Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 256

Thread: Population admixture structure and demographic history of North East Asians

  1. #21
    Transeurasian theory is the best "placeholder" we have for what will essentially never be known with any good degree of exactitude. Unfortunately, the speakers of these languages never left ancient written records nor do they have really ancient oral traditions. Their writing came only after they were already influenced by Chinese, which belongs to a language family diametrically opposed to Transeurasian languages.

    Moreover, there have been diverse groups of foragers, rice farmers, millet farmers, deer herders, pastoralists, coastal sea travelers (and add the Jomon into the mix) that diverged since at least the Neolithic. Yet ultimately they share the same super ancestor. There's been a great deal of complex interactions that would be impossible to tease out linguistically even with a great deal of genetic samples at our disposal. This makes for Transeurasian theory as our best possible choice for a level of understanding that's beyond our reach. The only thing left to do is just improve the model over time.
    Last edited by talljimmy0; 07-23-2021 at 04:38 AM.

  2. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    44
    Sex
    Location
    China
    Ethnicity
    Han-Manchuria
    Y-DNA (P)
    O1b-M95

    China
    About 6000 years ago, East Asian coastal people had signs of ocean navigation, so I think Jomon in 3000 years ago could not remain pure. According to the Hoabinhian paper, Jomon can be modeled as Onge + Ami, Ami is often used as a proxy of East Asian. I think this model is reasonable. The Longlin Ancients in Guangxi is close to Jomon autosomally, It is probably because they have similar mixed models. Geographically, the Longlin ancients in 10000 years ago were just sandwiched between the East Asians and the Hoabinhians.

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Howard23 For This Useful Post:

     aganmu (07-24-2021),  Ryukendo (07-23-2021),  spearhead711 (07-29-2021)

  4. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    Quote Originally Posted by talljimmy0 View Post
    Transeurasian theory is the best "placeholder" we have for what will essentially never be known with any good degree of exactitude. Unfortunately, the speakers of these languages never left ancient written records nor do they have really ancient oral traditions. Their writing came only after they were already influenced by Chinese, which belongs to a language family diametrically opposed to Transeurasian languages.

    Moreover, there have been diverse groups of foragers, rice farmers, millet farmers, deer herders, pastoralists, coastal sea travelers (and add the Jomon into the mix) that diverged since at least the Neolithic. Yet ultimately they share the same super ancestor. There's been a great deal of complex interactions that would be impossible to tease out linguistically even with a great deal of genetic samples at our disposal. This makes for Transeurasian theory as our best possible choice for a level of understanding that's beyond our reach. The only thing left to do is just improve the model over time.

    Which would mean it would be a very helpful tool in revealing occupation and lifeways and life patterns, but still as these academics actively acknowledge would not necessarily practically hold up on high as was the situation for the Altaic theory. It is a good attempt to reveal all those little interactions to highlight the life ways.
    But Tibeto-Burman/Sinitic is still heavily influenced by part of this area from the southern Baikalian zone over the Gobi. So that is why it is important to demarcate "Xiaohewan" ? category versus an other Xinglongwa category that could include remote languages that went on to influence pre-Sino-Tibetan and compare it with others that went onto form Pre-Mongolic and Pre-Turkic, as well as stacking them all up to Yukaghiric, possibly Yenesian and Chukutko-Kamchatkan...seeing it all on a grander stage
    Last edited by Sklvn; 07-23-2021 at 05:58 PM.

  5. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,629
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Sklvn View Post
    These are all very early iterations of the pre-print
    Think about Ancient Cities and how it was released as "pre-Alpha"
    It says though that the paper is under review at a Nature portfolio publication. I would have expected a little bit more for the qpAdms, for example with East Asian early Neolithics pre 6000BP (which there are a lot of right now) in outgroups, or with outgroup rotation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sklvn View Post
    States that ultimately descended wholly or in-part from Upper Xiajiadian later came to dominate the Central Plains or parts of Northern China. As opposed to Mongols who came from "further north"
    Barfield's The Perilous Frontier is an introduction to the history of the interaction of Northern China and these regimes
    Not true at all, what are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richardrli View Post
    So in simple terms, does this indicate that Koreans and Japanese are not quite as "northern" shifted as previous data suggests? What's the main takeaway message for our understanding of Koreans and Japanese here?
    Excluding their Jomon ancestry, Koreans and Japanese are much more southern than Devil's Gate and Boisman and more southern than even Boshan. They are only slightly more northern than Northern Han Chinese from Shandong and as Northern as Han Chinese from Shanxi. This is very clear in, for example, the PCA on page 4 of this article: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...884v2.full.pdf--look at the lime green dots.

