Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: The riddle of the Eastern Steppes...

  1. #31
    Registered Users
    Posts
    60
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    My impression was that Tibetans are mostly descended from a group of people that also is ancestor to Neolithic North Chinese people.
    Few years ago there was famous paper that said the Tibetans were a mix of Hans and sherpas. There was another famous paper that said that the Tibetan-han separation took place only 3000 BP. I did not know much about genetic than but I still knew enough history to think that both the papers were all bullshit which it later turned out to be.

    There was another paper that suggested linkage with Neolithic yellow river farmers and spread of sinotibetan language to the Tibetans which had one glaring mistake. Tibetans don’t share agricultural words or cognates with the sinitic languages. There may have outward spread of sinotibetan language from the Neolithic yellow river but it was definitely not farmers who spread it to Tibetans.

    Sometimes I wonder how the hell do the researchers miss such obvious points.


    My point is that the present viewpoint that that Tibetans are mostly descended from Neolithic northern yellow river farmer also generally falls into that bullshit category.

    Tibetans has ancestors from the yellow river foragers (not farmers) but that also has ancestors from Indigenous plateau foragers gene plus Nepali and central Asian/India. Tibetan ydna is predominantly D which is not present at all in Neolithic northern China/yellow river area. Tibetan ydna O m177 cts1642 also came from nepal not Neolithic yellow river.

    So all in all Tibetan ydnas paints a very different picture.

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

     parasar (05-06-2021)

  3. #32
    Registered Users
    Posts
    367
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Songtsen View Post
    Tibetans has ancestors from the yellow river foragers (not farmers) but that also has ancestors from Indigenous plateau foragers gene plus Nepali and central Asian/India. Tibetan ydna is predominantly D which is not present at all in Neolithic northern China/yellow river area. Tibetan ydna O m177 cts1642 also came from nepal not Neolithic yellow river.
    With G25 at least 75% of any Tibetan subgroups' ancestry comes from a Neolithic Shimao-like source, even in Nepal.

    So all in all Tibetan ydnas paints a very different picture.
    Y-DNA is completely irrelevant to this question, founder effects on a small population like the Tibetans over the course of millennia obfuscate early patterns.
    Last edited by Granary; 05-05-2021 at 09:44 AM.

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

     Ryukendo (05-05-2021)

  5. #33
    Registered Users
    Posts
    60
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    With G25 at least 75% of any Tibetan subgroups' ancestry comes from a Neolithic Shimao-like source, even in Nepal.


    Y-DNA is completely irrelevant to this question, founder effects on a small population like the Tibetans over the course of millennia obfuscate early patterns.
    I have never said that Tibetans don’t have partial Neolithic yellow river ancestory. It is the amount I have problem with. G25 for all its accuracy is a still a calculator which needs accurate input. As of now I don’t believe there is accurate data on Tibetans which reflects reality. So it’s a case GIGO for me.

    Where is the Kashmiri ancestry which many in Lhasa should have ?where is the mongol ancestry of Nakqu and Lhasa? Where is the Newar dna of central Tibetans ? All of these ethnic groups have large number of descendants in Tibetan areas. Eastern and northern Tibetans should have large mongol/Turkic/sogdian and Uyghur ancestory. Almost all of of southern Tibet should have large Nepali influence.

    I will start to trust g25 and other calculators when they show accurate reflection of reality. I did not trust Harappa when it said Tibetans had zero south East Asian because I knew that Aba Tibetans and Yunan Tibetans have married with the local tribes and Manchu/han which had lots of south East Asian DNA. I will do the same with g25. I will not trust it because it goes against history and reality.

    Maybe I’m wrong but I have been correct so far in not trusting Harappa and many so called papers by prestigious institutions like the ones I mentioned in my earlier s post.

  6. #34
    Registered Users
    Posts
    563
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    I have never encountered even a claim of inscriptional evidence of (pre-)Japanese language anywhere in Korea. There is at least one monumental inscription, i.e. that which is inscribed on the Gwanggaeto Stele, which has been interpreted to mean that there may have been some military incursions of Japanese people in the Korean Peninsula in the late 4th century and early 5th century CE, but this depends on the reader's interpretation (in part because some key characters in the inscription have been defaced and are now illegible). Some people have even claimed that 倭 ( ~ Wa ~ Wae) in this inscription does not refer to the Japanese people per se, but rather to some other people related to the Japanese or perhaps merely regarded as resembling them in some way, e.g. as "dwarves" or "pirates."

