Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 256

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

  1. #101
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_people#Gallery
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei

    I am not an ethnic Mongolian or Chinese national, but someone who has a strong interest in subjects around the Medieval Ages and the Mongol Empire. But, there is so much richness in material culture and continuity in culture there just in that particular region, one could do an in-depth study on the Mongolians currently living there and go back all the way to Hongshan culture and before if they wanted to. There are over two million Mongolians living in that region alone, just as high as the nation of Mongolia
    They can easily create entire virtual settlements and simulations of the entire landscape and how they changed over time if they wanted to
    Last edited by Sklvn; 07-28-2021 at 04:07 AM.

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

     talljimmy0 (07-28-2021)

  3. #102
    Registered Users
    Posts
    847
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    I have misremembered Janhunen's claims about Koreanic-mediated Altaicisation of Japonic. He in fact states that lexical parallels/loans between Japonic and Koreanic are surprisingly few given the extreme level of morphosyntactic convergence, and that "Unfortunately, it is impossible to specify to what extent the Altaicization of Pre-Proto-Japanic took place under the impact of Pre-Proto-Koreanic, as opposed to the other languages of the Altaic type in the region.". He also states that the phonology is surprisingly contrasting. Lastly he states that once Japanese reached the islands they began to diverge: "Modern Korean and Japanese are therefore likely to be more different from each other than their direct ancestors were at the time of the maximum impact of their sprachbund." His views are laid out in this article.
    I dislike any discussion of phonology in the context of typological comparison between Korean and any other language for the simple fact that there is a tremendous amount of phonological change attested in the language over the five to six centuries for which we have decent amounts of data, and fragmentary attestations of Korean language in earlier eras do not rule out the possibility of major phonological changes in the language prior to the 15th century CE. For example, the character 帶 (which denotes "belt, sash, band" in Chinese) in a Baekje toponym has been annotated with the reading sitoro in the Nihon Shoki. (Of course, the Japanese writing system traditionally has no means by which to indicate a closed syllable, nor any means by which to distinguish /r/ and /l/, nor any means by which to distinguish /s/ and /ʃ/ before /i/, so it is impossible to determine whether this gloss has been intended to transcribe *storo, *stolo, *shtoro, *shtolo, *sitoro, *sitolo, *sitro, *shitro, *sitlo, *shitlo, *stor, *stol, *shtor, or *shtol, etc., and even the distinction between voiced and voiceless obstruents is sometimes ignored in pre-modern Japanese writing, which would add another layer of ambiguity regarding the */t/, but let's ignore that for now.) In the earliest documents written using the Korean alphabet, the Korean word for "belt, sash, band" has been written as ᄯᅴ〮 stey with a mark for high tone. In present-day Korean, this word is written and pronounced as 띠 tti, with a "tense" initial consonant. So, the Korean word has transformed from something that must have sounded somewhat similar to Greek στολή to something that coincidentally sounds and even means something like Chinese 带. The phonology of the Korean language has apparently been extremely unstable during recorded history, and there is absolutely no way that the language may possibly be related to any other language within the span of recorded history, therefore it is highly questionable to take Korean phonology as evidence for typological similarity to (let alone evidence for a genetic relationship with) any other language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    3 questions:
    1. What do you make of Janhunen's theory that proto-Japonic was a monosyllabic language? The argument is laid out here: http://www.iacd.or.kr/pdf/journal/02/2-03.pdf
    There are a great number of polysyllabic Japanese words for which there is evidence from which one might infer the existence of a previously monosyllabic root: e.g. Japanese hane "feather; wing" is disyllabic, but the first syllable may be inferred to have originally meant "feather; wing" by itself on the basis of uchiwa "(non-folding) fan" < *ut-i-pa "beat-ing-feather/wing" and Japanese kiba "fang, tusk" is disyllabic, but the second syllable may be inferred to have originally meant "tooth" or "blade" by itself on the basis of Modern Japanese ha (< *pa) "tooth; blade."