    You can see from that PCA that they more southern than Hongshan (labeled as Banlashan_MN in that PCA, large squares at the southern edge of the Mongolic-Tungusic cline), or Boshan (blue star of David). The only population that is very close to them is Erdaojingzi_LN (black triangles, called elsewhere WLR_LN/West_Liao_River_LN/Lower_Xiajiadian), a population of agriculturalists and pig farmers that occupied the Inner-Mongolia-Liao-River-Valley region after the Hongshan, which in the current paper is modeled as mostly agriculturalist-derived. In fact, the current position of Japanese and Korean are almost directly between Erdaojingzi/Lower Xiajiadian and Jomon, and they may be the closest thing to the position if we project a line from Jomon to Japanese/Korean onto mainland East Asians.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 07-23-2021 at 07:16 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

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

     Lenny Nero (07-24-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (07-23-2021),  Richardrli (07-24-2021),  Tsakhur (07-26-2021)

  7. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,629
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by talljimmy0 View Post
    Transeurasian theory is the best "placeholder" we have for what will essentially never be known with any good degree of exactitude. Unfortunately, the speakers of these languages never left ancient written records nor do they have really ancient oral traditions. Their writing came only after they were already influenced by Chinese, which belongs to a language family diametrically opposed to Transeurasian languages.

    Moreover, there have been diverse groups of foragers, rice farmers, millet farmers, deer herders, pastoralists, coastal sea travelers (and add the Jomon into the mix) that diverged since at least the Neolithic. Yet ultimately they share the same super ancestor. There's been a great deal of complex interactions that would be impossible to tease out linguistically even with a great deal of genetic samples at our disposal. This makes for Transeurasian theory as our best possible choice for a level of understanding that's beyond our reach. The only thing left to do is just improve the model over time.
    There is simply no reliable evidence for Altaic using the methods of mainstream comparative linguistics, and very little evidence even that the populations involved share a common ancestor to any great degree. The shared genetic substrate of Armurian HGs that the Robeets paper identifies is super clear even in basic East Asian PCAs (like the one I linked in the previous post) and is important for Mongolics, Tungusics and Turkics, but Japanese and Koreans are a different kettle of fish and they share far more in common with East Asian agriculturalists of the North China plain (that occupy the small triangle with Boshan, Lajia and Pingliangtai as its vertices).
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 07-23-2021 at 07:03 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Ebizur (07-23-2021),  FrostAssassin0701 (07-23-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (07-23-2021),  okarinaofsteiner (07-24-2021),  Sklvn (07-23-2021),  traject (07-23-2021),  Tsakhur (07-26-2021)

  9. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    527
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    There is simply no reliable evidence for Altaic using the methods of mainstream comparative linguistics, and very little evidence even that the populations involved share a common ancestor to any great degree. The shared genetic substrate of Armurian HGs that the Robeets paper identifies is super clear even in basic East Asian PCAs (like the one I linked in the previous post) and is important for Mongolics, Tungusics and Turkics, but Japanese and Koreans are a different kettle of fish and they share far more in common with East Asian agriculturalists of the North China plain (that occupy the small triangle with Boshan, Lajia and Pingliangtai as its vertices).
    How are we to understand the geographical layout of those language families in light of this? Basically where would you say is the maximalist northern location where Japonic and Koreanic could have been located and what's the maximalist southern location for Mongolic and Tungusic?

  10. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    Turkic should be thought of being "kept" to the Altai-Sayan mountain range. Mongolic is a historical process, but placed in between Lake Baikal, the Gobi, Western Amur Argun-Shilka-Onon to Zeya Basins, and the Liao. Thus Mongolic as a historical process such ancestral or descendant languages on that main tree should revolve around the historical phenomenon

    Neither Korean nor Japanese would be "so far away" from the Korean peninsula, the Japanese Archipelago and southwestern Northeast China or Manchuria, called "Liaodong." Korean and Japanese would be more localised processes from what these academics such as Robeets as well as the contributions and input from the late Sarah Nelson have been discussing about in these last few decades

    What I respect from Robbeets' position, which we all should respect, is that she does have systematic evidence with Chao Ning to pin the southernly-most possible location of the development of Tungusic to the Lake Khanka Basin, rather than somewhere, say, on the Korean peninsula
    Last edited by Sklvn; 07-23-2021 at 08:34 PM.