    There are some allegedly Japanese(-related) toponyms recorded with Chinese characters in historical texts such as the 三國史記 Historical Records of the Three Kingdoms (aka Samguk Sagi after the modern Sino-Korean readings of the characters in the title; this text, composed entirely in Chinese characters, supposedly has been completed in 1145 CE and is known as the oldest surviving Korean compilation of Korean history). My personal opinion regarding this matter is that most or all of the allegedly Japanese(-related) morphemes in these toponyms fall into a grey zone of ambiguity produced by such random lookalikes, prehistoric loanwords, or extremely archaic conserved forms as Manchu nadan and Japanese nana (both meaning "seven") or Manchu muke, Korean mɨl > mul, Japanese midu > mizu (also mi- ~ -mi or mina- in some ancient compounds), Hebrew mayim, Arabic māʾ ~ māh ~ ~ ma ~ māy ~ may ~ me ~ mi ~ mayya ~ mōya, etc. (all meaning "water").
    Now that I think of it, it may have been an off-hand mentioning by John Colarusso on a podcast, while he is a great linguist that corner of the world isn't his specialty. But maybe the man is privy to information we aren't.

    Different but semi-related topic, do you have any info on the tombstone of King Munmu of Silla? It apparently mentions he was a descendant of the Xiongnu but I havent been able to come across the direct quote or a translation of such.

    Should be this one I think:

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

     Alain (05-05-2021)

  8. #35
    Registered Users
    Posts
    733
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Now that I think of it, it may have been an off-hand mentioning by John Colarusso on a podcast, while he is a great linguist that corner of the world isn't his specialty. But maybe the man is privy to information we aren't.

    Different but semi-related topic, do you have any info on the tombstone of King Munmu of Silla? It apparently mentions he was a descendant of the Xiongnu but I havent been able to come across the direct quote or a translation of such.

    Should be this one I think:
    The King Munmu Stele has a convoluted history of loss, discovery (in 1796), subsequently being lost again and finally rediscovered in two pieces, the first in 1961 and the second in 2009. The latter piece of the stele allegedly had been used as a beetling stone. The piece pictured in the photo you have posted should be the one that has been rediscovered in 1961.

    The stele apparently had gone missing before the lifetime of Kim Busik (fl. 1075–1151), the Goryeo official who completed the Historical Records of the Three Kingdoms in 1145 and who was himself allegedly a patrilineal descendant of the previous dynasty's King Munmu. According to the report of the 1796 discovery of the stele, it was found at Sacheonwangsa (Temple of the Four Heavenly Kings), a Buddhist temple in Gyeongju, but the actual burial site of King Munmu is supposed to be a rocky islet offshore where the dying king requested that his cremated remains be laid to rest so that his spirit could become a great dragon and protect the country, exalting the law of the Buddha; this has developed into various folk legends about the king's spirit becoming a dragon to keep Japanese pirates/invaders at bay or to bless the country with timely rains.

    The piece of the stele rediscovered in 2009 apparently indicates that the Kim royal family of Silla descends from "the Marquess of Dů." Dů (秺) was a short-lived fief under the Former Han, created in Chengwu County (now under the administration of Heze, Shandong) as the seat of Jin Midi (金日磾). This Jin Midi is by origin the would-be heir of a Xiongnu nobleman who was assassinated during a political intrigue in the late second century BCE; in his adolescence, the boy became a slave of the Former Han Dynasty alongside the other surviving members of his immediate family, and he was put to work in the imperial stables. Emperor Wu of Han took a liking to him and granted him the surname 金 Jīn meaning "gold." (金 Jīn is etymologically identical to the Korean surname 金 Gim, often romanized as "Kim.") Prior to his death, Emperor Wu designated Midi as a vice-regent for his youngest son and heir; Midi cited concerns about his ethnic origin for his declining Emperor Wu's request to serve as primary regent. Midi himself died soon afterward, but Emperor Wu's heir, Emperor Zhao, created Midi as the Marquess of Dů on Midi's deathbed. Descendants of Jin Midi held the fief of Dů until it was dissolved by the usurper Wang Mang.

    In Samguk Sagi, Kim Busik related a tale of the origin of the ancestor of the Kim royal clan of Silla, which is supposed to be the clan to which he himself belonged. According to that tale, the founder of the Kim family of Silla, Kim Alji, was discovered as a baby in a golden box in a forest just west of the Silla capital (Gyeongju) by a minister called Hogong ("Duke Bottle Gourd"), who was allegedly 本倭人 "originally a Wa (Japanese? Pygmy?) person." This "Duke Bottle Gourd" was in the service of Seok Talhae, the reigning king of Silla, who himself was allegedly born in a small kingdom located a thousand li (Chinese miles) northeast of Wa.