    On the other hand, there are plenty of Japonic etyma for which no obvious evidence of erstwhile monosyllabic components exists, and I am skeptical of the relevance of this hypothesis. The creation of compounds or morphologically complex forms and their gradual fusion to become what are for all intents and purposes new etyma is an (almost?) universal feature of human language, although the rate at which such compounds become lexicalized and subsequently fuse together is not constant. Most reconstructed Proto-Indo-European etyma are monosyllabic, too, are they not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    2. You seem to have a great deal of skepticism of the idea that Japonic was once spoken on the Korean peninsula. What do you make of the arguments here: https://www.academia.edu/35280086/Or...anese_Language and what makes you skeptical?
    My skepticism is primarily due to the obscure nature of the source material: supplementary annotations with Chinese characters in the form 「一云...」 ("one say...," i.e. "some [other source] say[s]...") that do not make much sense when read semantically and may be regarded to be attempts at phonetic transcription of a toponym. There is nothing in the source material that identifies what this "some [(other) source]" actually is. Considering the fact that the primary source for these alleged "Peninsular Japonic" toponyms, the Samguk Sagi, has been completed at the rather late date (despite the fact that this is the oldest extant Korean historical text) of 1145 CE, one can even imagine a scenario in which that "some [(other) source]" might be at least influenced somehow by Japanese. The identification of these toponyms with the native language of Goguryeo la Christopher Beckwith is fraught with unsubstantiated assumptions.

    There are many other reasons why I am suspicious of many of these "Peninsular Japonic" toponyms, including irregularities in the annotations in the Samguk Sagi (a particular "phonetic transcription" appearing in annotations for toponyms whose "semantic transcriptions" are utterly different from one another or a particular "semantic transcription" being annotated with various "phonetic transcriptions" that do not resemble one another at all), the plausibility of the presence of typographical errors, and the existence of similar look-alikes in other languages of the region, but the major systemic weakness of the hypothesis is the one that I have outlined above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    3. Janhunen talks about convergence between Japonic and Koreanic here: https://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/KOREAN/Ja...ese%201999.pdf

    In particular he makes the following comments:

    There is no doubt that morphosyntax is the part of linguistic
    structure that links Koreanic and Japanic most intimately with each other.
    It is well known that even the modern forms of Korean and Japanese are
    morphosyntactically so similar that a morpheme-by-morpheme
    translation from the one language into the other is, as a rule, possible (as
    discussed by, e.g., Fabre 1982). In this respect, the other languages of
    the Altaic type, not to speak of the languages of the Sinitic type, stand
    clearly further apart. This seems to correspond well to what is known of
    sprachbunds elsewhere in the world (for instance, in the Balkan region,
    and in Western Europe), where both syntax, in general, and
    morphosyntax, in particular, are typical manifestations of strong areal
    bonds between languages of diverse origins.
    In your work on Old Japanese and early Korean, is this convergence already present, and to the extent that it is in modern Japanese and Korean?
    There is very little evidence for the morphosyntax and precise phonology of any stage of the Korean language prior to the mid-15th century invention of hangeul because all such evidence has been transmitted via Chinese, Sino-Korean (or Chinese written language as used by Koreans), or Japanese media.

    As I have written previously in this thread, the only "convergence" that I would recognize between Korean and Japanese is that which has taken place in Korean since the mid-15th century. And what I have hesitantly called "convergence" here is perhaps better described as simplification toward a more Japanese-like style of speech; it is not necessarily due to any real influence of the Japanese language on the Korean language, certainly not anything related to the colonial period. (The actual influence of the Japanese language on the Korean language during the colonial period is best reflected in the proliferation of modern Sinitic-based coinages, many of which are now also used by at least some Chinese speakers.)

    There is simply no evidence that one might muster to support an argument for "convergence" between the Korean and Japanese languages at any stage prior to the mid-15th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Edit: I am also interested in your evaluation of Janhunen's claim that Japonic tone is a retention from proto-Japonic and even pre-proto-Japonic, instead of it being a new development.
    I would not be surprised if the lexically distinctive tone or pitch accent of Japonic were a retention. Its regional neighbors (Ainu, Korean) have (or historically have had) accents that are very much like the Japonic accent. Since what is essentially the same accent is found in the two (not necessarily related) languages that have historically bordered Japonic, it is not parsimonious to posit connections with any languages further afield in China, Africa, or wherever.

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

     Helen (07-28-2021),  parasar (07-30-2021),  Ryukendo (07-28-2021)

  5. #103
    My skepticism is primarily due to the obscure nature of the source material: supplementary annotations with Chinese characters in the form 「一云...」 ("one say...," i.e. "some [other source] say[s]...") that do not make much sense.


