Page 54 of 84 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 836

Thread: okarinaofsteiner's East Eurasian GEDmatch megathread

  1. #531
    from what can be gathered on G25, just like Mongola, Western Liao River MN, Western Liao River BA, Heishui Mohe and some Manchu samples seem to carry Ulaanzukh or Slab Grave related ancestry that modern Koreans and Japanese seem to lack
    But one can wonder if there are more fool proof, testable ways to separate or pick out such signals

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

     observer_t (01-16-2023),  Tsakhur (01-19-2023)

  3. #532
    Registered Users
    Posts
    33
    Sex
    Intersex

    Qing Nurhaci is also supposedly C2 north which is the same as Mongols. Their scripts are similar too.
    Are they originally the same people?

  4. #533
    Registered Users
    Posts
    993
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by alienation View Post
    from what can be gathered on G25, just like Mongola, Western Liao River MN, Western Liao River BA, Heishui Mohe and some Manchu samples seem to carry Ulaanzukh or Slab Grave related ancestry that modern Koreans and Japanese seem to lack
    But one can wonder if there are more fool proof, testable ways to separate or pick out such signals
    There are Mohe samples in G25? Do some of these Manchus also cluster closer to Xibo and some more northern-shifted groups? Because the Manchu average in G25 seem very identical to Northern Han.

  5. #534
    Registered Users
    Posts
    612
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by alienation View Post
    Rice farming is not necessarily considered strictly as a “Southern Chinese” or SEA phenomenon and also heavily developed in Central China in tributaries between both the Yellow and Yangtze in which millet was also intensely cultivated as well

    An argument could be made rice farming may not always be as conducive to large settlements compared to examples of settlement systems that arose from millet cultivation

    Zones from Yangshao to Hongshan that had large populations keeping in mind the introgression of the Bohai Gulf and Yellow Sea where the shore would be very close to the Yan Mts. where such samples like Yumin, Miaozigou and Western Liao River MN were found harbored very specific millet cultivation practices
    Rice farming isn't a strictly "southern East Asian" phenomenon, but its spread is generally associated with the migrations of southern East Asian groups.

    This map shows rice and millet farming sites in prehistoric China over 8000 years. Just because rice was grown in some areas along the Yellow River during warmer periods doesn't mean those people were the direct ancestors of whoever lived there during the late Neolithic.


    Another source: Prehistoric evolution of the dualistic structure mixed rice and millet farming in China

    (w00t 534th post on Anthrogenica, 534th post in my megathread!)
    Last edited by okarinaofsteiner; 01-16-2023 at 06:52 AM.

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

     alienation (01-17-2023),  lobohu (02-12-2023)

  7. #535
    Registered Users
    Posts
    715
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Bo / Raeuz / Baipu

    Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Laos Cambodia Singapore
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    Rice farming isn't a strictly "southern East Asian" phenomenon, but its spread is generally associated with the migrations of southern East Asian groups.
    Yes but they originated from Central China either in the middle or the lower reaches of the Yangtse. Further south there were mostly hunter-gatherers. Even the Gaomiao culture in Hunan in the early Neolithic was mostly hunter-gathering, let alone Guangdong and Guangxi.

    Rice agriculture only reached Far South China, Southwest China, and Taiwan en masse around 4,000 years ago (earlier there were a few sites with insignificant amounts of rice grains like the 5,000-year-old Guye culture in Guangdong, but that could still be due to the gathering of wild rice grains rather than active cultivation), which was later than their spread to Henan and Shandong. And it's unlikely that they displaced or massacred all the southern natives but rather assimilated them. Hence it's wrong to regard the modern populations of FSC and SE Asia as the purest descendants of the original rice farmers since they likely contain a lot of other assimilated southern elements. The original rice farmers in the Yangtse region were likely to be more northern-shifted.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     alienation (01-17-2023),  Songtsen (01-17-2023)

  9. #536
    Registered Users
    Posts
    612
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Not sure how accurate is this graph since I remember it's from an old study, however if the data is true then it can only mean that South Chinese are quite distinct from North Chinese, Japanese, or even North Vietnamese but are much closer to South Vietnamese, Taiwan Aborigines, and Filipinos, at least in terms of MT-haplogroups

    Sample sizes are also very small, but this could be explained by shared Austronesian ancestry among coastal Southern Han, post-Champa Empire South Vietnam and the Philippines.