    Some other inscriptions besides the one found on the funerary stele of King Munmu appear to contain the same claim, linking the Kim family of Silla to the Jin family of Western Han (and, by extension, to the Prince of Xiutu of the Xiongnu). One might expect inscriptional evidence to be more reliable than a legend recounted in a text compiled more than a thousand years after the fact, but the claim of a link to Jin Midi is so outlandish as to seem like some sort of posturing by kings of Silla during an era when they were closely involved politically with the Tang Dynasty of China. On the other hand, many details of the legend of Kim Alji are even more implausible, so please believe whatever you wish to believe regarding the ancestry of the Kim clan.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (05-06-2021),  Psynome (05-05-2021),  Ryukendo (05-06-2021)

  10. #36
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3
    Sex

    Hello,

    As genes don't speak, ancient societies could be a bit heterogeneous including different haplogroups and their branches.
    It should be a linguistic driven approach rather than genetic approach.

    Languages or reconstructed language (proto or macro-) vocabularies can answer the following questions:
    1. where did that proto society live? (geography, nature, flora and fauna)
    2. how did they live? cultural attributes: lifestyle, homes, meal, etc.
    3. glottochronology dating within the chosen theory can help to determine the time ranges of each stage of those societies.

    Intersection of all this data can approximate the location of archeological cultures linked to geography described in vocabularies that can help to determine the genetic pool/profiles based on aDNA founded in that culture and geography.

    Starting from the last as it is easiest:
    3. time ranges
    Within the Transeurasian theory (or Altay) the birth of Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Turkic branches (families) dated around 3000 BC.
    urn_cambridge.org_id_binary_20170425081640801-0582_9781107279872_05161fig22_1.png

    Source: www.cambridge.org
    So, the time range for the Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic started from 3000 BC and lasted up to 500-200 BC (first split / bottleneck and split).

    1. geography
    Regarding the geography and culture there is a good paper by A. Dybo: Pra-Altaian World According to Comparative-Historical Linguistics Semantic Reconstruction.
    The vocabularies pointing the geography that had steppe or forest-steppe (tayga as well), many big and small rivers, lakes, low mountains and hills, for Proto-Turkic broadleaf trees as well, wild camels, wolverine and monkey, bears, wolves and tigers.

    In Proto-Altaic, the landscape was represented by names of not very high mountains, low-pitched slopes, foot-hills (also with rocks and gravel). They had a number of verbs meaning “to cross mountains.” The canyons, valleys and steppes are present, the steppes being of a rather arid and dusty type. There are many terms for small, quick-flowing rivers with shallow sand rifts, but we also know words for big rivers as well. The reflexes of those words reveal semantic variation: in some daughter languages they mean “big river”, while in the others the meaning is “sea”. We may talk about islands and floods. Floods, from my point of view, may rather indicate big rivers with seasonal floods. We still do not have a reliable reconstruction with the indisputable meaning of “sea”.
    Source

    2. cultural attributes based on Transeurasian / PA reconstructed vocabularies:
    - hunting and fishing terminology more developed
    - crossing the mountains event reflected in reconstructed vocabulary
    - the core of the Transeurasian / PA economy appears to be seasonal pastoralism, or a developed seasonal hunting with a corral component. There are terms associated with horses and riding.
    - terminology of clothing and footwear contains the names for pants and knee guards
    - stages of metal work, probably bronze
    - nomadic features are better detected in the PA lexicon, rather than agricultural terminology
    - weakness of the agricultural terminology, the main tool was probably a kind of hoe (possibly also used for harvesting wild roots)
    - two types of Transeurasian / PA home are restored: portable (absent in the PIE) and stationary, has a few words for the animal pens, not a barn.

    In conclusion two main questions need to be answered:

    1. What did pastoral/steppe cultures with known bronze metal exist in time range between 3000 BC and 500-200 BC in geography that has steppe and forest-steppes including broadleaf trees, many big/small rivers and lakes, hills and mountains with cross mountain events, wild camels, wolverine and monkey, bears, wolves and tigers, that can be considered as a root for PA/Transeurasian and their branches like Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic?

    Botai? But Botai's dates compared to linguistic dates of Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic formation can be associated with one of these branches.
    Root of Botai called Prebel and Surtadinskaya cultures located somewhere between Ural and Altay and South Siberia can be associated with PA / Transeurasian culture. Can't be?
    What else?