    泰始四年五月十六日丙午正陽 造百練鋼七支刀 㠯辟百兵 宜供供侯王永年大吉祥 先世以来未有此刀百濟王世□奇生聖音 故為倭王旨造傳示後世

    On May 16th, the 4th year of Tae-hwa [or on April 16th, the 4th year of T'ai-ho], the day of Byeong-O at noon this seven-branched sword was manufactured with hundred-times-wrought iron. As this sword has a magical power to rout the enemy, it is sent [bestowed] to the king of a vassal state. Manufactured by xxxx. Never has there been such a sword. Tinking of longevity, the king of Paekche
    [or the Crown Prince of Paekche who owes his life to the august King] had this sword made for the king of Wa [or the king of vassal state]. Hope that it be transmitted and shown to prosperity.

    The inscription on this ancient seven-branched sword, housed in the Iso-no-kami Shrine in Nara, is the only original document left on the relationship between Baekje in the Korean peninsula and Wa in Japan. In both societies, educated circles were versed in Classical Chinese literature and they kept official records and communicated with each other in Classical Chinese because their native spoken languages still did not have a written form until the invention of Hangul or Kanamoji, which was similar to the use to Latin as the official language or lingua franca in Europe under Roman rule. Both Korean and Japanese languages borrowed heavily from Classical Chinese and they may have used a pseudo-Chinese language for official communications and trade at the time. It is important to note that both sources, the Nihon Shoki and the Samguk sagi, are written in Classical Chinese, while their historical accounts are not very reliable. Classical Chinese is the Latin in East Asia which greatly influenced the formation of Japonic or Koreanic languages, while the Altaic or Tungusic influence on these two languages is correlated with Y-DNA haplogroup C2 (M217), which accounts for 6%-11%.

    The Father Tongue correlation can likewise not explain everything. If the paternal lineage C2 (M217) is correlated with Altaic linguistic affinity, as appears to be the case for Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic, then Japanese is no Father Tongue, and neither is Korean. This Y-chromosomal haplogroup accounts for 11% of Korean paternal lineages, and the frequency of the lineage is even more reduced in Japan. Yet this molecular marker may still be a tracer for the introduction of Altaic language to the archipelago, where the paternal lineage has persisted, albeit in a frequency of just 6%.

    On the other hand, the Y-chromosomal haplogroup D1a2 (M55) appears to be correlated with the ancient linguistic phylum of which Ainu is the surviving remnant. Therefore, Ainu is a father tongue, and the ancient paternal lineage D1a2 (M55) also remains robustly present elsewhere in Japan. If the bearers of the paternal lineage O2b introduced Yayoi culture and wet rice cultivation to the Japanese archipelago, then agriculture and superior metallurgy appear to have contributed to the fecundity of this paternal lineage, a veritable agricultural spread but without language.

    Overly simple approaches that turn up correlations where direct causation is lacking or unlikely have come to enjoy perennial popularity (e.g. Nettle 1998; Gorenflo et al. 2012; Axelsen and Manrubia 2014; Greenhill et al. 2018; Hua et al. 2019). The Farmer Language Dispersal model is no doubt superior to such approaches in seeking to understand the dispersal of language families in terms of the spread of a subsistence strategy that has changed the face of our planet. However, enthused scholars oblivious to the faulty nature of the reasoning underlying the Farmer Language Dispersal model are inclined to seek corroboration and reinterpret evidence in ways that ‘fit’ that model. Similarly, the false assumption that any widely observed phenomenon, such as the Father Tongue correlation must therefore be universal, a presumption which we have repeatedly disavowed in print, would likewise prevent us from discerning the contours of a more complex picture of the past and render us unable to find the right fit for the plentiful pieces of the puzzle of prehistory.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...424312CA03BCDE
    Last edited by ThirdTerm; 08-03-2021 at 02:19 AM.
    Давайте вместе снова сделаем мир великий!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to ThirdTerm For This Useful Post:

     Sklvn (08-04-2021)

  7. #104
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    Isn't Classical Chinese similar to Mandarin currently spoken in Shanghai and Taiwan? I watched some videos of those I Love Languages series of ancient reconstructed forms of high Korean and Japanese and the Classical Chinese used by them, and it reminded me of how east-coast Sinitic languages are spoken

    Japanese and Koreans seemed to revolve around trade and strong cultural exchanges with the eastern Chinese seaboard rather than Eurasian or North Asian cultures, which Manchuria as part of Inner Asia can be firmly established with basic historical evidence. Tibetan cultures in Northwestern China seemed like there were part of this Central Asian network as opposed to Sinitic ones, and seemed to have strong ancient Indo-European influences from the Tarim Basin.