    Theoretically Guangdong Han admixture into modern-day Southern Kinh could be a factor, but that wouldn't work for mtDNA haplogroups since post-nam tien Chinese immigration to modern-day South Vietnam would've been mostly male-mediated.

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

     lobohu (02-12-2023)

  11. #537
    Registered Users
    Posts
    993
    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.
    Btw here is a map of the ethnic groups/tribes of Mongolia:


    Halh is Khalkha btw.

    It seems the Eastern-shifted Mongols such as Uzemchin, Barga and Dariganga (they are subgroup of Khalkha but they might have less Western input due to their location) are located only in the two most eastern provinces: Dornod (represented by Choibalsan the capital) and Sukhbaatar (represented by Baruun-Urt).

    Most of the Outer Mongolian gedmatch kits seems to be from Khalkhas from Ulaanbaatar as more than 50% of Mongolia's population is located in the capital alone. We might get to see Sinitic or Tungusic-shifted results with much lower Western Eurasian similar to the Mongols from Inner Mongolia if we managed to obtain samples from the aforementioned minority tribes in these two easternmost provinces.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Tsakhur; 01-19-2023 at 08:29 AM.

  12. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsakhur View Post
    Another Daur. More Southern-shifted than the previous one above. But also more Western Eurasian but still much less compared to other Mongolics located to the west.

    Admix Results (sorted):

    # Population Percent
    1 NE-Asian 56.65
    2 Siberian 30.99
    3 SE-Asian 6.12
    4 SW-Asian 1.7
    5 Baloch 1.43
    6 Caucasian 1.02
    7 Beringian 0.78
    8 S-Indian 0.5
    9 Papuan 0.43
    10 American 0.38

    Single Population Sharing:

    # Population (source) Distance
    1 daur (hgdp) 4.44
    2 hezhen (hgdp) 4.78
    3 mongola (hgdp) 9.43
    4 xibo (hgdp) 13.3
    5 oroqen (hgdp) 17.19
    6 mongolian (rasmussen) 19.9
    7 tu (hgdp) 25.61
    8 buryat (xing) 25.77
    9 japanese (hgdp) 25.87
    10 kyrgyz (hodoglugil) 25.87
    11 kyrgyz (xing) 27.53
    12 tibet (simonson) 28.45
    13 naxi (hgdp) 28.9
    14 buryat (rasmussen) 29.19
    15 yi (hgdp) 30.15
    16 altaian (rasmussen) 31.41
    17 kazakh (harappa) 31.43
    18 han-nchina (hgdp) 31.91
    19 tuvinian (rasmussen) 32.39
    20 nysha (reich) 33.12

    Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

    # Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
    1 94.8% daur (hgdp) + 5.2% thai (xing) @ 1.9
    2 95.4% daur (hgdp) + 4.6% singapore-malay (sgvp) @ 1.94
    3 95.3% daur (hgdp) + 4.7% cambodian (hgdp) @ 1.96
    4 96.1% daur (hgdp) + 3.9% iban (xing) @ 2.02
    5 94.8% daur (hgdp) + 5.2% khmer-cambodian (xing) @ 2.04
    6 87.2% mongola (hgdp) + 12.8% evenki (rasmussen) @ 2.19
    7 82.7% xibo (hgdp) + 17.3% evenki (rasmussen) @ 2.22
    8 65% mongola (hgdp) + 35% oroqen (hgdp) @ 2.25
    9 96% daur (hgdp) + 4% samoan (xing) @ 2.31
    10 95.1% daur (hgdp) + 4.9% dai (hgdp) @ 2.31
    11 53% japanese (hgdp) + 47% buryat (rasmussen) @ 2.32
    12 81% xibo (hgdp) + 19% yakut (hgdp) @ 2.32
    13 95% daur (hgdp) + 5% dai-chinese (1000genomes) @ 2.34
    14 94.5% daur (hgdp) + 5.5% kinh (1000genomes) @ 2.38
    15 85.9% mongola (hgdp) + 14.1% yakut (hgdp) @ 2.39
    16 93.8% daur (hgdp) + 6.2% lahu (hgdp) @ 2.39
    17 96.1% daur (hgdp) + 3.9% tongan (xing) @ 2.46
    18 94.2% daur (hgdp) + 5.8% vietnamese (xing) @ 2.47
    19 89.4% mongola (hgdp) + 10.6% nganassan (rasmussen) @ 2.51
    20 85.5% xibo (hgdp) + 14.5% nganassan (rasmussen) @ 2.51
    The very high Siberian is so interesting...I guess Mongolian groups are distinguished based on this particular characteristic?

  13. #539
    Registered Users
    Posts
    993
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by CobraWood View Post
    The very high Siberian is so interesting...I guess Mongolian groups are distinguished based on this particular characteristic?
    Yes, higher Siberian which likely correspond to Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave+Devil's Gate/Amur_Neolithic which are the main East Asian ancestry of Mongolic groups. Also higher Western Eurasian input is another distinguished feature of many Mongolian-related groups compared to neighboring Tungusic, Koreanic and Sinitic populations. But not all of them have this West Eurasian signal though as seen by the Daur who have very negligible to almost none compared to other Mongolics, which is likely due to them living close in the proto-Mongol homeland in Heilongjiang/Amur River.
    Last edited by Tsakhur; 01-19-2023 at 08:33 AM.

  14. #540
    Registered Users
    Posts
    993
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    N/A

    Papua New Guinea Ghaznavid Dynasty ZanzibarSultanate Micronesia Oman Vanuatu
    Quote Originally Posted by alienation View Post
    Northern Tungusic groups in their most southern areas Oroqen, Negidals and Khabarovsk Evenki and Amur Tungusic groups Nanai and Ulchi have strong influences from Ymyiakhtakh ancestry.
    But Mongola, Hulunbuir Mongol seem to be more primarily of Manchurian and Northern Chinese ancestry and do not appear to have so much influence Ymyiakhtakh, and Mongola and Daur have a fraction of a component similar to MNG_East_N compared to Mongolians which may have come from more intermediate and slightly later populations like MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave.

    Hezhen and Daur seem to be as if they were populations between Mongola and Amur Tungusics/southern Northern Tungusics.

    But it remains to be seen that actually Oroqen and Daur are present populations that were strongly influenced by what may have been native historical Hulunbuir ancestries, that might have been slightly different from samples tested in Hulunbuir known under "Mongola" and different from Khamnegan. Daur and Oroqen live in the same vicinity in the same region along with Solon Ewenki in Morin Dawa, and were all most likely under the same Qing dynasty military banner administrative system with the Manchu stationed there.

    The Khinggan mountains versus Mongolian Plateau versus the Manchurian plain and the Shiwei Confederation (northern and southern) vs 蒙古 Měnggǔ vs Khitan-Xi versus Rouran descended groups and how they descend from Xianbei, Wuhuans and Donghu might be important distinctions to cover as laid out in Tang dynasty recorders and Christopher Atwood's Encyclopedia of Mongola and the Mongol Empire
    Here are some Mongolic and Tungusic averages from Dodecad K12b. Using Vahaduo to model them: Niv(k)h seem to represent Southern Siberian/Tungusic, Korean= Northeast Asian, Nganasan= Northern Siberian, Han_Central= Sinitic-related , Yizu = Tibetan-like, Avar (Caucasus) and Latvian are used as proxies for the Western-related input in Mongolics.

    Target: Mongol_Khalkh
    Distance: 96.7825% / 0.96782505
    38.6 Nivh
    20.0 Korean
    18.6 Nganasan
    10.2 Yizu
    9.0 Avar
    3.6 Latvian

    Target: Buryat
    Distance: 158.3525% / 1.58352512
    51.0 Nivh
    26.2 Nganasan
    11.2 Korean
    8.8 Avar
    2.8 Latvian

    Target: Mongol_Uuld (Oirat speaking Mongols)
    Distance: 190.7011% / 1.90701111
    46.2 Nivh
    19.0 Korean
    17.4 Nganasan
    11.8 Avar
    3.4 Latvian
    2.2 Han_Central

    Target: Kalmyk
    Distance: 127.8849% / 1.27884865
    42.6 Nivh
    19.6 Nganasan
    18.6 Korean
    11.8 Avar
    5.4 Latvian
    2.0 Yizu

    Target: Mongol (this one is probably from Western part of Mongolia such as Bayan-Ulgii, Khovd, Uvs due to high Western Eurasian ancestry).
    Distance: 320.0126% / 3.20012558
    66.8 Nivh
    14.2 Avar
    13.0 Nganasan
    3.4 Latvian
    2.6 Korean

    Target: Daur
    Distance: 92.7570% / 0.92756962
    76.2 Nivh
    23.2 Korean
    0.6 Han_Central

    Target: Mongola
    Distance: 100.4436% / 1.00443600
    51.2 Korean
    30.2 Nivh
    12.2 Han_Central
    4.0 Avar
    1.6 Nganasan
    0.8 Latvian

    Target: Khamnigan (they are supposed to be of Evenk origins but I heard they are almost completely Mongolified now)
    Distance: 140.3487% / 1.40348712
    41.6 Nivh
    31.0 Nganasan
    14.4 Korean
    5.8 Avar
    5.2 Yizu
    2.0 Latvian

    Target: Tu
    Distance: 187.7737% / 1.87773692
    53.2 Korean
    31.2 Yizu
    9.2 Nivh
    6.4 Avar

    Compare to the Tungusics:

    Target: Evenk
    Distance: 55.2249% / 0.55224889
    69.2 Nganasan
    28.6 Nivh
    1.2 Avar
    1.0 Latvian

    Target: Negidal
    Distance: 103.9151% / 1.03915117
    75.2 Nivh
    21.6 Nganasan
    3.2 Korean

    Target: Ulchi
    Distance: 48.3613% / 0.48361277
    79.0 Nivh
    15.8 Nganasan
    5.2 Korean

    Target: Nanai
    Distance: 88.3551% / 0.88355132
    71.6 Nivh
    18.2 Nganasan
    10.2 Korean

    Target: Oroqen
    Distance: 101.6583% / 1.01658303
    63.0 Nivh
    22.4 Nganasan
    13.0 Korean
    1.6 Han_Central

    Target: Hezhen
    Distance: 78.5701% / 0.78570106
    59.4 Nivh
    34.6 Korean
    5.8 Han_Central
    0.2 Nganasan

    Target: Xibo
    Distance: 53.0908% / 0.53090818
    56.8 Korean
    37.8 Nivh
    2.8 Han_Central
    2.4 Avar
    0.2 Nganasan

    Target: Manchu_Liaoning
    Distance: 25.2924% / 0.25292450
    44.8 Han_Central
    44.8 Korean
    7.6 Nivh
    2.2 Yizu
    0.6 Avar

    Evenks (not sure where the samples are from) seems very northern-shifted and outlier. Manchu_Liaoning and Tu are also outlier. The rest seems to be located in a Han_Central or Korean to Nganasan cline. Also interesting how Daur and Mongola have very little to zero Western input compared to most other Mongolics. The high amount of Korean+ additional Han_Central components that Mongola score might reflect Manchurian and Northern Han ancestry.

    Target: Han_North
    Distance: 36.8802% / 0.36880213
    54.2 Korean
    40.0 Han_Central
    4.8 Nivh
    0.8 Avar
    0.2 Yizu

    Northern Han needs a massive Korean element to get a good model fit.

    Btw this is how the these two Mongolian gedmatch kits from Inner Mongolia (one seems to be from Hailar/Hulunbuir) score in this model:

    Target: Inner_Mongolian_Hailar
    Distance: 152.9143% / 1.52914321
    39.8 Nivh
    25.4 Korean
    20.4 Nganasan
    8.4 Han_Central
    6.0 Avar

    Target: Inner_Mongolian_2
    Distance: 168.2078% / 1.68207772
    42.0 Nivh
    32.8 Nganasan
    18.0 Korean
    3.2 Avar
    3.2 Latvian
    0.8 Han_Central

    And here are the two Daur gedmatch kits from these two pages to compare:

    This one:


    Target: Daur1
    Distance: 75.5860% / 0.75585984
    61.8 Nivh
    27.2 Korean
    6.0 Nganasan
    4.2 Han_Central
    0.4 Avar
    0.4 Latvian

    And the second Daur:


    Target: Daur2
    Distance: 144.0500% / 1.44050007
    49.8 Nivh
    29.6 Korean
    9.6 Han_Central
    8.0 Nganasan
    3.0 Avar
    Last edited by Tsakhur; 01-22-2023 at 01:39 AM.

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

     alienation (01-21-2023),  okarinaofsteiner (01-22-2023)

Page 54 of 84 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... 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
  •