    2. What aDNA has been found in those cultures, with a bit of common stuff for the PA/Transeurasian level, Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic level as well?
    Mix of west-eurasian and east-eurasian profiles?

    Kindly regards,
    Last edited by 248446; 05-06-2021 at 02:56 PM. Reason: Attachment was not uploaded correctly

  11. #37
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3
    Sex

    Hello,

    As genes don't speak, ancient societies could be a bit heterogeneous including different haplogroups and their branches.
    It should be a linguistic driven approach rather than genetic approach.

    Languages or reconstructed language (proto or macro-) vocabularies can answer the following questions:
    1. where did that proto society live? (geography, nature, flora and fauna)
    2. how did they live? cultural attributes: lifestyle, homes, meal, etc.
    3. glottochronology dating within the chosen theory can help to determine the time ranges of each stage of those societies.

    Intersection of all this data can approximate the location of archeological cultures linked to geography described in vocabularies that can help to determine the genetic pool/profiles based on aDNA founded in that culture and geography.

    Starting from the last as it is easiest:
    3. time ranges
    Within the Transeurasian theory (or Altay) the birth of Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Turkic branches (families) dated around 3000 BC.
    urn_cambridge.org_id_binary_20170425081640801-0582_9781107279872_05161fig22_1.png
    Source: www.cambridge.org
    So, the time range for the Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic started from 3000 BC and lasted up to 500-200 BC (first split / bottleneck and split).

    1. geography
    Regarding the geography and culture there is a good paper by A. Dybo: Pra-Altaian World According to Comparative-Historical Linguistics Semantic Reconstruction.
    The vocabularies pointing the geography that had steppe or forest-steppe (tayga as well), many big and small rivers, lakes, low mountains and hills, for Proto-Turkic broadleaf trees as well, wild camels, wolverine and monkey, bears, wolves and tigers.

    In Proto-Altaic, the landscape was represented by names of not very high mountains, low-pitched slopes, foot-hills (also with rocks and gravel). They had a number of verbs meaning “to cross mountains.” The canyons, valleys and steppes are present, the steppes being of a rather arid and dusty type. There are many terms for small, quick-flowing rivers with shallow sand rifts, but we also know words for big rivers as well. The reflexes of those words reveal semantic variation: in some daughter languages they mean “big river”, while in the others the meaning is “sea”. We may talk about islands and floods. Floods, from my point of view, may rather indicate big rivers with seasonal floods. We still do not have a reliable reconstruction with the indisputable meaning of “sea”.
    Source

    2. cultural attributes based on Transeurasian / PA reconstructed vocabularies:
    - hunting and fishing terminology more developed
    - crossing the mountains event reflected in reconstructed vocabulary
    - the core of the Transeurasian / PA economy appears to be seasonal pastoralism, or a developed seasonal hunting with a corral component. There are terms associated with horses and riding.
    - terminology of clothing and footwear contains the names for pants and knee guards
    - stages of metal work, probably bronze
    - nomadic features are better detected in the PA lexicon, rather than agricultural terminology
    - weakness of the agricultural terminology, the main tool was probably a kind of hoe (possibly also used for harvesting wild roots)
    - two types of Transeurasian / PA home are restored: portable (absent in the PIE) and stationary, has a few words for the animal pens, not a barn.

    In conclusion two main questions need to be answered:

    1. What did pastoral/steppe cultures with known bronze metal exist in time range between 3000 BC and 500-200 BC in geography that has steppe and forest-steppes including broadleaf trees, many big/small rivers and lakes, hills and mountains with cross mountain events, wild camels, wolverine and monkey, bears, wolves and tigers, that can be considered as a root for PA/Transeurasian and their branches like Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic?

    Botai? But Botai's dates compared to linguistic dates of Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic formation can be associated with one of these branches.
    Root of Botai called Prebel and Surtadinskaya cultures located somewhere between Ural and Altay and South Siberia can be associated with PA / Transeurasian culture. Can't be?
    What else?

    2. What aDNA has been found in those cultures, with a bit of common stuff for the PA/Transeurasian level, Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic level as well?
    Mix of west-eurasian and east-eurasian profiles?

    Kindly regards,

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to 248446 For This Useful Post:

     Psynome (05-07-2021)

  13. #38
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3
    Sex

    Sorry for double posting , please delete one of the comments, if it is possible, they are equal.
    Last edited by 248446; 05-07-2021 at 04:09 AM.