    Also for Inner Mongolians there seems to be much more going on than meets the eye, than strong affinities to modern Northern Chinese and Koreans. Modern Mongolians from Mongolia are typically thought of as Turkic shifted, Daurs and Khamnegan herdsmen are very influenced by Tungusic and Ewenki and Amur peoples, while those living in the more urbanised centers of southern Northeastern China are thought of as very Sinitic-influenced. Olga Dyakova has stated that Khitan and Jurchens shared some of the most basic traditions in terms of life and subsistence patterns, eating customs and social organisation. Also perhaps ethno-linguists and archaeologists may need to be able to reliably trace Lower Xiajiadian, and early stages of Upper Xiajiadian, to interior Tibeto-Burman cultures vs Sinitic ones based on ideas laid by di Cosmo about an agrarian-steppe transition zone that exists on the North China frontier, and new publications centred on placing the Shimao polity within the development of Sinitic civilisation.

    https://static.cambridge.org/binary/...349_fig1g.jpeg

    So actually what can explain why Inner Mongolians living in China appear so East Asian, can be explained by Xiajiadian cultures, which did exert a heavy influence on proto-Korean and perhaps also proto-Japonic, but only for a short period during a very foundational stage for Japonic and Korean cultures when they resided in southern Manchuria. How does this sound as opposed to something earlier or later, that becomes subject to more grandiose projections, like drawing immediate recent connections to big Tungusic or Mongolic empires and regimes or something earlier drawn to Paleo-Siberian/Inuit or the Okhotsk-shaped Ainu or even proto-Native American pre-historic cultures?


    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=yemc20

    Charles Holcombe (2013) THE XIANBEI IN CHINESE HISTORY, Early Medieval China, 2013:19, 1-38.

    Whatever "Altaic" Macro-Mongolic early Koreanic or Japonic received, Sinitic also very well could receive due to interactions with Para-Mongolic or pre-Mongolic/Xianbei-Sarbi states such as the Tuoba Xianbei
    Last edited by Sklvn; 08-04-2021 at 01:35 AM.

  8. #105
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    But what about the Xiongnu, who radiated eastwards from their main Altai epicentre? There could also be a good chance that the Southern Xiongnu incorporated a large Xiajiadian influence when the Donghu and Wuhuan interacted with western neighbors in Hohhot and the Ordos regions of Inner Mongolia.

  9. #106
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7
    Sex

    I think we need more inputs from recent archaeology and linguistics.

    1. It is a consensus that the waves of people from Liao river region to Korean peninsular and from the peninsular to the Japanese archipelago in BA and IA are the most contributing diffusions to Japanese and Korean aDNA, however, we need to consider the waves from Tumen (Tuman) river region or southern Primorsky Krai to middle and southern Korea as the second important ones. There had been multiple waves from Tumen river region to the peninsular. Recent archaeology found huge BA and IA complexes in middle parts of the peninsular such as Jungdo site (in Chuncheon, Gangwon province), and the IA complexes show ample similarities with the cultures around Tumen river region, Tuanjie-Kronovka culture. Many archaeologists consider the culture as an offshoot of Okjeo (沃沮), and it seems that these people contributed hugely to the formation of early walled town states of Han river region, including early Paekche. This means that Korean aDNA (and probably Japanese aDNA to some degree) got more inputs of Devil's gate genes via the waves from Tumen river region, and I think it could distort modellings, meaning that LXJD, not UXJD, could be the most contributing one for Japanese and Korean.

    // FYI, archaeologically, late BA and IA waves leading to the formation of Paekche include (1) people from Koguryeo (around Yalu river region) who left stone mounds (probably spoke a Koreanic with some influence from OC), (2) the above mentioned offshoot of Okjeo (probably spoke a Koreanic with lesser influence from OC), (3) the Han (韓, Kara) people (probabaly mish mash of earlier Mumun Japonic and later Koreanic from Liao river region with later Liaoning type bronze dagger and clay stripe pottery, with some influence from OC) and (4) the people of coastal area adjacent to Yellow Sea in midwest and southwest region of the peninsular with earthen tumuli (墳丘墓, showing similarites to 吳越 土墩墓 of Yangtze region), a culture unidentified in old chronicles. Some archaeologists think the tumuli of coastal area led to the development of early stage 墳丘墓 of keyhole shaped tumuli of Japan, however, it is unclear in current stage. (I'm not talking about the keyhole shaped tumuli found in southern parts of the peninsular such as Yeongsan river area. The style of these later tumuli is clearly Japanese, and it seems that the prevailing consensus of Japanese and Korean archaeologists regading these later tumuli is they were from the military aids of Yamato Japan to Paekche to attack and manage Chimmidarye (忱彌多禮, トムタレ in Japanese chronicle) in southwestern coastal part of the peninsular.)

