong and Guangxi) can match the southern-ness of Kinh and Zhuang.

    It's more wrong to group Guangdong with Fujian, cause on almost all autosomal graphs I've seen, Fujianese are more northern-shifted than Guangdong people (including Hakka and Chaoshan).
    Would you be able to provide rough estimates of Huaxia ancestry for Chinese provinces or Sinitic ethnolinguistic groups?

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kulin For This Useful Post:

     tipirneni (09-15-2021),  Tsakhur (09-16-2021)

  10. #106
    Registered Users
    Posts
    37
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulin View Post
    Would you be able to provide rough estimates of Huaxia ancestry for Chinese provinces or Sinitic ethnolinguistic groups?
    This is the official Wegene site: https://geneu.xyz/

    I'm mostly basing my information on this site, they have the most complete autosomal data of all Chinese provinces and major cities. But unfortunately the information is in Chinese only and hasn't been translated into English yet.

    According to their data, the highest frequency of Northern Han ancestry in Guangdong occurs in the Minnan-speaking area of Chaozhou (Teochew) in Eastern Guangdong, with an average of 25.77%; the lowest frequency of Northern Han ancestry occurs in the Cantonese-speaking area of Zhaoqing in Western Guangdong, which is only 4.7%. So despite both are located in Guangdong province, the difference is quite significant.
    Last edited by MNOPSC1b; 09-15-2021 at 09:39 PM.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     Kulin (09-15-2021),  tipirneni (09-15-2021),  Tsakhur (09-16-2021)

  12. #107
    Registered Users
    Posts
    267
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulin View Post
    Would you be able to provide rough estimates of Huaxia ancestry for Chinese provinces or Sinitic ethnolinguistic groups?
    Razib Khan once suggested that Cantonese speakers can be modeled as "75% Northern Han, 25% Vietnamese" (which is actually true for Wuzhuangguoliang (Neolithic North Shaanxi) and TW_Hanben, even though these are too northern/southern to be good proxies for Ancestral Northern Han and Kinh Vietnamese).

    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...was-inevtable/

    If you read History and Geography of Human Genes one of the peculiar results from the analyses within is that North Chinese cluster with Japanese, Koreans, etc., while South Chinese cluster with Southeast Asians. This did not turn out to be true. Most specifically, the South Chinese have a greater affinity for Southeast Asian groups (e.g., the Vietnamese Kinh) than North Chinese, but they are not closer to Southeast Asians than they are to North Chinese (the furthest southern dialect groups, such as those of Guangdong, are about equidistant to Vietnamese).

    But what about the North Chinese? Are they simply Sinicized Mongols? It is clear that some of the North Chinese exhibit shifts toward West Eurasians. I think this is mostly through Mongols and Turks, who have a minor West Eurasian component. But, I believe that both North and South Chinese will be shown to have 50% or more of their ancestry attributable to people who founded the Erlitou culture of Henan. The Han exhibit signs in their genomes of massive demographic expansion in the Holocene. Some of the geographic variations we see today are due to differentiation driven by isolation by distance. Another proportion of it is through admixture with the substrate (e.g., the Yue have left a noticeable cultural imprint on parts of South China, and I suspect it’s a genetic impact as well). And finally, some of it is through admixture with newcomers. This is particularly true in China north of the Yangzi, which has been impacted by barbarian peoples since the rise of the Zhou and the interactions with the Rong and Di.
    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/...e-han-chinese/

    Ancient samples from northern and southern China are well differentiated, with pairwise Fst of around 0.04. Modern individuals sampled from these regions are closer to 0.02. Part of this is due to a significant expansion of “northern” ancestry at the expense of “southern”. But there is also some flow northward of “southern” ancestry. Though not highlighted in this paper because they lacked the samples, the movement throughout the Chinese Empire over the last 2,000 years is surely mediating this. In instances of famine or war resulting in depopulation in a province, the Chinese central authorities routinely encouraged migration from overpopulated provinces (modern Sichuan was repopulated from Hunan after a series of wars during the Ming-Qing transition). After 800 AD the demographic center China was in the Yangzi river valley, and south.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Kulin (09-18-2021),  Sapporo (09-16-2021),  Tsakhur (09-17-2021)

  14. #108
    Registered Users
    Posts
    37
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    75% Northern Han definitely seems to be way too high for Cantonese, not sure how Razib Khan dissected his samples. On the Wegene website Cantonese only score on average around 10% Northern Han, and we know that the Northern Han samples from Wegene come from Xinyang in Henan province, which is way more southern than Northern Shaanxi and hence should have a greater relation to Cantonese. So if the Cantonese are only 10% Xinyang Northern Han, then there's no way they're 75% Neolithic Northern Shaanxi. I trust Wegene more than Razib Khan in this case because Wegene has access to way more Chinese samples.