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

     Ryukendo (07-23-2021)

  12. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,561
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    C-F5481
    mtDNA (M)
    M8a

    Kyrgyzstan
    Well, this paper highlights the problem with MPI-SHH: on paper, the idea of gathering linguists, archaeologists and geneticists together to work on detangling ancient (pre)history sounds like a great dea. But in practice, at least in this paper, the interpretation of aDNA results was skewed to conform to linguistic ideas of Robeets.

    Somehow linguistic part MPI-SHH managed to gather people with ... not the most mainstream views. I can guess why this happened. People with non-mainstream views need stronger arguments to prove their ideas. David Anthony was in a somewhat similar position. In "Horse, wheel, language" the weakest part of his arguments was relation between Yamnaya and Corded Ware. At the time of writing, he didn;t have enough arguments to prove their connection, or at least archaeological mainstream was not considering the the connection established. So Anthony easily agreed to work with geneticists to get new, better proofs of their connection. And it paid off. Not in the case with Transeurasian languages though.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rozenfeld For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (07-23-2021),  Ebizur (07-23-2021),  Ryukendo (07-23-2021),  traject (07-23-2021),  TuaMan (07-23-2021)

  14. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,629
    Sex

    It seems there's some unpublished data here!

    The PCA (Extended data Fig. 7) shows a general trend for Neolithic individuals from
    213 Mongolia to harbour high Amur-like ancestry with extensive gene flow from western Eurasia
    increasing from the Bronze to Middle Ages.36 While the Turkic-speaking Xiongnu,37 214 Old
    Uyghur and Türk are extremely scattered, the Mongolic-speaking38 215 Iron Age Xianbei fall
    216 closer to the Amur cluster than the Shiwei, Rouran, Khitan and Middle Mongolian Khanate
    217 from Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
    Under their site info supplement:

    §4. Mongolia
    The present study includes aDNA from 52 sites in Mongolia. Of these, 32 sites date to the late medieval era and 14 to the Early Iron Age Slab Grave culture, 3 to the Bronze Age, and 2 to the Neolithic3, . Direct radiocarbon dates are available for most of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples (SI 11).
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  15. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Ebizur (07-23-2021),  okarinaofsteiner (07-24-2021),  rozenfeld (07-23-2021),  Tsakhur (07-26-2021),  Varun R (07-24-2021)

  16. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,629
    Sex

    Alright, I've looked carefully through the analyses they've done and think things generally make sense. Neolithic Angangxi being mostly AR_EN (which they term Jalainur, referred to elsewhere as Zhalainuoer) plus a little bit of Yangshao and the Primorye HGs like Devil's gate being AR_EN + small % Jomon.

    The only major quibble I have is that can it really be true that Japanese, Koreans and aDNA from these two places are WLR_ancients + Jomon when simple PCA already indicates something pulling them south of that? There is a "Boshan cluster" on PCA where all the Xiaojingshan, Boshan, Bianbian etc are (referred to in this paper as Houli as they are all from the Houli culture), and where the later Upper Xiajiadian culture also falls (referred to in the Wang et al PCA which I linked to as Longtoushan_BA), but the Japanese and Koreans are south of there and cannot get their East Asian ancestry from that group only. Maybe one way to investigate this is to replace all the moderns in the outgroups of their qpAdms with ancients from East Asia > 6000BP. Right now their OG set (the one in their qpAdms in the excel spreadsheet, not the one described in the paper, the two contradict) contain only 1 East Asian population, Naxi, which maybe doesn't give them enough resolution for intra-East Asian splits.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 07-23-2021 at 11:19 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-13-2021, 01:27 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2019, 02:09 AM
  3. The Irish DNA Atlas: Revealing Fine-Scale Population Structure and History.
    By JohnHowellsTyrfro in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2017, 06:23 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2017, 06:59 PM
  5. Genetic Structure of the East Asians
    By BMG in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-20-2015, 02:04 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
  •