    2. Recently found wooden frames (木簡) from Paekche region show they (at least its ruling class) spoke a variation of Koreanic, see Lee, Seung-Jae (이승재)'s recent papers (in Korean). The wooden frames show the Paekche numerals were similar to Sillan and middle Korean ones, with a little differences. However, FYI, he is an altaicist and still weirdly following Lee, Ki-mun's legacy, meaning that he thinks Paekche numerals in later stage were different to Koguryeo ones due to Han (韓) influence, and He still thinks early Koguryeo and early Paekche languages were something in between of Sillan and Altaic and something closer to Japonic than to Koreanic.

    3. Regarding the Robbeets' paper, the most striking data was Daejungni's. Huge Jomon of other neolithic sites of southern coast of Korean peninsular could be somehow explained by close proximity to Kyushu, however, Daejungni is located in mid-western part of the peninsular, so nobody expected the result of about 20% of Jomon. This clearly means that Jomon admixture existed in large parts of middle and southern peninsular. And this also means that the Jomon admixture of mid-southern Korea needs to be diluted or gone by later waves from the Liao and Tumen river regions, considering 2-3% of Jomon in modern Korean DNA.

    // FYI, the soil of Korean peninsular is generally a little acidic so extracting good DNA is extremely difficult. That is why Korean DNA samples from Neolithic to IA are quite rare. However, some tombs with shell mounds near seashore or river bank have alkalic calcium carbonate in the soil, which makes the DNA from the soil more likely preserved.

    4. Recent archaeological data shows that population density had decreased before the arrival of clay stripe pottery culture from Liao river region, meaning the people of Mumun started to migrate and ultimately moved to Japanese archipelago due to climate change, leading to an accerelated dilution of Jomon admixture in Korean peninsular.

    // FYI, Yayoi complexes in Kyushu show clear similarities to Mumun sites of southern Korea, with some influence of Jomon and later waves from Liao river region with clay stripe pottery.

    5. Regarding the Mumun, archaeologically early Mumun sites show diffusions from Liao, Yalu and Tumen river regions, and later Mumun - Songguk-ri (or Songgukni) culture - clearly shows extensive wet rice farming and disappearance of hearth or fireplace inside houses (爐). This culture started from mid-southwestern coastal area and had been successfully diffused to almost every area of mid-southern peninsular, and even further to Jeju and Kyushu. Some archaeologists think this later Mumun was originally from warmer places such as regions between Shandong and Yangtze, however, there is still no evidence proving a set of cultural aspects migrated at the same time from somewhere outside of the peninsular. As I mentioned in secton 4, it seems that large portion of these people abandoned their homes due to climate change, but later the remanants had mixed with newcomers from Liao river region with clay stripe pottery, eventually becoming the Han (韓, Kara). And, it seems that the people of Songuk-ri culture who had migrated to Kyushu eventually became the core part of the builders of Yayoi sites, such as Yoshinogari. I think it is highly probable that these waves of Mumun - especially Songguk-ri culture - to the archipelago were Japonic-speaking.

    ---

    I personally think the model of Whitman (and Vovin, excluding the date of arrival of Koreanic) fits best for the above mentioned data. And I'm guessing that the main contributor for Japanese and Korean aDNA from the Liao river region was something close to LXJD, and if there was Japano-Koreanic common origin, the divergence between the two should be before the arrival of UXJD, or much earlier.
    Last edited by cassiusp; 08-06-2021 at 09:45 AM.

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

     Megalophias (08-07-2021),  Psynome (08-07-2021),  Ryukendo (08-07-2021)

  11. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by cassiusp View Post
    I think we need more inputs from recent archaeology and linguistics.