    And if Cantonese are indeed 75% Wuzhuangguoliang (which is further northern than modern-day Northern Han, we already know that Neolithic samples from Northern China are on average more northern-shifted than today's Northern Chinese), then there's no way that Cantonese are that much southern-shifted in their autosomal DNA so that they are placed close to Kinh and Zhuang on the autosomal graphs. There must be something wrong with Razib Khan's interpretation.

    You must be familiar with this autosomal graph cause you use it quite often. It's from a paper that came out last year (forgot which paper), I remember we had heated discussions about it on Anthroscape. Cantonese samples mostly gather around 7 and 8, whereas Neolithic Wuzhuangguoliang samples are around the place where Monguor is if my memories are correct. So tell me how Cantonese can be 75% Wuzhuangguoliang? And if Cantonese are 75% Wuzhuangguoliang, then shouldn't all other southern minority and SE Asian samples which are plotted around 7 and 8 have a high frequency of Wuzhuangguoliang?

    Last edited by MNOPSC1b; 09-16-2021 at 11:09 PM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     Tsakhur (09-17-2021)

  16. #109
    Registered Users
    Posts
    267
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    75% Northern Han definitely seems to be way too high for Cantonese, not sure how Razib Khan dissected his samples.
    Agreed, this might work for other SE Asian groups but not modern-day Kinh. It makes more sense if you compare Wuzhuangguoliang to TW_Hanben, but TW_Hanben is a terrible proxy for actual Vietnamese since Kinh are quite a bit more "northern-shifted" than TW_Hanben.

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    On the Wegene website Cantonese only score on average around 10% Northern Han, and we know that the Northern Han samples from Wegene come from Xinyang in Henan province, which is way more southern than Northern Shaanxi and hence should have a greater relation to Cantonese. So if the Cantonese are only 10% Xinyang Northern Han, then there's no way they're 75% Neolithic Northern Shaanxi. I trust Wegene more than Razib Khan in this case because Wegene has access to way more Chinese samples.
    Most of the rest is WeGene's Southern Han, which I believe (according to someone from Anthroscape) is based on Quanzhou in the Taiwanese/Hokkien-speaking region of Fujian. Which is still a southern group, but not equivalent to the non-Han groups in present-day South China.

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    You must be familiar with this autosomal graph cause you use it quite often. It's from a paper that came out last year (forgot which paper), I remember we had heated discussions about it on Anthroscape. Cantonese samples mostly gather around 7 and 8, whereas Neolithic Wuzhuangguoliang samples are around the place where Monguor is if my memories are correct.

    A PCA chart doesn't measure all of the differences among samples/populations. This one only has 2 axes, so it only captures 2 axes of differences, and not all of the differences among all of these populations. But I agree that Cantonese are too genetically similar to Vietnamese (who are too relatively similar to Han Chinese in general) for 75% "(modern-day) Northern Han" + 25% "Vietnamese" to be remotely accurate. Maybe if they used a Southern Han subgroup like Hunan or Jiangxi Han as a proxy for the "northern" Han ancestors of modern-day Cantonese?

  17. #110
    Registered Users
    Posts
    37
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    A PCA chart doesn't measure all of the differences among samples/populations. This one only has 2 axes, so it only captures 2 axes of differences, and not all of the differences among all of these populations. But I agree that Cantonese are too genetically similar to Vietnamese (who are too relatively similar to Han Chinese in general) for 75% "(modern-day) Northern Han" + 25% "Vietnamese" to be remotely accurate. Maybe if they used a Southern Han subgroup like Hunan or Jiangxi Han as a proxy for the "northern" Han ancestors of modern-day Cantonese?
    Well, true, but the difference between Cantonese and Northern Chinese/Monguor is quite significant even under 2 axes, I don't see how they would become more similar if there're more axes.

    Vietnamese are literally next door to 7 and 8, Kradai and Malay are very close to 7 and 8 as well. And you tell me they only have 25% Vietnamese? C'mon. And Vietnamese aren't that close to other Han Chinese groups besides 6, 7, and 8, so I don't think it's right to say that they are similar to Han Chinese as a whole, they're only similar to Far South Chinese.

    I agree that they should have used a Central-South group like Jiangxi or Hunan as the proxy for northern ancestry among Cantonese, and use a Kradai group like Zhuang or Dai as the proxy for southern ancestry among Cantonese.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. East Eurasian internal branching
    By ren in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2019, 09:00 AM
  2. East Eurasian in 'Tajik people'
    By Kulin in forum General
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-12-2019, 05:15 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-03-2019, 11:43 PM
  4. What is South East Eurasian?
    By Lara101 in forum Southern
    Replies: 324
    Last Post: 11-12-2017, 09:50 PM
  5. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-18-2015, 10:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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