Page 51 of 59 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 590

Thread: okarinaofsteiner's East Eurasian GEDmatch megathread

  1. #501
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,457
    Sex
    Location
    Elbaf
    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 Tsakhur View Post
    Yes if I remember, I also read somewhere that present day Mongolic speakers actually come from the East close to Manchuria and Amur River Basin and that Mongolia was full of Turkics.

    Is it possible that most present day Mongolics receive their Western-related ancestry mainly from intermarrying and mixing with these roaming Turkic tribes who in turned have Steppe and Zagrosian/BMAC-related affinities?
    I think it is certainly possible, but likely to have happened during the early spread of Mongolic groups into the Mongolian steppe-plateau where they probably absorbed residual Turkic peoples. In a similar way, Jurchen/Manchu have assimilated lot of ethnic Han, Koreans, Mongols, Nivkh etc into their own tribal structure during their expansion.

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

     pegasus (01-08-2023),  Tsakhur (01-08-2023)

  3. #502
    Registered Users
    Posts
    837
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulin View Post
    I think it is certainly possible, but likely to have happened during the early spread of Mongolic groups into the Mongolian steppe-plateau where they probably absorbed residual Turkic peoples. In a similar way, Jurchen/Manchu have assimilated lot of ethnic Han, Koreans, Mongols, Nivkh etc into their own tribal structure during their expansion.
    That might explained why the Daur have only 0-3% Western-Eurasian related admixture compared to most other Mongolics as they are plausibly the descendants of those who remained in Far Eastern periphery of Outer Mongolia/Amur Basin/Manchuria heartland and thus have limited interaction with the Turkics and other Western Eurasian-affiliated groups.

    There seem to be an Eastern-Western cline in the Mongolian Plateau from what I have noticed. The closer you get towards Manchuria/Amur River Basin and farther away from Central Asia, the Eastern Eurasian ancestry increase meanwhile the Western decrease. Strangely enough, most Outer Mongolian gedmatch kits I have score at least 9-10% Western Eurasian-related input or even more. All the Mongol individuals that score much lower in the 2-7% range seems to be from China including this kit who seems to be from Hulunbuir and this other individual (don't know where in China the kit is from but definitely somewhere in Inner Mongolia). But its likely due to the fact that almost all of these Mongolian (from Mongolia) individuals are all Khalkha, who makes up more than 80% of Outer Mongolia's population. And Khalkha are approximately 9-12% Western-derived based on the samples in Dodecad K12b and MDLP K23b. Khalkha probably originated somewhere in Central Mongolia I believe because the Mongolian G25 samples are around 20% West Eurasian-derived and seem to be from the Western part of the country near Central Asia. The more Eastern Eurasian-shifted Mongol subgroups such as Uzemchin, Tumed, Kharchin, Barga, Dariganga (they seem to be subgroup of Khalkha; not sure if they are more eastern-shifted due to their location but its very probable) etc. seem to be small minorities and mainly founded in eastern and south-eastern provinces along the border of Inner Mongolia such as Dornod, Sukhbaatar, maybe parts of Dornogovi and Omnogovi. And since the Khalkha are the overwhelming majority, they are statistically the ones mostly like to travel, study and live abroad compared to the more Eastern-shifted Mongol subethnics; thus, getting access to take those DNA tests, which skews the perception that all Outer Mongolians are in the 9-11%+ Western-Eurasian or more when that's likely not true. Because from what I know, 23andme and most other DNA companies don't exported to most of Asia including Mongolia.

    That massive assimilation could be why most contemporary Manchu are genetically indistinguishable from Northern Han and to a lesser degree, Koreans unlike their ancient Jurchen ancestors who were likely much more northern-shifted similar to the modern Hezhen or Nanai, Oroqen, etc.
    Last edited by Tsakhur; 01-09-2023 at 02:44 AM.

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

     alienation (01-08-2023),  Ebizur (01-10-2023),  Kulin (01-08-2023),  okarinaofsteiner (01-08-2023)

  5. #503
    Those Daur populations were in contact with some Semitic-related groups, who should dwell in some lands faraway from the Northeast Asian region. Consequently, the Daur people should have some Western and East Asian DNA outside the Northeast Asian region of Russian Far East.

  6. #504
    Registered Users
    Posts
    837
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulin View Post
    I think it is certainly possible, but likely to have happened during the early spread of Mongolic groups into the Mongolian steppe-plateau where they probably absorbed residual Turkic peoples. In a similar way, Jurchen/Manchu have assimilated lot of ethnic Han, Koreans, Mongols, Nivkh etc into their own tribal structure during their expansion.
    The three closest non-Mongolic pops to the Daur seem to be Hezhen, Xibo/Sibe, the first two who seem to harbor substantial Han/Neolithic-rice farmer-like ancestry) and Oroqen. Therefore, its plausible that Proto-Mongols were Southern Tungusic-like. This make sense as the early Mongolics likely shared a common origin (maybe that's where Altaic language hypothesis also came from) or massively intermixed with Tungusics since they lived next to each other in Manchuria/Amur Basin as you earlier wrote.

    Moreover, it's possible that the pre-Qing and very early Qing Manchus could be autosomally identical to the Xibo/Sibe (who speaks a closely related and mutually intelligible language with Manchu) before the mass absorption of Han and other ethnicities into the bannermen.

    Compare Xibo vs Manchu using G25 example: courtesy to Michalis for collecting all these samples.

    Distance to: Xibo
    0.02226008 Mongola
    0.03766436 Daur
    0.04193811 Hezhen

    0.05737631 Yugur
    0.05907500 Tu
    0.06043668 Korean
    0.06172083 Tibetan_Gangcha
    0.06569288 Han_Shanxi
    0.06729932 Bonan
    0.06806449 Tibetan_Xunhua
    0.06815024 Tibetan_Nagqu
    0.06817766 Qiang_Daofu
    0.06900391 Tibetan_Yajiang
    0.06957573 Tibetan_Chamdo
    0.07007961 Han_Henan
    0.07030826 Tibetan_Gannan
    0.07073473 Tibetan_Yunnan
    0.07135469 Tibetan_Lhasa
    0.07251402 Japanese
    0.07262566 Tibetan_Shigatse
    0.07340725 Qiang_Danba
    0.07355262 Han_Shandong
    0.07441192 Tibetan_Xinlong
    0.07508464 Tibetan_Shannan
    0.08049684 Nepali_Sherpa_Rolwaling_Himal

    Distance to: Manchu
    0.01160838 Han_Henan
    0.01175761 Han_Shandong
    0.01390118 Han_Shanxi

    0.02541061 Han_Jiangsu
    0.02679276 Korean
    0.03186174 Han_Shanghai
    0.03322280 Tibetan_Xinlong
    0.03530077 Han_Zhejiang
    0.03613209 Yugur
    0.04173024 Qiang_Danba
    0.04342861 Han_Sichuan
    0.04386261 Han_Hubei
    0.04511639 Naxi
    0.04816106 Yi
    0.05266707 Tujia
    0.05298894 Japanese
    0.05451209 Mongola
    0.05582340 Tu
    0.05660656 Han_Chongqing
    0.05680663 Tibetan_Yunnan
    0.05735008 Tibetan_Yajiang
    0.05758147 Han_Fujian
    0.05946454 Bonan
    0.06047536 Tibetan_Gannan
    0.06314816 Miao
    Last edited by Tsakhur; 01-08-2023 at 07:11 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Tsakhur For This Useful Post:

     Kulin (01-08-2023)

  8. #505
    The phylogenetic relationship of coarse mtDNA haplogroups in this study and their clan-based frequencies among the Daur group

    mtDNA K1 - 0,48%



  9. #506
    Registered Users
    Posts
    837
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    I interpreted that study to mean that the ancient samples in westernmost Mongolia weren't ancestral to modern-day Mongolians. Well, at least not in the sense of making up most of their ancestry

    Yup. Do you think its possible that the pre-Qing/early Qing Manchu and the remaining "unadmixed" Manchus (if there's any left) could be similar autosomally to the Xibo/Sibe who speak a mutually intelligibile language?

  10. #507
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,191
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsakhur View Post
    Yup. Do you think its possible that the pre-Qing/early Qing Manchu and the remaining "unadmixed" Manchus (if there's any left) could be similar autosomally to the Xibo/Sibe who speak a mutually intelligibile language?
    In regard to the autosomal affinities of Xinjiang Xibo and Dongbei (Northeast China) Manchu, cf. this post of mine earlier in the present thread.

    On average, present-day Xibo in Xinjiang appear to be assigned about half as much of 23mofang's "Northern Han" autosomal admixture component as present-day Manchu in Northeast China are assigned.

    Most of the difference for Xibo in Xinjiang is assigned to 23mofang's "Mongol-Tungus" component. However, one may see that the Xibo in Xinjiang also tend to be assigned somewhat more of the "Korean," "Japanese," and "Yakut" components than the Manchu in Northeast China. Furthermore, although the "Mongol-Tungus" component and the sum of the "Korean" and the "Japanese" components are positively correlated in an interethnic comparison between Xibo and Manchu (Xibo as a group have more of both, while Manchu as a group have less of both), the "Mongol-Tungus" component and the sum of the "Korean" + "Japanese" components are negatively correlated among the Xinjiang Xibo individuals and among the Dongbei Manchu individuals, respectively: individuals who are assigned more of the "Mongol-Tungus" component will be assigned approximately that much less of "Korean" + "Japanese" and vice versa.
    Last edited by Ebizur; 01-09-2023 at 06:40 AM.

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

     Tsakhur (01-09-2023)

  12. #508
    Registered Users
    Posts
    837
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by East-Asia View Post
    Those Daur populations were in contact with some Semitic-related groups, who should dwell in some lands faraway from the Northeast Asian region. Consequently, the Daur people should have some Western and East Asian DNA outside the Northeast Asian region of Russian Far East.
    Were there any historical Western Eurasian-affiliated nomads, pastoralists in the Northeast Asia/Russian Far East?

  13. #509
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,191
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    In regard to the autosomal affinities of Xinjiang Xibo and Dongbei (Northeast China) Manchu, cf. this post of mine earlier in the present thread.

    On average, present-day Xibo in Xinjiang appear to be assigned about half as much of 23mofang's "Northern Han" autosomal admixture component as present-day Manchu in Northeast China are assigned.

    Most of the difference for Xibo in Xinjiang is assigned to 23mofang's "Mongol-Tungus" component. However, one may see that the Xibo in Xinjiang also tend to be assigned somewhat more of the "Korean," "Japanese," and "Yakut" components than the Manchu in Northeast China. Furthermore, although the "Mongol-Tungus" component and the sum of the "Korean" and the "Japanese" components are positively correlated in an interethnic comparison between Xibo and Manchu (Xibo as a group have more of both, while Manchu as a group have less of both), the "Mongol-Tungus" component and the sum of the "Korean" + "Japanese" components are negatively correlated among the Xinjiang Xibo individuals and among the Dongbei Manchu individuals, respectively: individuals who are assigned more of the "Mongol-Tungus" component will be assigned approximately that much less of "Korean" + "Japanese" and vice versa.
    It also bears mentioning that the forced resettlement from Northeast China to Xinjiang in the mid-18th century that has produced the present-day Xibo population of the region also involved members of other ethnic groups, such as Evenk (whose descendants in Xinjiang are sometimes called "Ongkor Solon") and Daur. Some Daurs in Xinjiang have retained their ethnolinguistic distinctiveness to the present day, but the Evenks in the region have all assimilated to other ethnolinguistic groups as far as I know. One must keep in mind the possibility that the Xibo, despite speaking a Jurchenic language very similar to the Manchu language of Qing documents, may have other ancestries besides Jurchen-Manchu and Han Chinese.