    1. It is a consensus that the waves of people from Liao river region to Korean peninsular and from the peninsular to the Japanese archipelago in BA and IA are the most contributing diffusions to Japanese and Korean aDNA, however, we need to consider the waves from Tumen (Tuman) river region or southern Primorsky Krai to middle and southern Korea as the second important ones. There had been multiple waves from Tumen river region to the peninsular. Recent archaeology found huge BA and IA complexes in middle parts of the peninsular such as Jungdo site (in Chuncheon, Gangwon province), and the IA complexes show ample similarities with the cultures around Tumen river region, Tuanjie-Kronovka culture. Many archaeologists consider the culture as an offshoot of Okjeo (沃沮), and it seems that these people contributed hugely to the formation of early walled town states of Han river region, including early Paekche. This means that Korean aDNA (and probably Japanese aDNA to some degree) got more inputs of Devil's gate genes via the waves from Tumen river region, and I think it could distort modellings, meaning that LXJD, not UXJD, could be the most contributing one for Japanese and Korean.

    // FYI, archaeologically, late BA and IA waves leading to the formation of Paekche include (1) people from Koguryeo (around Yalu river region) who left stone mounds (probably spoke a Koreanic with some influence from OC), (2) the above mentioned offshoot of Okjeo (probably spoke a Koreanic with lesser influence from OC), (3) the Han (韓, Kara) people (probabaly mish mash of earlier Mumun Japonic and later Koreanic from Liao river region with later Liaoning type bronze dagger and clay stripe pottery, with some influence from OC) and (4) the people of coastal area adjacent to Yellow Sea in midwest and southwest region of the peninsular with earthen tumuli (墳丘墓, showing similarites to 吳越 土墩墓 of Yangtze region), a culture unidentified in old chronicles. Some archaeologists think the tumuli of coastal area led to the development of early stage 墳丘墓 of keyhole shaped tumuli of Japan, however, it is unclear in current stage. (I'm not talking about the keyhole shaped tumuli found in southern parts of the peninsular such as Yeongsan river area. The style of these later tumuli is clearly Japanese, and it seems that the prevailing consensus of Japanese and Korean archaeologists regading these later tumuli is they were from the military aids of Yamato Japan to Paekche to attack and manage Chimmidarye (忱彌多禮, トムタレ in Japanese chronicle) in southwestern coastal part of the peninsular.)

    2. Recently found wooden frames (木簡) from Paekche region show they (at least its ruling class) spoke a variation of Koreanic, see Lee, Seung-Jae (이승재)'s recent papers (in Korean). The wooden frames show the Paekche numerals were similar to Sillan and middle Korean ones, with a little differences. However, FYI, he is an altaicist and still weirdly following Lee, Ki-mun's legacy, meaning that he thinks Paekche numerals in later stage were different to Koguryeo ones due to Han (韓) influence, and He still thinks early Koguryeo and early Paekche languages were something in between of Sillan and Altaic and something closer to Japonic than to Koreanic.

    3. Regarding the Robbeets' paper, the most striking data was Daejungni's. Huge Jomon of other neolithic sites of southern coast of Korean peninsular could be somehow explained by close proximity to Kyushu, however, Daejungni is located in mid-western part of the peninsular, so nobody expected the result of about 20% of Jomon. This clearly means that Jomon admixture existed in large parts of middle and southern peninsular. And this also means that the Jomon admixture of mid-southern Korea needs to be diluted or gone by later waves from the Liao and Tumen river regions, considering 2-3% of Jomon in modern Korean DNA.

    // FYI, the soil of Korean peninsular is generally a little acidic so extracting good DNA is extremely difficult. That is why Korean DNA samples from Neolithic to IA are quite rare. However, some tombs with shell mounds near seashore or river bank have alkalic calcium carbonate in the soil, which makes the DNA from the soil more likely preserved.

    4. Recent archaeological data shows that population density had decreased before the arrival of clay stripe pottery culture from Liao river region, meaning the people of Mumun started to migrate and ultimately moved to Japanese archipelago due to climate change, leading to an accerelated dilution of Jomon admixture in Korean peninsular.

    // FYI, Yayoi complexes in Kyushu show clear similarities to Mumun sites of southern Korea, with some influence of Jomon and later waves from Liao river region with clay stripe pottery.