  14. #39
    Registered Users
    Posts
    232

    So I've been looking into the Transeurasian hypothesis a bit, and I've come across something interesting, at least to me.

    Robbeets generally claims that Transeurasian began to break into its descendant languages from the Liao river region around the middle Hongshan period (c. 3500 BCE).

    I took a look at the samples from Ning et al 2020. One caught my eye. Haminmangha is a site located near the Liao river, somewhat north of where the Hongshan site is located. It's the red box with the blue outline in this picture.

    Screen Shot 2021-05-07 at 11.30.11 AM.png


    HMMH_MN is dated to 3694–3636 cal BCE in the study, most press gives the dating at about 3000-3500 BCE. There was a mass grave of bodies found stacked in a home at the site, suggesting a disaster like plague and/or cultural collapse. Here's where it shows up on their PCA:

    Screen Shot 2021-05-07 at 12.19.32 PM.png

    HMMH_MN is shifted well away from the main Liao river cluster, towards the Amur river samples in the study. But those samples are from a single area to the far north and form a tight cluster to the exclusion of HMMH_MN. I decided to look at the affinities of HMMH_MN in Vahaduo.

    Distance to: CHN_HMMH_MN:HMF32
    0.03123694 MNG_East_N:I6358
    0.03492291 CHN_Yumin_N:Yumin
    0.03534976 MNG_Center_West_LBA_4:I13505
    0.03618044 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1:I6352
    0.03826798 MNG_Early_Med_Turk:ZAA002
    0.03832376 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:ULN007
    0.03909816 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:ULN010
    0.04021985 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1:I6349
    0.04084727 MNG_Late_Med:SHA001
    0.04089844 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:ULN006
    0.04139394 MNG_Late_Med:TSA002
    0.04181155 MNG_North_N:I11698
    0.04197581 MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2:I12960
    0.04326810 MNG_Early_Med_Uigur:OLN001.B0101
    0.04369304 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:BOR001
    0.04382387 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:ULN001
    0.04399885 RUS_Late_Xiongnu:TEV003
    0.04402380 MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2:I13964
    0.04445922 MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2:I14037
    0.04596856 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1:I6357
    0.04653140 MNG_East_N:I7021
    0.04686375 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:BUL002
    0.04699360 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave:ULN009
    0.04729492 MNG_EIA_8:I14194
    0.04771977 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1:I12969


    Haminmangha has affinities to the Mongolian Neolithic, Ulaanzuukh, and Slab Grave Cultures, as well as to an Early Medieval Turk. I'm very rudimentary at admixture modeling, but if anyone wants to have a go at this, help yourself! These are some restricted runs using HMMH_MN with ancient averages, just to explore a bit. The biggest caveat is there's so much shared ancestry that it's going to be hard to know what's just being sloshed around without really capturing specific drift. To help isolate the Yellow River Farmer and Paleosiberian/Botai type ancestry streams, I've included proxies for those:



    Target: MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
    Distance: 2.0310% / 0.02031044
    60.0 MNG_North_N
    27.8 CHN_HMMH_MN
    9.8 CHN_Yellow_River_MN
    2.4 RUS_Baikal_EBA

    Target: MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
    Distance: 1.9884% / 0.01988443
    34.2 MNG_North_N
    26.8 MNG_East_N
    22.4 CHN_HMMH_MN
    10.2 CHN_Yellow_River_MN
    6.4 RUS_Baikal_EBA

    The key here is that HMMH_MN is the closest sample in space and time to those from the Hongshan culture that has this much affinity to later Slab Grave, Xiongnu, Turk etc. samples. Suggestive of something bigger?

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

     aganmu (05-08-2021),  Ryukendo (05-07-2021)

  16. #40
    Registered Users
    Posts
    14
    Sex
    Location
    India
    Nationality
    Indian

    India
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    The neolithic sample from northeast China I was referring to in this post came from the Hongshe site of theAng'anxi culture, situated in the modern day Heilongjang province.

    Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China
    One Neolithic sample from south of Yellow river turned out to be Q1

    yellow.jpg

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to avvaiyar For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (05-23-2021)

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Family Finder Test Would Solve This Riddle
    By curiousII in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2019, 05:52 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 05:32 AM
  3. Little autosomal riddle
    By anglesqueville in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-17-2016, 06:49 AM
  4. Help Solve My Riddle Re: These Scottish Surnames
    By LarryMc in forum R1b General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-23-2015, 03:50 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-15-2013, 07:01 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
  •