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

     Tsakhur (01-09-2023)

  15. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsakhur View Post
    Were there any historical Western Eurasian-affiliated nomads, pastoralists in the Northeast Asia/Russian Far East?
    What we can observe is that groups such as Daur or Nanai have a certain amount of Southern Western Eurasian mtDNA lineages, which presupposes a certain gene flow from those remote areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    In regard to the autosomal affinities of Xinjiang Xibo and Dongbei (Northeast China) Manchu, cf. this post of mine earlier in the present thread.

    On average, present-day Xibo in Xinjiang appear to be assigned about half as much of 23mofang's "Northern Han" autosomal admixture component as present-day Manchu in Northeast China are assigned.

    Most of the difference for Xibo in Xinjiang is assigned to 23mofang's "Mongol-Tungus" component. However, one may see that the Xibo in Xinjiang also tend to be assigned somewhat more of the "Korean," "Japanese," and "Yakut" components than the Manchu in Northeast China. Furthermore, although the "Mongol-Tungus" component and the sum of the "Korean" and the "Japanese" components are positively correlated in an interethnic comparison between Xibo and Manchu (Xibo as a group have more of both, while Manchu as a group have less of both), the "Mongol-Tungus" component and the sum of the "Korean" + "Japanese" components are negatively correlated among the Xinjiang Xibo individuals and among the Dongbei Manchu individuals, respectively: individuals who are assigned more of the "Mongol-Tungus" component will be assigned approximately that much less of "Korean" + "Japanese" and vice versa.
    There is also a cline Japanese => Amur Tungus=> Amur Mongolic Daur => C2-M217 Devil's Gate Siberia, C2-M217 Boisman_MN Siberia. Koreans are closer to Han Chinese on the PCA.




    Quote Originally Posted by East-Asia View Post
    There is also a small parallel cline from Austroasiatic-speaking Kinh to Sichuan-like Tibetan minorities to Wuzhuangguoliang Yangshao to Qinghai Tibetan to Mongola to Central Plains-influenced Slab Grave Mongolia, and, interestingly, Shamanke_EN and Lokomotive_EN is also on the cline though it is anachronism in relation to Wuzhuangguoliang Yangshao and Central Plains-influenced Slab Grave Mongolia.

    Interestingly, Austroasiatic Kinh can be interchangeably modeled using either Hoabinhian, or Kolyma, or Jomon Ikawazu, implying certain common autosomal component between them, though, unlike this, hg D-M174-rich Tibetan can only be modeled using solely Ikawazu, implying that Kinh and Tibetan can contain two different "outgroup to East Asian" autosomal components.





    Fig. 5: PopCluster (upper) and sNMF (lower) inferred population structures of a world-wide sample of 1092 human individuals genotyped at 38035992 SNPs (human 1000 genomes project, Phase I data).



    Each individual is represented by a thin vertical line partitioned into K = 9 coloured segments that represent the individual’s estimated membership fractions in the K clusters. Individuals were ordered according to the sampling locations/populations shown on the x axis (top). The 14 sampling populations (sample sizes) are: FIN, Finish (93); GBR, British (89); IBS, Spanish (13); CEU, CEPH Utah residents (85); TSI, Tuscan (98); CHS, Southern Han Chinese (100); CHB, Han Chinese (97); JPT, Japanese (89); YRI, Yoruba (99); LWK, Luhya (97); ASW, African-American (61); PUR, Puerto Rican (55); CLM, Colombian (60); MXL, Mexican–American (66).
    Last edited by East-Asia; 01-09-2023 at 11:03 AM.

Page 51 of 59 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-26-2021, 02:54 PM
  2. East Eurasian internal branching
    By ren in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2019, 09:00 AM
  3. East Eurasian in 'Tajik people'
    By Kulin in forum General
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-12-2019, 05:15 AM
  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
  •