okarinaofsteiner's East Eurasian GEDmatch megathread

[Tsakhur]

As someone who has partial Manchu ancestry that shows up in my DNA Land and 23andMe v6.0 results (scored enough Siberian to not be classified as trace), I can assure you the bolded part isn't true.

Reference population is probably Oroqen. I think Mongol could be from either region, although there are more ethnic Mongols in the PRC than in Mongolia itself.

What pops are the Manchus closest genetically then? Can you expand more on this isn't true?

The Manchu averages in G25 and Dodecad K12b (they are from Liaoning) are genetically closest to Northern Han followed by Koreans but most of them are probably descended from the Han soldiers who join the banner and then become culturally Manchuized.

Have you seen Manchu gedmatch samples who are genetically closer to Xibo or Hezhen?

I see. The reason Mongol are closer to the Han than Manchurian in this map is possibly because that the former have more Yellow-River/Han-related ancestry than the Oroqen (presumably the population that Manchurian reference is based on), who are more isolated due to geography and terrain. Hezhen should be as close to Han or even more as the Mongols though as they also possessed substantial Yellow-River-related affinities compared to the Oroqen and Nanai (there are two Hezhen/Nanai pops in G25: the Hezhen are more Sinitic-shifted and are closer to the Xibo while the Nanai are close to the Oroqen, Ulchi) who are much more Tungusic.

[okarinaofsteiner]

What pops are the Manchus closest genetically then? Can you expand more on this isn't true?

The Manchu averages in G25 and Dodecad K12b (they are from Liaoning) are genetically closest to Northern Han followed by Koreans but most of them are probably descended from the Han soldiers who join the banner and then become culturally Manchuized.

Have you seen Manchu gedmatch samples who are genetically closer to Xibo or Hezhen?

Intuitively Manchus have some Tungusic ancestry that most Northern Han lack. In MDLP K23b they seem to fall in the northernmost-shifted range of Han results in between "bulk" Northern Han and Korean. There was a Redditor who PMed me a bunch of GEDmatch kits (some of them were allegedly Manchu). There were only 2-3 of those kits, and they all stood out as scoring some East_Siberian in MDLP K23b which not all Northern Han have.

Will post graphs of those kits and of the mixed-race kits you sent me a few months ago in a later post in this thread.

[MNOPSC1b]

Except for Li/Hlai, the Daic groups all have more of the northern component than any of the Austronesian groups.

But only by a very slight margin, and a lot of Austronesian groups (even ancient ones like Guam_2200BP, Vanuatu_2900BP, etc.) have around a quarter or more Northeast Asian component, it means that some of the NE Asian component must be inherent to the ancestral Austro-Tai population and was not brought by later Sinitic migrants.

After seeing how Chinese adoptees from westernmost Guangdong score on GEDmatch I don't think western Guangdong Han are uniformly Zhuang-like (they exhibit the same Hakka-like vs Zhuang-like split I saw among Cantonese-name/HK samples in my original dataset), even if all Guangxi Han are Zhuang-shifted relative to other speakers of SW Mandarin/Xiang/Yue from neighboring provinces. Interesting that TW_Hakka is slightly more northern than Han_Guangdong but slightly more southern than TW_Minnan; the differences among them and Han_Guangdong are pretty small but still noticeable.

Using your own data to debate you, apart from a few adoptees whose biological parents are likely not from Guangdong, the vast majority of your Western GD adoptee samples are very southern-shifted located at the southern end of the Sinitic cline, and with some extra SEA shifted ones as well.

So according to your logic, a few northern outliers can undermine the coherence of an entire group?

[Gansu]

Not sure about other Manchu samples floating around, but the Manchu samples from the Karafet study don't resemble other Tungusic speakers in China at all.

Edit: Weirdly, these Manchu samples prefer TWN_Gongguan over TWN_Hanben, which seems to only happen in southern Chinese samples.

[MNOPSC1b]

Not sure about other Manchu samples floating around, but the Manchu samples from the Karafet study don't resemble other Tungusic speakers in China at all.

Edit: Weirdly, these Manchu samples prefer TWN_Gongguan over TWN_Hanben, which seems to only happen in southern Chinese samples.

The majority of Sinitic populations have much higher TWN_Gongguan than TWN_Hanben, the only exceptions being Fujian_Han who have much higher Hanben, and Guangdong_Han who have similar levels of Gongguan and Hanben.



https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....athread/page14

[BoxOf]

What is the source behind the Manchurian label: Oroqen, Nanai/Hezhen? No way, its Manchu as they are literally identical to Northern Han Chinese nowadays.

The Mongol reference are probably the Mongola or some other Inner Mongolian groups. Outer Mongolians should be more distant genetically.

True. I wonder what "Northern Han" and "Southern Han" was used. Say if you use Han_Jiangsu as Northern and Han_Zhejiang as Southern, then they would be very close already. I highly suspect CHB and CHS is used in this study, and CHB by no means is a good proxy for Northern Han.

[BoxOf]

As someone who has partial Manchu ancestry that shows up in my DNA Land and 23andMe v6.0 results (scored enough Siberian to not be classified as trace), I can assure you the bolded part isn't true.

The DNALand results on Wegene forums shows Manchus are not that distinguishable. I'm not familiar with 23andMe and haven't seen full Manchu results on there. How much Siberian do they get on average?

[BoxOf]

But only by a very slight margin, and a lot of Austronesian groups (even ancient ones like Guam_2200BP, Vanuatu_2900BP, etc.) have around a quarter or more Northeast Asian component, it means that some of the NE Asian component must be inherent to the ancestral Austro-Tai population and was not brought by later Sinitic migrants.

I think the caveat is in the choice of Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. There's no problem in choosing Upper_Yellow_River as NEA but Liangdao as SEA acts a little differently than other Coastal_South_China samples. Whenever we model with the southern samples in G25, Xitoucun is almost always preferred over Liangdao and Qihe. Perhaps Liangdao didn't contribute as much to the gene pool of anyone, pushing everyone to show up as significantly NEA if we try to model all Chinese ethnics as drawing from these two ancestries only.

[utu]

I think the caveat is in the choice of Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. There's no problem in choosing Upper_Yellow_River as NEA but Liangdao as SEA acts a little differently than other Coastal_South_China samples. Whenever we model with the southern samples in G25, Xitoucun is almost always preferred over Liangdao and Qihe. Perhaps Liangdao didn't contribute as much to the gene pool of anyone, pushing everyone to show up as significantly NEA if we try to model all Chinese ethnics as drawing from these two ancestries only.

Qijia and Boshan are used as reference points in the north, and Liangdao or Hanben are used in the south. Then you need to find a better choice than Liangdao. It is better to extract a very pure SEA ancient sample without any impurity at some time in the future

[utu]

But only by a very slight margin, and a lot of Austronesian groups (even ancient ones like Guam_2200BP, Vanuatu_2900BP, etc.) have around a quarter or more Northeast Asian component, it means that some of the NE Asian component must be inherent to the ancestral Austro-Tai population and was not brought by later Sinitic migrants.



Using your own data to debate you, apart from a few adoptees whose biological parents are likely not from Guangdong, the vast majority of your Western GD adoptee samples are very southern-shifted located at the southern end of the Sinitic cline, and with some extra SEA shifted ones as well.

So according to your logic, a few northern outliers can undermine the coherence of an entire group?

The northern element does not mean that there is a genetic relationship between the southern nationalities and the Han nationality. At that time, the modern nationalities were not yet formed, and the genetic exchange was also developed on the premise of the interaction between the northern and southern populations. The specific time was the impact of the ancient Neolithic Age. This scale ended when the later generations entered the feudal monarchy era. I think that the general level of the southern Han Dynasty deviated from the main body of the northern Han Dynasty too far, The south is basically the same as Miao, Yao, She, Tujia, Dong and other southern nationalities, and Lingnan is more southward