    5. Regarding the Mumun, archaeologically early Mumun sites show diffusions from Liao, Yalu and Tumen river regions, and later Mumun - Songguk-ri (or Songgukni) culture - clearly shows extensive wet rice farming and disappearance of hearth or fireplace inside houses (爐). This culture started from mid-southwestern coastal area and had been successfully diffused to almost every area of mid-southern peninsular, and even further to Jeju and Kyushu. Some archaeologists think this later Mumun was originally from warmer places such as regions between Shandong and Yangtze, however, there is still no evidence proving a set of cultural aspects migrated at the same time from somewhere outside of the peninsular. As I mentioned in secton 4, it seems that large portion of these people abandoned their homes due to climate change, but later the remanants had mixed with newcomers from Liao river region with clay stripe pottery, eventually becoming the Han (韓, Kara). And, it seems that the people of Songuk-ri culture who had migrated to Kyushu eventually became the core part of the builders of Yayoi sites, such as Yoshinogari. I think it is highly probable that these waves of Mumun - especially Songguk-ri culture - to the archipelago were Japonic-speaking.

    ---

    I personally think the model of Whitman (and Vovin, excluding the date of arrival of Koreanic) fits best for the above mentioned data. And I'm guessing that the main contributor for Japanese and Korean aDNA from the Liao river region was something close to LXJD, and if there was Japano-Koreanic common origin, the divergence between the two should be before the arrival of UXJD, or much earlier.
    Which brings up an interesting point. Although Korean ethnics are often characterized as homogeneous, a more accurate picture, at least with this model, would be a tight gradient between proto-Koreanic (LXJD & UXJD) and Japonic (Mumun) with sprinkling of Chinese in the north and Jomon in the southern coasts. And even earlier was the Jeulmun culture, which is likely to have been Jomon related and probably the source of words with unknown etymology in Koguryeo reconstructions and in Japanese.

  12. #108
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but...
    Japanese and Korean societies historically did not seem to revolve around Northern Chinese networks but rather around east-coast Chinese ones, from the Shandong peninsula to the Yangtze delta region to Fujian province?

    Although Korean ethnics are often characterized as homogeneous, a more accurate picture, at least with this model, would be a tight gradient between proto-Koreanic (LXJD & UXJD) and Japonic (Mumun) with sprinkling of Chinese in the north and Jomon in the southern coasts. And even earlier was the Jeulmun culture, which is likely to have been Jomon related and probably the source of words with unknown etymology in Koguryeo reconstructions and in Japanese.
    Couldn't the same be said about Northern China? A smattering of Mongola or Korean in Beijing, here, and a smattering of Tibetan in Gansu, there. But with possible unknown Hongshan-related or even earlier Xinglongwa-descended words of unknown etymologica in regional lexicon not found in other Tibeto-Burman languages and in Sinitic lanuages of central or southern China?
    Last edited by Sklvn; 08-06-2021 at 10:58 AM.

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

     Songtsen (08-06-2021)

  14. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Sklvn View Post
    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but...
    Japanese and Korean societies historically did not seem to revolve around Northern Chinese networks but rather around east-coast Chinese ones, from the Shandong peninsula to the Yangtze delta region to Fujian province?
    Their interactions has predominately been with the dynastic royal courts in the Central Plains, as their main impetus for interacting with the Chinese has been cultural and technological innovations concentrated in the Chinese heartland, particularly during the Han and Tang dynasties. In the case of Korea, there has also been an occupation of Han Commanderies around the northwest of the peninsula.


    Couldn't the same be said about Northern China? A smattering of Mongola or Korean in Beijing, here, and a smattering of Tibetan in Gansu, there. But with possible unknown Hongshan-related or even earlier Xinglongwa-descended words of unknown etymologica in regional lexicon not found in other Tibeto-Burman languages and in Sinitic lanuages of central or southern China?
    People have been more aware that the North Chinese had more complex genetic histories. Based on the millennia of interactions with southern tribals and conquests from nomadic groups. Today North Chinese have approximately 5% West Eurasian contribution, this is not found among Koreans or Japanese.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to talljimmy0 For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (08-07-2021)

  16. #110
    Registered Users
    Posts
    67

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...7CE67A8EF8A593

    Kassian, Alexei S., George Starostin, Ilya M. Egorov, Ekaterina S. Logunova, and Anna V. Dybo. "Permutation Test Applied to Lexical Reconstructions Partially Supports the Altaic Linguistic Macrofamily." Evolutionary Human Sciences 3 (2021): E32. doi:10.1017/ehs.2021.28.

Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •