A new paper on Tibetan autosomal genetics holds some information relevant not just for Tibetans but for other East Asian and in general human peoples:
Binbin Wang et al., On the Origin of Tibetans and Their Genetic Basis in Adapting High-Altitude Environments. PLoS ONE 2011. Open access.
The generic place of Tibetans within Humankind
This is maybe the information of most generic interest, as it requires to map not just Tibetans and neighbors but also peoples from all over the world, notably Eurasia.
For this, figure 1 holds nearly all the relevant information. Some sub-graphs follow:
Above, the global Frappe structure results (A) place Tibetans clearly within East Asian populations (green) but show a distinctiveness of their own since K=6 (purple). In spite of sharing Y-DNA macro-haplogroup D with Japanese, Tibetans show no particular affinity with these (JPT).
In the East Asian specific results (B), at K=6, Tibetans again appear on their own, as do the other ethnic groups, except the Yi and Mongolians, who are subsumed within their neighbors to a great extent.
In the neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree (above), we can see that Tibetans again fall fully within the East Asian group (right fan). This structure is more interesting at this point for the global context anyhow because it can explain, for example, why in some cases West Eurasians and Africans may cluster together versus East Asians, depending on sampling conditions and probably the presence or absence of Indians (only some Pakistanis represent South Asia in this graph, as in so many others) as well as the numbers of sampled African (typically low because they are used as control only). If you draw a median line in this NJ tree, East Asians, in spite of their tight affinity with each other, fall to one half and West Eurasians and Africans fall to the other together.
Whatever this means, we can easily see that East Asians share an ancestral founder effect (including also Melanesians per previous research). However I must warn that this is more genuinely apparent in the HUGO consortium paper than here, because of the lack of Indian samples in this case. See here, here and here, for my own old entries in this matter (it is particularly clear in this graph).
By comparison only very homogeneous groups share such marked apparent founder effects, for example Europeans, West Africans, Pygmies, some (but not other) Indians. All these in the HUGO paper, in this paper instead, we can see again Europeans (but only represented by CEU, what is less meaningful), most Mozabites, most Bedouins, the other Levant populations (Palestinians, Druze and some Bedouins) and, very markedly, the Kalash.
However in the haploid genetic aspect East Asians do not seem so extremely "bottlenecked" as they do appear with autosomal genetics, not at all. In fact they host huge diversity within Eurasian haploid genetics. This is hard to explain, admittedly, but it clearly sends an alert signal for us to be extremely cautious and try to comprehend what really happened in this part of the World.
Tibetans are most closely related to the Yi
The term Yi (Nuoso in one of their languages, Lolo in Vietnam and Thailand) is a catchall term from Chinese ethnography to refer to an array of Tibeto-Burman-speaking peoples from Yunnan and nearby areas.
The close affinity between Tibetans and Yi in the context of East Asian populations is apparent when we apply the microscope, so to say, to the NJ tree (pictured above), as I did here:
It is easy to appreciate that, excluding the Mongol-Daur-Yakut loose group (suspect of minor West Eurasian admixture), the narrow East Asian founder effect split soon in three groups (of those shown here): Tibetans+Yi, the main group (Chinese, Cambodian and Lahu) and the Japanese - each of which diversified rapidly from those specific roots.
However this result is not coincident with the HUGO consortium tree (different method: maximum likelihood), where Cambodians fall in a SE Asian specific group and Chinese in a distinct SEA/EA/America shared one. So, as always, be careful before rushing to conclusions based only on one paper's data.
High altitude genes have been selected among Tibetans
Here we have another of those rare cases of selective sweeps in humans: adaption to high altitude among Tibetans. Two genes have been found to produce this striking adaption to hypoxia and confirmed in this paper: EGLN1 and EPAS1. The authors suspect that other genes, notably ANGPT1, ECE1, and LEPR, are probably also involved in this adaption to such a demanding ecology.
I don't know how are these colored tables constructed. Apparently, there are clusters such as YRI (Yoruba equals Africa?) in red Europe in pink, South Asia in purple, and East Asia in green. I don't understand how these clusters appear, if they're the result of the comparison of many markers or the authors just compare one population to another. I'm confused because the Yoruba appear to be "pure" while Middle Easterners are a mixture of Europeans, South Asians and Africans (Yoruba?). Why is the African population so homogeneous, and why aren't other African clusters, if African diversity is higher than those of Eurasians? It appears they can vary a lot, and the scientist who is doing the work can include the categories or clusters he/she want, even if they're the most classical ones, namely africans, europeans, asians and amerindians.
ReplyDeleteFrom the abstract:
ReplyDelete"Since their arrival in the Tibetan Plateau during the Neolithic Age"
I presume that means Y-hap O3's arrival. And Dienekes quotes from the paper:
"After the ancestors of Sino-Tibetans reached the upper and middle Yellow River basin, they divided into two subgroups: Proto-Tibeto-Burman and Proto-Chinese"
That sounds as though the authors accept southward movement from the region of the Chinese Neolthic. So I'll have to retract the comments I made about Chinese researchers being unwilling to countenance recent southward movement within China.
What this kind of Bayesian clustering algorithms (all very similar but each distinct in a copyright way at least) do is to assign a probability of belonging to discrete different hypothetical populations, the number of which is determined by K.
ReplyDeleteIn a simplest case in which you have 50 Congolese and 50 Chinese, at K=2 the clusters should be totally homogeneous for these two clearly distinct populations. However at K=3 you will begin to see more subtle internal differences, but typically disorganized within the individuals rather than in such discrete clusters. Some algorithms may even discard the third "population" to oblivion at K=3 in a case like this and you'd still have two populations at this level. This would of course depend on the homogeneity of both samples. If the Chinese are half from Beijing and half from Guandong, then it's likely that two clusters will show up at K=3 or maybe lower levels (K=4) if a subclustering within Congolese takes precedence.
That's how it works.
"I'm confused because the Yoruba appear to be "pure" while Middle Easterners are a mixture of Europeans, South Asians and Africans (Yoruba?)".
That's a normal result. But it may depend on sampling strategies and specific algorithm used.
HapMap samples anyhow "sin" of excessive homogeneity. This is also "normal" but admittedly annoying at times.
The Pink-Blue (and yellow) duality observed in "Middle Easterners" is one of those subdividisions that are not so clear cut and that are not always reproduced in all runs by all algorithms. So caution: they are less important divisions within West Eurasian relative homogeneity.
Some of these divisions may well vanish at deeper levels. For example in other papers Mozabites make up their own cluster and have much less (if any at all) Black African admixture. However they are a deeply rooted African cluster and hence they show affinity to other Africans at these shallow levels.
You can maybe best understand these clusters as greatest "affinity" of "genetic closeness" indicators.
I always complain that the analysis tend to be shallow (not sufficiently high K values). However in this case, considering that the target population are Tibetans, the algorithm seems properly used.
"Why is the African population so homogeneous, and why aren't other African clusters"...
ReplyDeleteYRI = Yorubans from Ibadan... like Catalans from Lleida, you know. They are likely to be homogeneous just because they are all from the same town.
YRI cannot represent Africa diversity, the same that JPT or CEU on their own cannot represent the Eurasian one. They are just used here as control group anyhow.
Terry: I make no sense of what you say. There's no mention to Neolithic anywhere except in your words.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case your quote is reliant on a wrong assumption: "These two subgroups were similar to the two ancestral components of EA populations at K = 2 (Figure S1B)".
This is a total nonsense: the order in which populations appear in a Bayesian structure analysis is not significant of the order of their separation and is in fact an amateurish claim.
Structure-like algorithms cannot describe on their own any order just sort populations into present-day affinity clusters. That's all: not little but you cannot infer history from how they show up in a particular run on a particular sample with a particular algorithm. That is variable and highly subject to sample size specially.
"In a simplest case in which you have 50 Congolese and 50 Chinese, at K=2 the clusters should be totally homogeneous for these two clearly distinct populations. However at K=3 you will begin to see more subtle internal differences, but typically disorganized within the individuals rather than in such discrete clusters. Some algorithms may even discard the third "population" to oblivion at K=3 in a case like this and you'd still have two populations at this level. This would of course depend on the homogeneity of both samples. If the Chinese are half from Beijing and half from Guandong, then it's likely that two clusters will show up at K=3 or maybe lower levels (K=4) if a subclustering within Congolese takes precedence."
ReplyDeleteThaks, now I understand much better, these K's are how closer you're looking into the specific populations, so more differences appear as the K gets bigger. Still, there are some non-explained results, such as: why do Sardinians are so "pure"? They seem to lack most admixtures found in other Europeans, and look like "pure" southern europeans, which doesn't convince me at all, because they vary a lot in looks. The same is true for Basques. I don't know if that has something to do with being relatively isolated and small populations.
"Some of these divisions may well vanish at deeper levels. For example in other papers Mozabites make up their own cluster and have much less (if any at all) Black African admixture. However they are a deeply rooted African cluster and hence they show affinity to other Africans at these shallow levels. "
Yes, that's pretty confusing. Spaniards show some East African admixture as well most of times. aWhen you loaok at the tree, Mozabites seem to cluster closer to Eurasians, but are among the first ones to diverge, the same is true for Middle Easterners. I don't know if that's because they have sub-saharan admixture or because they're simply a bit less closely related to other Eurasians than Europeans and East Asians are to each other.
"Still, there are some non-explained results, such as: why do Sardinians are so "pure"?"
ReplyDeleteThis one is easy: Sardinians are a rather isolated population, surely created with strong founder effects. Like the Kalash or others, they have their own founding "bottleneck" refined by some degree of inbreeding (increasing the rate of genetic drift and hence homogenization).
It also depends on samples a lot, i.e. what are you comparing with what and in what numbers.
And the algorithm also matters.
This is important and changes the results a lot. For example in this All West Eurasia comparison, Sardinians do not appear so homogeneous (but still quite).
An interesting element in this case of Sardinians is that (at K=8) their main component is not West Asian but European (middle blue) even if it is different from that dominating East (and NE) Europe (dark blue). However, like other Mediterranean peoples, they do have a notable West Asian component around the 10% but they lack the "Anatolian" or "Caucasian" Neolithic sub-component (light blue) which is present for example among Tuscans or Romanians specially.
"I don't know if that has something to do with being relatively isolated and small populations".
It has everything to do with being isolated populations. You are essentially trying to detect base populations and "admixture" with these tools. So a cosmopolitan Mediterranean population like Tuscans is going to show up invariably as 'multicolor' but the more isolated Sardinians not necessarily (or to a lesser extent).
This is totally normal.
"Spaniards show some East African admixture as well most of times".
East African?! I do not think so. What they do typically show up is West Asian admixture at low levels (up to 20% maybe), surely arrived with Neolithic and post-Neolithic flows.
"Mozabites seem to cluster closer to Eurasians, but are among the first ones to diverge, the same is true for Middle Easterners. I don't know if that's because they have sub-saharan admixture or because they're simply a bit less closely related to other Eurasians than Europeans and East Asians are to each other".
"East Asians"?? I'll assume you mean West Asians (otherwise it does not make sense).
Indeed, since the pioneering works of Cavalli-Sforza in the 1990s it became obvious that the peoples of all West Eurasia clustered together, being then (Russian-doll-like) most closely related to North Africans and then to South Asians. Not everything that CV "found" back then has been upheld by further studies but this part I is consistently supported.
North African peoples appear, in my understanding, to retain ancient African-specific components and/or have absorbed other trans-Saharan elements later on, for example with the Capsian (Afroasiatic probably) cultural flow from Nubia. This sets them somewhat apart from other West Eurasians but not too much. NW Africans also appear to have a clear SW European component, what is consistent with what I have often said about colonization from Iberia in relation with the genesis of Oranian culture and the abundance of SW European mtDNA (H and V).
"I make no sense of what you say. There's no mention to Neolithic anywhere except in your words".
ReplyDeleteThe first words in the introduction are:
"Humans first reached the Tibetan Plateau during the Last Glacial Maximum (22–8 kya) [1], and modern Tibetans can be traced back to Neolithic immigrants based on evidence found in the Y chromosome [2] and mitochondrial DNA [3]".
And:
"two distinct possibilities for whom the ancestors of modern Tibetans were: people who lived in the upper and middle Yellow River basin [3], [5] and Northern Asian populations [6]".
Northern Asians are ruled out by the research. That leaves 'people who lived in the upper and middle Yellow River basin'.
"This is a total nonsense: the order in which populations appear in a Bayesian structure analysis is not significant of the order of their separation and is in fact an amateurish claim".
Obviously I wasn't relying on any level of K.
Ok. They are wrong in any case. There is evidence for colonization of the outskirts of the Tibetan Plateau since c. 30 Ka ago and the high diversity o Y-DNA D among Tibetans (and nearly nobody else) is a clear indicator of a founder effect at the very first colonization of East Asia, not "Neolithic".
ReplyDeleteIt does in fact seems to be contradicted by many of their references, like Mian Zhao's "Mitochondrial genome evidence reveals successful Late Paleolithic settlement on the Tibetan Plateau".
So the reference to "Neolithic" therefore looks a fetishist reflex and nothing else. They are probably, like you, brainwashed by certain recentist "classical" interpretations of demographics, in which all hunter-gatherer groups where systematically replaced by Neolithic populations from outer space by magical means of some sort.
"Northern Asians are ruled out by the research. That leaves 'people who lived in the upper and middle Yellow River basin'".
Sichuan-Yunnan, sure.
However the colonization of Tibet is older than Neolithic in any case. Also Sichuan, and therefore Tibeto-Burman peoples in general, remained out of the Neolithic revolution for a very long time, only adopting agriculture at a later moment (probably because of ecological reasons in part).
"Obviously I wasn't relying on any level of K".
Not you, the authors are the ones making that outlandish claim!
"East African?! I do not think so. What they do typically show up is West Asian admixture at low levels (up to 20% maybe), surely arrived with Neolithic and post-Neolithic flows. "
ReplyDeleteEast African. Althought it's minimal and present among the Portuguese as well.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TMVdaRebw5I/AAAAAAAACxE/QuyuSf-JWgk/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.png
I don't understand either why do most Europeans seem to have some Amerindian admixture (dark green):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TP0bahmTC-I/AAAAAAAAC_E/qHJnm7irpzE/s1600/ADMIXTURE_4.png
""East Asians"?? I'll assume you mean West Asians (otherwise it does not make sense). "
Yes, East Asians (figure S7):
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/genetic-variation-within-africa-and-the-world/
Althought maybe it has no sense, and could well be due to the non trivial sub-saharan admixture levels we see in most Middle Easterners.
"This sets them somewhat apart from other West Eurasians but not too much. NW Africans also appear to have a clear SW European component, what is consistent with what I have often said about colonization from Iberia in relation with the genesis of Oranian culture and the abundance of SW European mtDNA (H and V)."
Yes I think that's well supported. Do you have read this study?
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2009/11/review-population-relationships-in.html
"East African. Althought it's minimal and present among the Portuguese as well".
ReplyDeleteWell, it's so minimal that it makes nearly no sense even taking it seriously. Specially as it'd seem that in that graph (where's the context: K=? other K levels?) the light purple component labelled by Dienekes as East African is relatively common among West Asians, who we already know that influenced Iberians and other Europeans.
I would not take Dienekes' decontextualized graphs too seriously anyhow.
"I don't understand either why do most Europeans seem to have some Amerindian admixture (dark green)"
The correct phrasing is "they appear to have" - there are too many illussions going on in these decontextualized graphs. I generally like my Bayesian analysis by the full series so I can see what is going on actually.
Anyhow it's Dienekes' again, right?
He's using an open source free program (MCLUST if I'm correct), whose analytic power is probably not the best. These uncertainties happen, do not get too bothered about them. When you have looked at hundreds of these graphs, preferably from academic papers, you'll be less excitable about the random noise stuff.
Only when such oddities appear once and again we should take them as real indicators. Flukes and noise do happen.
"Yes, East Asians (figure S7)".
I think you mean this one. Indeed these kind of trees often "misplace" populations because of admixture.
It is however a very interesting graph to illustrate the extremely high African diversity of which Eurasians are just a small subset. In this sense you will probably find it educative.
The reasons behind the exact position of Mozabites would be interesting to explore but I'd say that admixture is the case. However they appear "less African" than Cape Coloreds.
"Do you have read this study?"
Not really sure. Whatever the case it must be by now open access (AJHG applies a six-month embargo policy like PNAS) so I'll search for it because it looks interesting.
It's pay per-view. It's not the AJHG but the AJPA, a different publication. :(
ReplyDelete"It's pay per-view. It's not the AJHG but the AJPA, a different publication"
ReplyDelete:O I was reading it last night, and I didn't pay for anything.
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:6kc86PZUcOIJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=ca&as_sdt=0
I don't understand why can't I open the pdf now... :(
"It is however a very interesting graph to illustrate the extremely high African diversity of which Eurasians are just a small subset. In this sense you will probably find it educative."
Yes, and native americans appear very closely related to East Asians (even more with the Han?) despite their isolation, and Europeans with West Asians.
"They are probably, like you, brainwashed by certain recentist 'classical' interpretations of demographics, in which all hunter-gatherer groups where systematically replaced by Neolithic populations from outer space by magical means of some sort".
ReplyDeleteThe authors seem to be Chinese. Until recently scientists from there were not prepared to consider any substantial southward movement. They had accepted the 'recentist 'classical' interpretations of demographics' that claimed there had been a 'single rapid great southern coastal migration' that had given rise to the present distribution of haplogroups. I'm pleased to see they are now capable of interpreting the evidence for themselves.
"Sichuan-Yunnan, sure".
And remember when I told you a few months ago that the Chinese Neolithic had reached that region fairly early during its development?
"Also Sichuan, and therefore Tibeto-Burman peoples in general, remained out of the Neolithic revolution for a very long time, only adopting agriculture at a later moment (probably because of ecological reasons in part)".
And it was at that time they began their expansion.
"There is evidence for colonization of the outskirts of the Tibetan Plateau since c. 30 Ka ago and the high diversity o Y-DNA D among Tibetans (and nearly nobody else) is a clear indicator of a founder effect at the very first colonization of East Asia, not 'Neolithic'".
I agree that D was present in Tibet long before the Neolithic. But what about O3?
"I don't understand either why do most Europeans seem to have some Amerindian admixture (dark green)"
It seems that the earliest Americans have some sort of 'Caucasian' appearance. Perhaps the development of the Amerindians is exactly as Karafet et al (1999) suggested:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377800/pdf/10053017.pdf
They suggest that first Americans were a mixture of Central Asian Y-chromosomes and East Asian mtDNA.
"The authors seem to be Chinese. Until recently scientists from there were not prepared to consider any substantial southward movement".
ReplyDeleteI understand it's the opposite. Of course classifying scientists by mere nationality is pretty much futile, as each person is unique and evolves, but the Chinese Academy has always favored ideas like the ones you like as well, of massive north to south colonizations. They may have failed for Western interpretations with an "Oriental-Nordicist" flavor originally but in some cases they have also exaggerated them themselves, like when they argue for every other SEA culture to have migrated from Northern China somehow and for all non-macro-Altaic languages of the region to be related to Chinese.
"the Chinese Neolithic had reached that region fairly early during its development"...
Nope. Sichuan was a hunter-gatherer only area AFAIK for much longer than the lowlands, naturally. I do think that they were connected to the ancestors of North Chinese (the original Chinese speakers of Yangtze Neolithic), what is supportive of the Sino-Tibetan language family (sometimes questioned) but this family must be pre-Neolithic, as only Sinitic can be identified with the Yangtze Neolithic, while Tibeto-Burman must be identified with the (then) foragers of Sichuan.
"And it was at that time they began their expansion".
Their expansion where? Into Tibet? I don't think so. Maybe to the South but really I can't say for sure if some of that is rather pre-Neolithic or subneolithic or what.
"I agree that D was present in Tibet long before the Neolithic. But what about O3?"
I have not researched this matter, sorry. Probably also unless they have the very same subclades as the people of Hunan.
"It seems that the earliest Americans have some sort of 'Caucasian' appearance".
More than questionable. But whatever you see, what you really are seeing is the blurriness of the concept of "race".
"They suggest that first Americans were a mixture of Central Asian Y-chromosomes and East Asian mtDNA".
That is obvious and widely accepted. I'd dare say "West Eurasian" Y-DNA, as Q is more West Asian than anything else by diversity. But whatever.
But that doesn't change things much: mtDNA is always a much stronger indicator of overall ancestry and there was not such thing as modern racial categories in the early Upper Paleolithic when those "Q guys" migrated to the NE.
"mtDNA is always a much stronger indicator of overall ancestry"
ReplyDeleteHow can that be?
"there was not such thing as modern racial categories in the early Upper Paleolithic when those 'Q guys' migrated to the NE".
That's doubtful, especially as you've just admitted:
"That is obvious and widely accepted. I'd dare say 'West Eurasian' Y-DNA, as Q is more West Asian than anything else by diversity".
"Chinese Academy has always favored ideas like the ones you like as well, of massive north to south colonizations".
No they haven't. They were very keen on the idea that the Chinese originated through northward movement from SE Asia. They have never conceded that the Chinese have ever been an expansionist people.
"Nope. Sichuan was a hunter-gatherer only area AFAIK for much longer than the lowlands, naturally".
You were arguing the opposite not so long ago. You claimed that it was impossible that the Chinese Neolithic had failed to enter Sichuan because it was so close. The Chinese Neolithic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neolithic_cultures_of_China
According to the paper the Neolithic was well established in Sichuan by 5000 years ago.
"I do think that they were connected to the ancestors of North Chinese (the original Chinese speakers of Yangtze Neolithic), what is supportive of the Sino-Tibetan language family (sometimes questioned) but this family must be pre-Neolithic, as only Sinitic can be identified with the Yangtze Neolithic, while Tibeto-Burman must be identified with the (then) foragers of Sichuan".
It is quite possible that Tibeto-Burman is not a clade at all, let alone 'identified with the (then) foragers of Sichuan'. Sino-Tibetan broke into Han Chinese, Tibetan and Burman. And there's every possibility that the breakup was post the early Neolithic, otherwise we would not still be able to discern a relationship between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibeto-Burman_languages
From the link:
"The Sino-Tibetan [...] hypothesis entails that all Tibeto-Burman languages can be shown to have constituted a unity after Chinese split off, and that this must be demonstrable in the form of shared isoglosses, sound laws or morphological developments which define all of Tibeto-Burman as a unity as opposed to Sinitic. The innovations purportedly shared by all Tibeto-Burman subgroups except Chinese have never been demonstrated. In other words, no evidence has ever been adduced to support the rump ‘Tibeto-Burman’ subgroup explicitly assumed in the Sino-Tibetan phylogenetic model propagated by Paul Benedict".
Well, first the pointless non-discussion:
ReplyDelete"That's doubtful" - It's crystal clear to me
"especially as you've just admitted:
"That is obvious and widely accepted. I'd dare say 'West Eurasian' Y-DNA, as Q is more West Asian than anything else by diversity"".
Not really related: this is a geographical assertion not a "racial" one.
"No they haven't. They were very keen on the idea that the Chinese originated through northward movement from SE Asia".
First time I heard such idea. The classical Chinese Academy ethnogenetic paradigm is essentially the same as yours and admittedly maybe borrowed to some extent from Western authors but also expanded on their own.
Classical Chinese Academy positions also strongly favored multirregionalism.
"... the Neolithic was well established in Sichuan by 5000 years ago".
Yeah, so? That's extremely late: only 3000 BCE. It's about the same time as it was established here in Atlantic Europe.
By comparison Neolithic was established in other parts of the area since 7000 BCE or even earlier maybe. Sichuan and "SW China" (Yunnan, Tibet?) are the only regions of modern-day China without Neolithic after 6000 BCE.
I have a strong sense of deja vú at this point.
Now the substance.
ReplyDelete"It is quite possible that Tibeto-Burman is not a clade at all... Sino-Tibetan broke into Han Chinese, Tibetan and Burman".
The mainstream view is that one: "Most treatments, moreover, continue to follow the Sinitic [vs] Tibeto-Burman dichotomy of Benedict and later Matisoff".
If it's incorrect it should not be so important anyhow. In any case the Sinitic branch seems to directly correlate with the Neolithic of the Yangtze, while the rest of the family (unitary or diverse) corresponds to the (then) foragers of the highlands of SE China and such, Sichuan included.
"How can that be [that mtDNA represents ancestry better than Y-DNA]?"
Because of lesbian secret copulation techniques.
Ok just kidding.
Because Y-DNA is more easily subject to drift through de-facto polygyny with effects accumulating through the generations. Women can only have so many children in their lives, hence their lineages tend to persist much more than those of men (and also to be much more diverse for almost any given population).
"It's crystal clear to me"
ReplyDeleteIt certainly isn't crystal clear to me. We actually have no idea when the various regional varieties of human originated. Presumably humans began their regional diversification as soon as they'd dispersed from Africa.
"Classical Chinese Academy positions also strongly favored multirregionalism".
Yes. Until about 10-15 years ago. Then they realised that it could not be supported by the evidence, so they embraced the SE Asian origin hypothesis enthusiastically. Otherwise, they realised, Y-hap C would be the original North Chinese haplogroup. The three Os are the most common Chinese haplogroups so they had to devise some way to make it them first Chinese haplogroup. Hence they placed their origin in SE Asia, from where they entered an uninhabited China.
"In any case the Sinitic branch seems to directly correlate with the Neolithic of the Yangtze"
Agreed.
"while the rest of the family (unitary or diverse) corresponds to the (then) foragers of the highlands of SE China and such, Sichuan included".
And Sichuan is immediately next to that Neolithic. And the language is closely related, whether you accept Tibeto-Burman or not. The fact that the Tibeto-Burman language group is closely associated with Y-hap O3 strongly suggests that those 'foragers of the highlands of SE China and such, Sichuan included' were a product of early waves of movement from the Chinese Neolithic who turned back to foraging when they entered a reasonably uninhabited region. Y-hap O3 seems to have rapidly moved further south, and even emerged onto the Pacific.
"Because Y-DNA is more easily subject to drift through de-facto polygyny with effects accumulating through the generations".
In the case we're considering here the situation seems to be that Q was the first Y-hap into America, so would have contributed half the autosomal DNA.
"Women can only have so many children in their lives, hence their lineages tend to persist much more than those of men (and also to be much more diverse for almost any given population)".
That would allow men to contribute much more than just 50% of the autosomal DNA.
"By comparison Neolithic was established in other parts of the area since 7000 BCE or even earlier maybe. Sichuan and 'SW China' (Yunnan, Tibet?) are the only regions of modern-day China without Neolithic after 6000 BCE".
ReplyDeleteBut according to the paper the Tibetans didn't come from SW China originally anyway:
"After the ancestors of Sino-Tibetans reached the upper and middle Yellow River basin, they divided into two subgroups: Proto-Tibeto-Burman and Proto-Chinese [2]. These two subgroups were similar to the two ancestral components of EA populations at K = 2 (Figure S1B). The ancestral component which was dominant in Tibetan and Yi arose from the Proto-Tibeto-Burman subgroup, which marched on to south-west China and later, through one of its branches, became the ancestor of modern Tibetans. Proto-Tibeto-Burmans also spread over the Hengduan Mountains where the Yi have lived for hundreds of generations [28]"
Note: 'the upper and middle Yellow River basin'. Exactly the region of the early Chinese Neolithic. Also note: 'marched on to south-west China'. And: 'Proto-Tibeto-Burmans also spread over the Hengduan Mountains where the Yi have lived for hundreds of generations'. Also in Burma, Thailand and Vietnam. That's pretty good evidence for substantial southward movement from China into SE Asia, starting with the early Neolithic.
"Presumably humans began their regional diversification as soon as they'd dispersed from Africa".
ReplyDeleteI can agree with that but they did not "finish" (not that is ever finished anyhow) the typologies we now see until many thousands years later, closer to us in time than where you want to place them.
...
No language or language family is related to Y-DNA O3, nor did this lineage expand from North to South, much less in the Neolithic (it's at least 30 Ka old!)
...
"That would allow men to contribute much more than just 50% of the autosomal DNA".
Not unless "the same lot" of unmixed men arrives once and again through the centuries or millennia (as may have happened in parts of Latin America, as documented by chromosome X).
More normally however it's a case of a patrilocal band advancing into (or close enough to) other peoples' lands, marrying their women once and again and getting their autosomal DNA en masse. That was surely the case of proto-Amerindians with Y-DNA Q and that was also the case of proto-Finno-Ugric with Y-DNA N. And surely also the case of proto-Berber with Y-DNA E1b, etc.
If you think about it the second circumstance is much more natural and well documented in real genetics. Instead the first circumstance belongs to a modern colonial reality and only that.
"Not unless 'the same lot' of unmixed men arrives once and again through the centuries or millennia"
ReplyDeleteAs may have been the case in America. Just Y-hap Q may have arrived with a variety of mtDNA haplogroups. C is almost certainly a later, and less widespread, arrival.
"No language or language family is related to Y-DNA O3"
The author of this Wiki article disagrees, admittedly concerning just one clade of O3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O3_(Y-DNA)
From the link:
"The subgroup O3a5-M134 is particularly closely associated with Sino-Tibetan populations, and it is generally not found outside of areas where a Sino-Tibetan language is currently spoken or that are historically supposed to have undergone Chinese colonization or immigration, such as Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. However, its presence among non-Sino-Tibetan populations is always very limited and never amounts to more than 10% of the total Y-chromosome diversity".
Back to you:
"nor did this lineage expand from North to South"
Back to the link:
"Among all the populations of East and Southeast Asia, Haplogroup O3 is most closely associated with those that speak a Sinitic, Tibeto-Burman, or Hmong-Mien language. Haplogroup O3 comprises about 50% or more of the total Y-chromosome variation among the populations of each of these language families. The Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman language families are generally believed to be derived from a common Sino-Tibetan protolanguage, and most linguists place the homeland of the Sino-Tibetan language family somewhere in northern China. The Hmong-Mien languages and cultures, for various archaeological and ethnohistorical reasons, are also generally believed to have derived from a source somewhere north of their current distribution, perhaps in northern or central China".
"much less in the Neolithic (it's at least 30 Ka old!)"
I wouldn't be so sure of the age. Again from the link:
"Possible time of origin 10,000[1] to 30,000[2] years ago"
So it could be just 10,000 years old.
And another Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O_(Y-DNA)
From the link:
"Haplogroup O3a3c-M134: Found frequently among Sino-Tibetan peoples, with a moderate distribution throughout East Asia and Southeast Asia.
Haplogroup O3a3b-M7: Found frequently among Ancient Daxi culture and modern Hmong-Mien peoples"
I've also read elsewhere that Tibeto-Burman is possibly related to Hmong-Mien. So Hmong-Mien is also a product of southward movement from the early Chinese Neolithic.
Sorry but I cannot see how your Wiki-quotes have anything to do with what I was saying or what you mean to argue for.
ReplyDeleteIn any case some observations:
1. Sino-Tibetan is not the same as Sinitic. My whole point is that TB has forager origins in Sichuan and nearby areas. The cultural connection of the earliest Neolithic peoples of the Yangtze to these foragers of the hihghlands is enough to explain the Sino-Tibetan linguistic bond.
2. Hmong-Mien look to me like they did not "expand" from any "North" but rather are a residual population in a refuge area (highlands). If there are are archaeological or other reasons to think otherwise, I'd like to know them but just a vague mention is not convincing.
3. O3 may "never" (sic) exist in frequencies of more than 10% among non-Sino-Tibetan but that it is irrelevant. Frequency is not the same as diversity. R1b is not frequent in West Asia but it's likely original from there (where it's most diverse). There are many other examples.
"Hmong-Mien look to me like they did not 'expand' from any 'North' but rather are a residual population in a refuge area (highlands)".
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm aware you're the only person who would claim that. Perhaps some from North America or Europe who have never considered the pre-history of the East may agree with you though. In this part of the world it has long been accepted that they arrived where they are today from the north.
"Frequency is not the same as diversity. R1b is not frequent in West Asia but it's likely original from there (where it's most diverse)".
But in that case we can easily see that it has been replaced by later movements in West Asia. We do not see anything like that for O3. On the contrary O3 appears to be the most recent expansion through South China and SE Asia.
"Sino-Tibetan is not the same as Sinitic".
No. It's a branch of it. As is Hmong-Mien. As may also be the case for Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian.
"The cultural connection of the earliest Neolithic peoples of the Yangtze to these foragers of the hihghlands is enough to explain the Sino-Tibetan linguistic bond".
I see no problem with accepting that the haplogroup and the language spread ahead of the Neolithic. In fact the haplogroup spread way further than the language. As I said earlier, it eventually became associated with the eastern end of the Austronesian expansion. But originally both the haplogroup and the language were associated with the Chinese Neolithic.
"In this part of the world it has long been accepted that they arrived where they are today from the north".
ReplyDeleteWHY?
In this part of the World it has long been accepted that there is one God... but is that true? Defenders have never been able to posit any evidence whatsoever of their hypothesis and has since then lost much support.
"But in that case we can easily see that it has been replaced by later movements in West Asia".
Wrong! While it's possible that later movements may have introduced some residual stuff like tiny amounts of Y-DNA C3 in Turkey and more like scrambled around the maybe once more clearly separated lineages of the region, we are in Europe before a founder effect or otherwise bottleneck-like founder phenomenon. This is normal and happens every time a new place is settled: only a subset of the original genetic variance takes part in that colonization (and survives).
"No. [Sinitic?]'s a branch of [Sino-Tibetan?]. As is Hmong-Mien".
Hmong-Mien is AFAIK a linguistic isolate.
"As may also be the case for Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian".
Linguistic isolates.
I could conjecturally agree to all these East Asian language families sharing a common ancestor some 30 or 50 Ka ago but not in Neolithic times, sorry (recent relations, such as of Neolithic age, are relatively easy to spot and demonstrate).
"I see no problem with accepting that the haplogroup and the language spread ahead of the Neolithic".
It is a crucial difference.
"But originally both the haplogroup and the language were associated with the Chinese Neolithic".
No. Not just there are many "Chinese Neolithics", not any single one, but Yangtze Neolithic spread (indistinct from that of the Chinese state since the Bronze Age) cannot be attributed to non-Sinitic peoples in any way. All those peoples existed before Neolithic already either in Southern China (Hmong-Mien, Kradai), Taiwan (Austronesian), Indochina (Austroasiatic) or SW China (Tibeto-Burman). Similarly there were Korean-like peoples (and maybe others now linguistically extinct) in NE China's coasts and parts of Manchuria.
O3 existed in similar amounts (or at least a large fraction) as today in all these peoples. Your "Neolithicist" claim lacks substance.
"WHY?"
ReplyDeleteBecause all the evidence, including their own myths, indicate that is what has happened. It is just some people have difficulty accepting it as fact. Especially those who believe there was a single, ini-directional migration wave from Africa.
"In this part of the World it has long been accepted that there is one God... but is that true? Defenders have never been able to posit any evidence whatsoever of their hypothesis and has since then lost much support".
That's why your comparison is invalid: lack of evidence in this example, unlike the other one.
"Wrong! While it's possible that later movements may have introduced some residual stuff like tiny amounts of Y-DNA C3 in Turkey and more like scrambled around the maybe once more clearly separated lineages of the region, we are in Europe before a founder effect or otherwise bottleneck-like founder phenomenon".
Many Y-haps look to have entered Europe after R1b. R1a for a start. J, K, E, G, N, and I'd even bet that I is later than R1b. Most entered from the east, so it is no wonder that R1b is concentrated at the western edge of Europe.
"Hmong-Mien is AFAIK a linguistic isolate".
You're one of the few who accept that to be the case. Most accept it as being at least related to most other East Asian languages.
"I could conjecturally agree to all these East Asian language families sharing a common ancestor some 30 or 50 Ka ago but not in Neolithic times, sorry (recent relations, such as of Neolithic age, are relatively easy to spot and demonstrate)".
I'd accept that would be so for a 'recent' Neolithic separation, but I've read disagreements at your own blog as to the relationship between Basque and Caucasian languages, as well as Ligurian and Etruscan. Surely if there is such a relationship the separation can only be Neolithic. So we can see that early Neolithic relationships are at the extreme of discernability (if there is such a word).
"All those peoples existed before Neolithic already either in Southern China (Hmong-Mien, Kradai), Taiwan (Austronesian), Indochina (Austroasiatic) or SW China (Tibeto-Burman)".
Have you any evidence whatsoever for that belief? It is undoubtedly not true for most of them, if not all of them.
"Similarly there were Korean-like peoples (and maybe others now linguistically extinct) in NE China's coasts and parts of Manchuria".
And I accept completely that their languages are totally unrelated to any of the above. Same for the Japanese language. No-one claims a relationship between them and the collection of (almost certainly related) southern languages.
"O3 existed in similar amounts (or at least a large fraction) as today in all these peoples".
Yes. Having spread originally from the western end of the Chinese Neolithic. You know as well as I do that haplogroups can be spread quite independently of haplogroups. Why do you insist in lumping the two phenomena in this particular case?
"Because all the evidence, including their own myths, indicate that is what has happened"
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence? I do find difficult indeed to accept that people relegated to the highest lands and fragmented in a thousand pockets were not the original inhabitants of the land, who have been pushed around (and absorbed possibly) by newcomers.
I may be wrong but I'd like to know why: which evidence, archaeological, genetic or otherwise, supports that northern immigration theory. And where exactly would they have originated in the vastness and ambiguity of the term "north".
...
As for the rest, it's not me, it's Wikipedia, in this case acting as mirror of the consensus, who denies your claims:
Hmong-Mien: "One of the world's primary language families" (it also says that some include it in the Austric, but not Sino-Tibetan, macro-family).
"Have you any evidence whatsoever for that belief?" [SE Asian macro-peoples existing in SE Asia before Neolithic]
That's the conclusion I reach to when I see where they exist, where Neolithic cultures formed and spread to, and which are the genetic connections of these peoples. It's at least a founded "belief" and not a mere hollow one.
We have explored this matter at least in one or several occasions before.
"You know as well as I do that haplogroups can be spread quite independently of haplogroups".
Erm?
"Many Y-haps look to have entered Europe after R1b".
We were talking West Asia, not Europe. Stay focused please.
Curiously the only ones that still claim (out of inertia, I understand) that Hmong-Mien is part of Sino-Tibetan and that originated in the North are Chinese scholars. This supports my earlier claim of Chinese Academy liking to favor Northern origins versus Southern ones, at least traditionally.
ReplyDeleteSo when you, Terry, proclaim yourself happy about Chinese academics discovering supposed Northern origins for all SE Asian peoples, you are wrong: they have traditionally claimed that to as large extent as possible (for obvious ethnocentric reasons).
"Curiously the only ones that still claim (out of inertia, I understand) that Hmong-Mien is part of Sino-Tibetan and that originated in the North are Chinese scholars".
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find a few Australian scholars also agree. They have no axe to grind and look at the evidence without pre-conceived ideas. And if you check some Chinese papers from earlier this century you will find a southern origin claimed.
"What evidence? I do find difficult indeed to accept that people relegated to the highest lands and fragmented in a thousand pockets were not the original inhabitants of the land, who have been pushed around (and absorbed possibly) by newcomers".
Would you call that 'evidence' or 'opinion'? And the evidence suggests that these 'hill people' in south China are relatively recent arrivals. The giant panda has survived until recently but is in immanent danger of becoming extinct following the srrival of people. I would like to know when the orangutan became extinct in southern China. Could be revealing.
"which evidence, archaeological, genetic or otherwise, supports that northern immigration theory".
The languages (although I'd agree that you are not prepared to accept that as evidence), The apparent mixing of Papuan and Mongoloid phenotype in South China and SE Asia with the Papuan phenotype becoming stronger the further southward, the recent reduction of the panda's range, the sudden expansion of Austronesian-speaking people, and even the paper you've blogged about here claims such a movement:
"After the ancestors of Sino-Tibetans reached the upper and middle Yellow River basin, they divided into two subgroups: Proto-Tibeto-Burman and Proto-Chinese"
I realise you have a track record of cherry-picking information from the papers you blog about depending on whether it fits your mythconception, but on this occasion it is particularly obvious.
"That's the conclusion I reach to when I see where they exist"
Again not evidence but opinion.
"where Neolithic cultures formed and spread to"
Yes. The far eastern Neolithic began in the Yangtze/Yellow river basins and spread south. Hoabinhian is not really 'Neolithic'.
"and which are the genetic connections of these peoples".
Yes. Many M mtDNAs spread north from NE India before some members then expanded south. There is no evidence at all for a northward movement of Y-hap O whereas a southward movement fits much more closely to other evidence. Obviously haplogroup NO must have moved north, but quite likely not very far inland.
(continued)
"We have explored this matter at least in one or several occasions before".
ReplyDeleteI remember Ebizur listing a huge amount of data regarding O. Unfortuantely I took very little notice at the time. Was it at Leherensuge? If you can find it that would certainly provide interesting evidence at this point.
"We were talking West Asia, not Europe. Stay focused please".
You brought up the subject of Y-hap R1b as evidence in relation to diversity and origin in comparison with O. Concerning R1b you wrote:
"we [R1b] are in Europe before a founder effect or otherwise bottleneck-like founder phenomenon".
To me R1b is probably the oldest surviving Y-hap in Europe. Especially as one of its close relations, Q, is probably the earliest American haplogroup. Q tends to be East Eurasian while R1b is West Eurasian. Q is very common amoung the Kets and Selkups. These people live in the northward-flowing Yenesey River valley. So it looks as though the route to America was to the north of the Central Asian mountains, perhaps via the Upper Lena valley, at 55-60 degrees north.
If Y-hap Q could survive so far north in Central Asia surely its relative R1b could also survive as far north in Western Eurasia. This would fit a Gravettian entry for R1b. The other Y-haps in Europe are all most parsimoniously explained as Neolithic. These later haplogroups have diluted R1b in eastern Europe, leaving the haplogroup as a cline of decreasing presence from west to east. Simple. No need to invoke 'founder effect', 'drift' or 'bottleneck'.
"And the evidence suggests that these 'hill people' in south China are relatively recent arrivals".
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence? You have presented no evidence whatsoever, just conjectures and rumors.
"The apparent mixing of Papuan and Mongoloid phenotype in South China"...
... is only in your imagination.
There is zero genetic evidence of such conjectural admixture. The only meaningful genetic divide in the area is at Wallace Line with a cline going through Wallacea, (East and South and not West and North of that natural divide).
You are too much influenced by anthropometry speculations, which are more often than not totally wrong. One must always be most cautious with such stuff.
What such anthropometric data suggests is that there is no expanding "Mongoloid race" but, if anything, a "refining" of that type in the Northern peripheries. We have to understand that "races" are not "pure breeds" but mere arbitrary categories probably based (at least often) on real and deep genetic affinity but not on recent expansion of "pure races" from "urheimats" into other parts of the World. Is much looser than that.
"I realise you have a track record of cherry-picking information from the papers you blog about depending on whether it fits your mythconception, but on this occasion it is particularly obvious".
Opinions of the authors are not "information". In fact they may well be misinformation, as happens in this case.
I'll stick to the data and ignore (or even openly criticize) opinions, unless they are clearly substantiated. That is my way of doing things and researchers should abstain from siding with a hypothesis unless they have clear support, what is not the case.
If you want me to write an update section criticizing all the nonsense unsubstantiated opinions poured by the authors, I'll have to do it. But in general I expect people to be critical of such things and read "between lines" (critically) and specially into the hard data.
"Hoabinhian is not really 'Neolithic'".
AFAIK SE Asian Neolithic is Hoabinhian, regardless that this culture is also Paleolithic. This cultural continuity is important, indicating ethnic continuity as well. It is a similar case as in NW Africa, where Neolithic and Late Paleolithic are both of the same culture: Capsian.
....
...
ReplyDelete"I remember Ebizur listing a huge amount of data regarding O. Unfortuantely I took very little notice at the time".
It's easy: look for the discussions' posts in your mail archive and find it.
He did argue for O2 to be evenly split between North and South, all the rest looks clearly southerner by origin, including N.
"You brought up the subject of Y-hap R1b as evidence in relation to diversity and origin in comparison with O."
Yes and precisely that's why I mean to stay focused in West Asia (aka Middle East - not East Asia) in this part of the debate. You are trying to displace the debate to Europe totally confusing things.
"To me R1b is probably the oldest surviving Y-hap in Europe".
That we do not know. I is probably as old or maybe even older.
Whatever the case, I want to focus on West Asia, not Europe because both R1b and IJ originate there.
"Q tends to be East Eurasian while R1b is West Eurasian".
Q is not East Eurasian at all, you could say that it's North Asian but the greatest diversity is in West Asia (also found in SA and CA) and maybe even North Africa. Of course, by frequency Q is primarily American but this is like R1b or others where frequency and diversity do not correlate well (a clear signature of a founder effect).
"Q is very common amoung the Kets and Selkups. These people live in the northward-flowing Yenesey River valley"...
... in West Siberia. More Eastern is Altai and even more among Yakuts, where Q frequencies are high but diversity is low.
"So it looks as though the route to America was to the north of the Central Asian mountains, perhaps via the Upper Lena valley, at 55-60 degrees north".
Not really: they are surely distinct branches. All those areas were too cold to be inhabited when the ancestors of Native Americans made their way to Beringia. Altai is a much more reasonably node, though I cannot really track the lineage between Altai and Chukotka.
I would not give too much importance to Y-DNA anyhow, as said before, mtDNA normally matters much more.
"It's easy: look for the discussions' posts in your mail archive and find it".
ReplyDeleteFound it, I think, thanks to your index at Leherensuge:
http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/03/indonesian-y-dna-is-mostly-paleolithic.html
"He did argue for O2 to be evenly split between North and South, all the rest looks clearly southerner by origin, including N".
You'd have trouble placing N in the south. Interestingly he wrote:
"If the findings of O1a2-M110 in Kra-Dai-speaking populations of both southern China and Southeast Asia (Northeastern Thailand in this case) are accurate, they may be considered evidence to support the hypothesis of Kra-Dai being the nearest sister taxon (in the stammbaum paradigm) or the nearest neighbor (in the sprachbund paradigm) to Austronesian".
So Austronesian and Thai-Kradai may be related. And, Ebizur again:
"Mon-Khmer speakers from southern China
Bolyu (Li Hui et al. 2008)
1/30 = 3.3% DE-YAP(xD1-M15)
1/30 = 3.3% K-M9(xM1-M5, O-M175, P-M45)
3/30 = 10.0% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)
3/30 = 10.0% O1a-M119(xO1a2-M110)
1/30 = 3.3% O1a2-M110
7/30 = 23.3% O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88/M111)
9/30 = 30.0% O3-M122(xO3a1-M121, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)
2/30 = 6.7% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)
3/30 = 10.0% O3a3c1-M117"
Note that 46.7% of them are O3, generally considered a Tibeto-Burman haplogroup. Evidence of a connection between Mon-Kmer and Sino-Tibetan? Mon-Kmer is usually considered a relation of Austro-Asiatic which implies Y-hap O2a. Just 23% of this sample. However O2a is more common in Cambodian speakers of Mon-Kmer (34.6%). Ebizur yet again:
"Probably Mon-Khmer speakers from Southeast Asia, but possibly having some Chamic Austronesian or Southern Daic ancestry
Cambodian (Su Bing et al. 1999 & 2000)
1/26 = 3.8% H1 (=Y*(xDYS287, M89))
1/26 = 3.8% H3 (=D1-M15)
3/26 = 11.5% H4 (=F-M89(xK-M9))
3/26 = 11.5% H5 (=K-M9(xO3-M122, O1a-M119, O2a-M95, P-M45, M1-M5))
1/26 = 3.8% H6 (=O3-M122(xO3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134))
4/26 = 15.4% H8 (=O3a3c-M134)
1/26 = 3.8% H9 (=O1a-M119(xO1a2-M50/M110/M103))
1/26 = 3.8% H10 (=O1a2-M50/M110/M103)
6/26 = 23.1% H11 (=O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88/M111))
3/26 = 11.5% H12 (=O2a1-M88/M111)
1/26 = 3.8% H14 (=P-M45(xQ1a1-M120, Q1a3a-M3, R1a1a-M17))
1/26 = 3.8% H16 (=R1a1a-M17)"
So we have the following language sequence in SE Asia, that I think we agreed on at the post on Laos:
1) Hmong-Mien, AKA Miao-Yao. Related to Sino-Tibetan or Tibeto-Burman? Mainly Y-hap O3. Moved south from the upper and middle Yellow River, according to the current paper.
2) Austro-Asiatic, AKA Mon-Kmer, Munda. Mainly Y-hap O2a. Possibly took a coastal route south from the eastern end of the early Chinese Neolithic as its close relation O2b tends to be Japanese/Korean/Northern Han.
3) Thai-Kradai, AKA Daic, Kradai. And, following on from Ebizur’s comment above, perhaps Austronesian is a branch of Kradai. Mainly Y-hap O1. Comes from somewhere in South/Central China.
And Ebizur also wrote:
"The various Hmong-Mien peoples (Miao, Yao, She) and the Tujia are considered to have preceded the Han in south-central/southeastern parts of mainland China. These pre-Han ethnic groups should have absorbed any remnants of even earlier ethnic groups in the region that had failed to flee elsewhere"
Seems to imply he accepts that the 'The various Hmong-Mien peoples' moved south from somewhere further north.
(continued)
"Yes and precisely that's why I mean to stay focused in West Asia (aka Middle East - not East Asia) in this part of the debate".
ReplyDeleteTo me it is obvious that R1b entered Europe from West Asia. Presumably R1b is no longer as common in West Asia as it once was because it has been replaced there to some extent by other haplogroups. That is exactly the same reason for the gap between the Central Asian and American Qs. And the reason why haplogroups other than O have disjointed distributions in South China and Southeast Asia. The various Os were the most recent to enter the region.
"Altai is a much more reasonably node, though I cannot really track the lineage between Altai and Chukotka".
As I said, almost certainly to the north of the Central Asian mountains. If humans could survive in much of Europe during the Gravettian it surely was quite possible for them to survive in the Mountains of Central Asia, especially in the south-facing valleys.
"What evidence? You have presented no evidence whatsoever, just conjectures and rumors".
And there is exactly no evidence for them to have been long-established through the hill region of southwest China, especially any regions above about 2000 metres altitude. I'll get back to you reagrding the panda, tapir and orangutan.
"... is only in your imagination".
It is fairly widely accepted by anyone who has actually studied the migration into the Pacific that the leg beyong the Solomons was by people of mixed Mongoloid and Papuan phenotype. However if it doesn't fit your mythconception feel free to disagree.
"What such anthropometric data suggests is that there is no expanding 'Mongoloid race' but, if anything, a 'refining' of that type in the Northern peripheries".
So what environmental condition would have led to such a 'refining' i n the north but not in the south?
"Opinions of the authors are not 'information'. In fact they may well be misinformation, as happens in this case".
'Misinformation' only because you are unable to accept the information in this case because it runs counter to some belief you hold.
"I'll stick to the data and ignore (or even openly criticize) opinions, unless they are clearly substantiated".
The authors obviouslsy felt no need to provide evidence for their statement because they assumed most would already accept it as fact.
"AFAIK SE Asian Neolithic is Hoabinhian, regardless that this culture is also Paleolithic. This cultural continuity is important, indicating ethnic continuity as well".
Yes. The Hoabinhian is barely 'Neolithic', but it does display 'cultural continuity' with earlier cultures in the region. Suggests that Y-hap O was not involved in it at all. This is unlike the microlithic culture. that follows, almost certainly an introduction of both culture and genes from the north. This position is widely accepted by those who have actually studied the region.
Panda facts:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.china.org.cn/english/features/panda/37997.htm
Quote:
"Giant pandas live in a few mountain ranges in central China’s Sichuan, Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces. They once lived in lowland areas, but farming, forest clearing, and other development now restrict giant pandas to the mountains".
The hill people are farmers too, but obviously haven't been there long enough to drive the pandas to extinction. And a little more:
http://slack.net/~rd/wanglang/panda_facts.htm
Quote:
"The panda first appeared 2 to 3 million years ago. Originally, panda territory included South and East China and parts of Myanmar and Northern Vietnam. Fossil evidence shows that pandas lived almost as far north as Beijing. Today, pandas are found in six isolated forest areas in Sichuan, Gansu, and Shaanxi provinces in China".
Unfortunately the article doesn't state how long ago that extinction happened. And another that is reasonably specific about the reason for their contracting range:
http://www.bearsoftheworld.net/giant_panda_bears.asp
Quote:
"At one time, giant panda bears inhabited most of southern and eastern China, northern Myanmar, and northern Vietnam. However, over thousands of years, hunting, climatic changes, farming and land development have continuously declined their number and forced them higher into the mountains".
I think they're being a little in denial with their inclusion of 'climatic changes'.
Now the orangutan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan
Quote:
"Native to Indonesia and Malaysia, orangutans are currently found only in rainforests on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, though fossils have been found in Java, the Thai-Malay Peninsula, Vietnam and Mainland China".
Fossils? How old? Can't find any relevant information I'm afraid.
O3(xO3a3c) is more common to the north in those samples (and probably in general). So? We are still talking just frequency, not diversity.
ReplyDelete"Moved south from the upper and middle Yellow River, according to the current paper".
Not based on the data: it's just a historical speculation unrelated to the data. This is not something that you can use in your argumentation: it's not any evidence, just opinion or even, I'd dare say acritical parroting of older opinions.
"Austronesian and Thai-Kradai may be related".
It's possible but that brings the issue of whether it was the Kradai (or Tai-Kadai) ethnos or the Hmong-Mien ethnos the one of the Corded Ware Neolithic of the Pearl River. A relation with Austronesian would suggest that it was Kradai, and hence Hmnong-Mien would be the ones of the original Hunan Neolithic. But it may be the other way around or a number of various different combos.
What I do not think is that there is any reason whatsoever to claim that the Hmong-Mien are recent arrivals at all. Their highland location rather suggest that they are survivors from the expansion of other peoples.
"Presumably R1b is no longer as common in West Asia as it once was because it has been replaced there to some extent by other haplogroups".
ReplyDeleteExactly what I was trying to counter when you got lost because you think of R1b as "European", when it is in fact a widely spread haplogroup, even if most frequent in West Europe (as a particular variant: R1b1b2a1a).
I say that R1b was never "replaced" in West Asia, at most it was diluted with other local haplogroups (assuming that a more clear cut differentiation existed in the UP, what is by no means guaranteed to be true). All (but very minor amounts) of West Asian Y-DNA is native and that includes R1b (but also J, G and others). Maybe the most important outliers are E1b1b (African by origin) and R1a (maybe of a more recent South Asian or East European origin) but they are rather minor in their presence.
R1b was never replaced in West Asia. It was also never dominant there. Its dominance in West Europe happened no doubt via founder effect and drift: it's a fluke, as so many others.
"As I said, almost certainly to the north of the Central Asian mountains".
Do you have a relevant sample? If not you cannot either "track the lineage [Q] between Altai and Chukotka".
"So what environmental condition would have led to such a 'refining' i n the north but not in the south?"
Smaller founder population, "inbreeding" if you wish to use your pastoralist language. The South retained better the ancestral variability or part of it and that is what looks to you as "Papuan" and "Australoid" to others.
What some call "Australoid" is only "ancestraloid", i.e. better retention of the primeval Eurasian phenotype by means of a larger genetic pool. Similarly Africans also retain better the ancestral phenotypes of H. sapiens and do in fact resemble in many aspects more our Neanderthal cousins than Neanderthal-admixed Eurasians.
...
"The authors obviouslsy felt no need to provide evidence for their statement because they assumed most would already accept it as fact".
That's doctrinarian, ideological-authoritarian - they behave here like a religious minister would, not providing any evidence of the existence of "God" or all the fables they tell to their flock.
It's not acceptable from any critical viewpoint.
"Suggests that Y-hap O was not involved in it at all" [in Hoabinhian Neolithic].
Because you say so, I presume.
"This position is widely accepted by those who have actually studied the region".
I am highly sceptic.
"The hill people are farmers too, but obviously haven't been there long enough to drive the pandas to extinction".
They have been for many millennia for sure already in any case... I'm sorry that the hill peoples contradict your preconceptions about the destructive nature of humans.
"O3(xO3a3c) is more common to the north in those samples (and probably in general). So? We are still talking just frequency, not diversity".
ReplyDeleteTrue. But the diversity is also almost certainly greater in the north. It is just that Austronesian O3 has not beeen tested for downstream mutations because the original research was done by people who expected O to have originated in SE Asia and then spread north.
"it's just a historical speculation unrelated to the data".
No. It's based on archeology. And when more southern O3 is tested genetics will show it to be true as well. When I get time I'll have a look for some links, although I'm sure you will dismiss them.
"A relation with Austronesian would suggest that it was Kradai, and hence Hmnong-Mien would be the ones of the original Hunan Neolithic".
I very much suspect that to be the case. The Austronesian-speaking people must have entered Taiwan from somewhere.
"What I do not think is that there is any reason whatsoever to claim that the Hmong-Mien are recent arrivals at all. Their highland location rather suggest that they are survivors from the expansion of other peoples".
It seems you didn't get my links on panda extinction, but that evidence suggests that the first farmers in the region were not hill dwellers. The panda died out on the lower land as farming expanded. So it is true 'that they are survivors from the expansion of other peoples' but they were themselves immigrants. Simply the first immigrants.
"I say that R1b was never 'replaced' in West Asia, at most it was diluted with other local haplogroups"
Exactly. Just as the expansion of O has diluted the earlier local haplogroups in the south.
"Its dominance in West Europe happened no doubt via founder effect and drift: it's a fluke, as so many others".
How can you seriously believe that when you've just written, 'R1b was never 'replaced' in West Asia, at most it was diluted with other local haplogroups'? Surely the fact is simply that it was never so diluted in the west. No drift, bottleneck or founder effect involved.
"Do you have a relevant sample? If not you cannot either 'track the lineage [Q] between Altai and Chukotka'".
Q is thinly spread through the north. Through the Uygurs, Altaics, Evenks, Yakuts, Koryaks and on into America. It is basically not found at all south of the mountains, such as in Mongolia, although it is present to a small extent in the Northern Han.
"Smaller founder population, 'inbreeding' if you wish to use your pastoralist language. The South retained better the ancestral variability or part of it and that is what looks to you as 'Papuan' and 'Australoid' to others".
I was refering to the region immediately south of the mountains, such a Northern China and Mongolia. The Papuan and Australoid people were never further north than South China. My bet is that Q was largely excluded from the region south of the mountains because O already occupied that region.
"That's doctrinarian, ideological-authoritarian - they behave here like a religious minister would, not providing any evidence of the existence of 'God' or all the fables they tell to their flock"
No it's not. It's just that you've never bothered to look at the evidence.
"They have been for many millennia for sure already in any case... I'm sorry that the hill peoples contradict your preconceptions about the destructive nature of humans".
I'm sorry. I can't be bothered searching for the panda evidence again, but I'm sure that if you're really interested you'll be able to find it for yourself. You will than see that, far from contradicting my statements it supports them more than adequately.
Found it:
ReplyDeletePanda facts:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/panda/37997.htm
Quote:
"Giant pandas live in a few mountain ranges in central China’s Sichuan, Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces. They once lived in lowland areas, but farming, forest clearing, and other development now restrict giant pandas to the mountains".
The hill people are farmers too, but obviously haven't been there long enough to drive the pandas to extinction. And a little more:
http://slack.net/~rd/wanglang/panda_facts.htm
Quote:
"The panda first appeared 2 to 3 million years ago. Originally, panda territory included South and East China and parts of Myanmar and Northern Vietnam. Fossil evidence shows that pandas lived almost as far north as Beijing. Today, pandas are found in six isolated forest areas in Sichuan, Gansu, and Shaanxi provinces in China".
Unfortunately the article doesn't state how long ago that extinction happened. And another that is reasonably specific about the reason for their contracting range:
http://www.bearsoftheworld.net/giant_panda_bears.asp
Quote:
"At one time, giant panda bears inhabited most of southern and eastern China, northern Myanmar, and northern Vietnam. However, over thousands of years, hunting, climatic changes, farming and land development have continuously declined their number and forced them higher into the mountains".
I think they're being a little in denial with their inclusion of 'climatic changes'.
Now the orangutan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan
Quote:
"Native to Indonesia and Malaysia, orangutans are currently found only in rainforests on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, though fossils have been found in Java, the Thai-Malay Peninsula, Vietnam and Mainland China".
Fossils? How old? Can't find any relevant information I'm afraid.
"No it's not. It's just that you've never bothered to look at the evidence".
ReplyDeleteA quick look and I found this:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/083/0125/ant0830125.pdf
It may not be directly relevant but the introduction contains this comment:
"While the cultural sequence is agreed by most scholars, its timing is not. The ancestors of the first rice farmers in Southeast Asia probably lived in the Yangtze Valley to the north (Liu et al 2007) and spread south, via the coast and the major rivers, to enter the broad riverine plains of Southeast Asia. They brought their Austro-Asiatic languages, and a way of life that centred on settled village communities ..."
I'll see if I can find more.
Hong-Shi 2005. 'Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122'.
ReplyDeleteWere you (obliquely) asking for advice on how to continue with your blog? Make an analysis of Hong Shi 2005 from your "Asian-Nordicist" point of view, for example. You have a lot of controversial (and potentially) interesting ideas which you debate in this blog comments section. Many of them surely deserve an exercise of introspection, which can be done as you write an entry (and research the details) into such topics.
Also allow the blog to show in your profile, that way people who may think you have intriguing opinions can follow your track more easily and read you there.
"It's based on archeology".
AFAIK East Asian Neolithic originates in South China, not far from today's Hmong-Mien homeland. If you have anything to add please document it properly.
"I very much suspect that to be the case".
That would make Hmong-Mien not immigrants from the North but native from the South.
"It seems you didn't get my links on panda extinction"...
I did but I did not make much sense of them. That is only something you infer and does not explain how pandas have not gone extinct in the last millennia in any case.
While timelines of extinctions may tell something about humans, the information they provide is anything but clear and highly subject to interpretation, something you love to do in a very much one-sided manner.
...
...
ReplyDelete"Exactly".
You did not understand what I meant: that at most R1b, G and J had been scrambled a bit among them being maybe (but only maybe) more strictly separated in the past. No expansion that I can detect, as all lineages are local and have juts been moved around without much direction.
Similarly in SEA the various O (and other) lineages may have been scrambled around a bit, specially with the Neolithic flows, but they were over there since the beginning (or almost) anyhow.
If you think that there has been any major demographic movement to the point of replacement, you must demonstrate it clearly, preferably via archaeology. There are some such cases (Central European Neolithic, it seems) but they seem exceptions rather than rules.
"I was refering to the region immediately south of the mountains, such a Northern China and Mongolia".
Mountains? Altai mountains? I generally think that the barrier over there is the Gobi desert, plus climate, not any mountains.
Whatever the case, North China and Mongolia is not what I think when I read "south". So I'm getting lost here. Where were we?
"It's just that you've never bothered to look at the evidence".
Like the so obvious miracles or Noah's ark photos on top of the Ararat mountain.
It is you who are making strange claims and who should provide evidence (preferably clear human evidence, not panda one).
I do not think that your "panda facts" explain anything, at least not on their own. Not driving the pandas to extinction does not mean that the farmers were not there.
And anyhow when I suggest that people have been pushed to the mountains, I am not saying that they always lived there: only since they were pushed out of the lowlands first and the midlands later, or specially since then.
"The ancestors of the first rice farmers in Southeast Asia probably lived in the Yangtze Valley to the north (Liu et al 2007) and spread south"...
For what I know of the Neolithic of East Asia this idea is not acceptable. There is an alleged very early Neolithic culture in the Yangtze but it could well be a Mesolithic one, one related to the Jomon or Ainu (as they share the pottery concepts and timeline).
If we ignore this isolated and highly debatable culture, East Asian Neolithic begins in the South. It does not "expand" to the North in a demic manner but it's possible that Sino-Tibetan foragers migrated to the North (from Sichuan, where foraging was retained) while adopting the first trustworthy farming of that area.
"Hong-Shi 2005. 'Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122'".
ReplyDeleteI've seen it before, and I'm sure I've pointed out the discrepancies. From the paper:
"In general, the distribution of the O3-M122 haplotypes did not show distinctive divergence between southern and northern populations, with all the major subhaplogroups shared between them—except for O3-M7, which was observed only in the southern populations and therefore indicates a recent common ancestry of the O3-M122 lineage in East Asia".
Agreed: 'recent common ancestry of the O3-M122 lineage in East Asia'. And:
"Figure 6A shows that there was a lot of similar STR evolution after the emergence of O3-M122, and many shared STR haplotypes were observed between northern and southern populations, again confirmation of the recent common ancestry of the M122 lineage in East Asia".
Yet they can claim:
"It was estimated that the early northward migration of the O3-M122 lineages in East Asia occurred ~25,000–30,000 years ago"
Doesn't make sense. What's more:
"In the MDS map, the Hmong-Mien populations were clustered closely with Han populations, which reflects the recorded history of admixture (Wang 1994)".
And:
"It has been well documented that the Tibeto-Burman populations living in southwestern China were originally, during the late Neolithic period, from the north"
Back to you:
"AFAIK East Asian Neolithic originates in South China, not far from today's Hmong-Mien homeland".
No. Upper Yangtze and Yellow River valleys. Low hill country, as in the fertile Crescent.
"I did but I did not make much sense of them. That is only something you infer and does not explain how pandas have not gone extinct in the last millennia in any case".
Does it really not tell you that the region where pandas have not gone extinct has only recently been settled?
"Not driving the pandas to extinction does not mean that the farmers were not there".
It's a very good indication that they weren't.
"that at most R1b, G and J had been scrambled a bit among them being maybe (but only maybe) more strictly separated in the past".
With that sort of reasoning it would be impossible to deduce anything from modern haplogroup distribution. It certainly looks to me as though R1b moved west to the north of all the other haplogroups. It then broke into regional varieties, thus explaining the 'all lineages are local and have juts been moved around without much direction'. G and J have later been able to expand north as well, diluting the proportion of R1b in those regions where they were able to expand to in force.
"but they were over there since the beginning (or almost) anyhow".
How do you come to accept that when the linked paper showed there is little regional variation of O, unlike R1b.
"Mountains? Altai mountains? I generally think that the barrier over there is the Gobi desert, plus climate, not any mountains".
The Gobi desert lies to the south of the Central Asian mountains. I invite you to look at a map.
"If we ignore this isolated and highly debatable culture"
Highly debatable? By who?
Do yourself a favor: read less the text and look more at the data, for example:
ReplyDeleteTake fig. 4 (haplogroup frequencies) and try to find the centroid. As the figures are irregular and have diverse densities, you have to be somewhat intuitive but the human brain has resources to do that properly with great accuracy anyhow by mere intuition.
I just did it and all six centroid fall by the middle Yangtze in southern China, roughly by Chongqing, which we can speculate with some reason that was at the origin of O3 and its various subclades at the time of the colonization of East Asia.
Then look at fig.6 (haplotype networks) and check that at least most haplogroups appear to have southern origins. This fig 6 is their main evidence, btw.
I understand that Hong-Shi 2005 is a very good paper of the kind that I wish all research in genetics was made of (wide sampling, well reasoned conclusions, reasonable age estimates). It was in fact by the time I first read this paper when I began to understand that the Northern Origin theory was a nonsense. Also I realized then that O3's similarly ranked cousin, R1, must have also be of those ages and claiming it as "Neolithic" made no sense at all.
"I just did it and all six centroid fall by the middle Yangtze in southern China"
ReplyDeleteAnd where did the Chinese Neolithic start?
"Also I realized then that O3's similarly ranked cousin, R1, must have also be of those ages and claiming it as 'Neolithic' made no sense at all".
But O's expansion cannit be ancinet at all. All haplogroups are distrubuted through much of China. Surely that strongly suggests that it's expansion was recent and included a whole swag of different clades. The distribution of R1b's clades, on the other hand, do fit an ancient expansion.
"I do not think that your 'panda facts' explain anything, at least not on their own".
Of course they don't. Especially if you don't actually bother to read them. You wrote:
"And anyhow when I suggest that people have been pushed to the mountains, I am not saying that they always lived there: only since they were pushed out of the lowlands first and the midlands later, or specially since then".
Yet an extract from my 'panda facts' says:
"They once lived in lowland areas, but farming, forest clearing, and other development now restrict giant pandas to the mountains"
Hmmmm.
"And where did the Chinese Neolithic start?"
ReplyDeleteNot just "Chinese", all East Asian Neolithic seems to have began in that area of Hunan. However the spread of O seems older in most cases because the centroids often go into Sichuan, which remained forager for many millennia after that.
Also Hunan Neolithic does not look like expanding demographically but by cultural influence. Like elsewhere,early Neolithic must not have been advantageous over foraging except in very specific ecological conditions maybe (if at all). If you look at East Asian Neolithic it looks more like the spread of a concept though all the area, more or less simultaneously, than the spread of any people.
"But O's expansion cannit be ancinet at all. All haplogroups are distrubuted through much of China".
This seems to be the mental barrier you have: the political concept of China. You should think rather in terms of East Asia: a lot of non-Han peoples are high in O lineages. They often do not even speak languages related to Sinitic at all.
O is like R: it is widespread across ethnic borders: they signify the ancient expansion of K/MNOPS in these two regions of East Asia (O) and South-West Eurasia (R).
"The distribution of R1b's clades, on the other hand, do fit an ancient expansion".
Not if you think like Balaresque or Dienekes... If you are persuaded that massive human expansions must have happened in Neolithic times, then you will see R1b as "Neolithic". It does not fit bit neither does O3 in East Asia (no particular clade for the Yellow River Neolithic for example, etc.)
"Yet an extract from my 'panda facts' says:
"They once lived in lowland areas, but farming, forest clearing, and other development now restrict giant pandas to the mountains"".
So the region was desert all the time? I say because, according to you, the mere presence of human beings anywhere seems to be enough to kill any animal larger than a squirrel.
"So the region was desert all the time? I say because, according to you, the mere presence of human beings anywhere seems to be enough to kill any animal larger than a squirrel".
ReplyDeleteYou said yourself that the Hmong-Mien moved first into the lowlands. And now that I've shown the panda became extinct first in the lowlands you pretend to be stupid. Or perhaps the word shouldn't be 'pretend'. You certainly do not like to be proved wrong, do you?
"O is like R: it is widespread across ethnic borders"
But the two haplogroups are different in very significant ways.
"Not if you think like Balaresque or Dienekes... If you are persuaded that massive human expansions must have happened in Neolithic times, then you will see R1b as 'Neolithic'".
I certainly do not dee R1b's expansion as Neolithic. It may even be Gravettian.
"If you look at East Asian Neolithic it looks more like the spread of a concept though all the area, more or less simultaneously, than the spread of any people".
It certainly doesn't look that way to me.
"However the spread of O seems older in most cases because the centroids often go into Sichuan, which remained forager for many millennia after that".
The 'spread of O' cannot be all that ancient. The same derived clades are widespread. And what do you find so surprising about humans entering a new region reverting to hunter-gathering? It has happened elsewhere.
"neither does O3 in East Asia (no particular clade for the Yellow River Neolithic for example, etc.)"
Exactly. The Yellow River Neolithic contains virtually all the O3 clades, along with several representatives of O1 and O2. Y-hap O may have a relatively ancient diversification, but its spread is certainly not ancient.
"You should think rather in terms of East Asia: a lot of non-Han peoples are high in O lineages".
Yes, because those O lineages have recently been absorbed into those groups.
"They often do not even speak languages related to Sinitic at all".
Firstly, many people believe those languages are related to Sinitic. But more importantly, language is as often associated with mtDNA as with Y-hap. Besides which you recently argued convincingly with Andrew that haplogroups do not provide a good corelation with languages. So why the sudden change of position?
"You said yourself that the Hmong-Mien moved first into the lowlands"...
ReplyDeleteBut you are also saying that Hmong-Mien only recently arrived from a semi-mythical North. So how was the situation before them, when the pandas thrived? No people at all anywhere in all the region?
(Of course it is a rhetorical and somewhat sarcastic question - but otherwise a honest one because your discourse is full of such logical fault lines).
"It certainly doesn't look that way to me".
Each of early "China" Neolithic cultures is distinct, yet all are roughly contemporary:
Southern Neolithic: cord-decorated pottery (two variants)
Yangtze Neolithic: plain pottery (example)
Shandong Neolithic: semi-subterranean homes (unique trait)
Gansu Neolithic: painted pottery
South Manchuria: dragon imagery, jade, burials under homes
I do not know enough but all I know suggest an array of different nations united by technology (Neolithic) but not culture. And this does not include the subneolithic foragers, like those of Sichuan, etc.
Erratum: above says "Yangtze Neolithic" and should read "Yellow River Neolithic".
ReplyDelete...
"The 'spread of O' cannot be all that ancient. The same derived clades are widespread".
So it is in Europe or other places. What it seems clear to me is that, after the first wave of C and D peoples, there was a second wave of NO (mostly O) peoples replacing them largely, at least in the patrilineal side of things.
But this must have happened in what we term (European chronological frame) the
early Upper Paleolithic (50-30 Ka ago). Or maybe around the LGM, when blade techs take over the area, maybe from the south (Hoabinhian). Sadly it is an ill-known process from the archaeological point of view yet.
But the evidence is much better for Neolithic and there is no sign of major population expansions in that time frame.
"And what do you find so surprising about humans entering a new region reverting to hunter-gathering? It has happened elsewhere".
But keeping Neolithic advances like pottery... Anyhow, please demonstrate it. (And not sure why you even bring this up).
"Y-hap O may have a relatively ancient diversification, but its spread is certainly not ancient".
Just repeating this to exhaustion is not going to demonstrate anything.
"those O lineages have recently been absorbed into those groups" [what allegedly explains how Y-DNA O got into non-Han]
Nonsense. They would have become Sinitic by language (elite dominance) and anyhow it just does not make sense no matter how you look at it. Chinese (Sinitic speakers, Han) expanded only with the Chinese empire, which is a rather well documented historical process in which there were some localized and more general but diffuse colonizations but mostly consisted in assimilating the natives to the dominant culture and language (what means identity: a Han is one who speaks Chinese and feels Chinese).
"Besides which you recently argued convincingly with Andrew that haplogroups do not provide a good corelation with languages. So why the sudden change of position?"
I'm not changing the position. My argumentation with Andrew was that people do change language (hence they would "easily" adopt Sinitic or any other expansive, advantageous language) but that genes cannot change. Hence peoples absorbing some Sinitic blood are likely to become Sinitic in culture and language much more easily than in genes. It can even be the case that peoples are assimilated without even the slightest genetic penetration, just by political-economical-cultural dominance over them.
I'm not changing my stand, you are misunderstanding it:
People stay put, languages (and therefore ethnic identities) move.
That is (very roughly) my thesis in the matter. Of course there are exceptions but the rule stands anyhow.
Or to put it more clear:
ReplyDeletePeople and genes are like the turtle, who moves only slowly. Languages, cultures and ethnic identities are instead like the hare, who moves fast.
Like in the tale, the turtle may exceptionally beat the hare... but that's not the normal case in Nature.
"People and genes are like the turtle, who moves only slowly".
ReplyDeleteThey move rapidly if they're moving into a previously unoccupied region.
"But you are also saying that Hmong-Mien only recently arrived from a semi-mythical North. So how was the situation before them, when the pandas thrived? No people at all anywhere in all the region?"
Correct. People werer confined to the hill country lower than about 1500 metres. The panda began progressively disappearing as the Hmong-Mien people expanded. Don't you think it is more than just coincidence that the panda's extinction matches the pattern of the movement from lowland to highland, exactly as you postulated?
"Each of early 'China' Neolithic cultures is distinct, yet all are roughly contemporary"
And contiguous. So it would not be surprising if each of the regions you list originally had a different dialect of a common language.
"there was a second wave of NO (mostly O) peoples replacing them largely, at least in the patrilineal side of things".
But the expansion was first of all of haplogroups M, NO, P and S. M and S east to New Guinea, P west through India and NO north, probably along the Chinese coast. P obviously broke up rapidly because R1a is widespread through India, but to me it looks very much as though NO had moved well north before diversifying into N, O1, O2 and O3.
"Or maybe around the LGM, when blade techs take over the area, maybe from the south (Hoabinhian). Sadly it is an ill-known process from the archaeological point of view yet".
The Hoabinhian is not noted for blade technology, so those 'maybes' do not explain the situation. On the other hand there seems to be well-defined movement of technology southward beginning around 6-7000 years ago, or even more recently.
"Nonsense. They would have become Sinitic by language (elite dominance)"
Doesn't necessarily follow at all. Perhaps that comment is influenced by a patriarchal viewpoint.
"Chinese (Sinitic speakers, Han) expanded only with the Chinese empire, which is a rather well documented historical process"
Yes. That goes for the Han group of languages. But that expansion appears to be a continuation of a process set in motion long before.
"They move rapidly if they're moving into a previously unoccupied region".
ReplyDeleteMaybe but there are no such "empty regions" (excepting the far north) since the early colonization of Eurasia by Homo sapiens. At that time, possibly culminating c. 50 Ka (calibrating using the earliest expansion to West Eurasia), all usable regions were surely occupied already in South, SE and East Asia, and that's why people began pouring into Neanderthal controlled and deserts' protected West Eurasia and, separately but more or less simultaneously, into the cold and challenging East Asian North.
"Don't you think it is more than just coincidence that the panda's extinction matches the pattern of the movement from lowland to highland, exactly as you postulated?"
I have not postulated that: I have not described any single timeline as you claim and I think that people lived in the lowlands and midlands and surely also in the highlands, at least seasonally, since some 60 Ka ago or more.
The panda did not go extinct then. Only the arrival and expansion of farming seems to have affected it seriously but this is not a process of mere human colonization but of a changing economy.
"P obviously broke up rapidly because R1a is widespread through India"...
Just like O3 is widespread through China.
"but to me it looks very much as though NO had moved well north before diversifying into N, O1, O2 and O3".
No, the origins of N are towards the South the frequencies and sampling are too low to decide with certainty but in a an arch from Yunnan to Shanghai in any case, because there's where N's diversity seems higher as far as I can tell.
That is also the case of O3 and O1, the only issue would be with O2 but I'd say that, because of parsimony this lineage also should have originated towards the South, even if it seems a coastal lineage by origin and that explains the ancientness of a distinct Northern clade (O2b, founder effect) which could be as old as C3 or D1 in the area (or only somewhat more recent).
What it does look like is as if NO overall diversified in what is now South China, rather than Indochina or Sundaland. I'm not sure right now whether this is because of unequal research in the area or it is a genuine finding.
In any case, all these lineages are not northernly by origin: they surely expanded from South to North in China (even if there's been some lesser backflow in recent times).
"The Hoabinhian is not noted for blade technology"...
ReplyDeleteThere is blade tech within Hoabinhian AFAIK. I'm not sure of the details right now but Hoabinhian is for that reason often considered the "Upper Paleolithic" culture of SE Asia.
"Doesn't necessarily follow at all. Perhaps that comment is influenced by a patriarchal viewpoint".
Austronesian became dominant almost in every community where some meaningful Austronesian-related genetics is found.
It does follow to me that when populations emigrate with a superior tech, even if they absorb a large number of locals, they will typically impose their conditions, meaning language, identity and most customs. Isolated groups might become absorbed by a pre-existent local majority but we are not discussing such lesser migrations here, are we?
"... that expansion appears to be a continuation of a process set in motion long before".
I do not think you can draw such conclusions from archaeology. Not at all.
"Austronesian became dominant almost in every community where some meaningful Austronesian-related genetics is found".
ReplyDeleteAnd in most regions where 'some meaningful Austronesian-related genetics' are found it seems they are the only genetic presence, and they were probably the first there.
"At that time, possibly culminating c. 50 Ka (calibrating using the earliest expansion to West Eurasia), all usable regions were surely occupied already in South, SE and East Asia"
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Jungle-clad mountains have never been favoured human habitat.
"No, the origins of N are towards the South"
And I certainly wouldn't be so certain of that.
"In any case, all these lineages are not northernly by origin: they surely expanded from South to North in China"
It seems extremely likely that mtDNAs B and F expanded from south to north, but their spread may have been coastal, because they eventually became especially common in the islands and peninsulars of SE Asia. So their presence in the South Chinese mountains may be relativley recent.
With acknowledgement to your blog on Laos my guess is that members of mtDNA haplogroups A, D, M7, M8/CZ, M9/E, M12'G and N9 may all have accompanied the various Y-hap Os as they moved into the South China mountains. So they probably do not have an ancient presence there either.
But, as you point out, if this is so then they must have been moving into a largely uninhabited region. That is actually quite possible. The Hoabinhian definitely looks to have some coastal connection. As does O2a. I've considered before the possibility that, as well as being associated with the spread of Austro-Asiatic, O2a is associated with the Hoabinhian. But I've yet to decide. I'm sure that O2a was the first O haplogroup to reach the south though.
That leaves members of mtDNAs M21, M23'75, M1'20'51, M71, M72, M73'79, N10 and N11 as candidates for early presence in the South China mountains. None are especially common. In fact most have just recently been discovered. So the mountains were almost certainly sparsely settled bfore the Neolithic.
"There is blade tech within Hoabinhian AFAIK. I'm not sure of the details right now but Hoabinhian is for that reason often considered the 'Upper Paleolithic' culture of SE Asia".
ReplyDeleteWe've already discussed this aspect of the Hoabinhian:
http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/09/hoabinhian-neolithic-site.html
A comment I made there includes the following from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoabinhian
"3) The term 'Sumatralith' should be retained
4) The Hoabinhian Industry should be referred to as a 'cobble' rather that a 'pebble' tool industry ... A sumatralith is an oval to rectangular shaped stone artefact made by unifacially flaking around the circumference of a cobble. It is often used to infer the Hoabinhian character of a lithic assemblage".
Further comment from there:
"It has become a common term in the English based literature to describe stone artifact assemblages in Southeast Asia that contain flaked, cobble artifacts, dated to c. 10,000–2000 BCE"
And:
"Bacsonian is often regarded as a variation of the Hoabinhian industry characterized by a higher frequency of edge-grounded cobble artifacts compared to earlier Hoabinhian artifacts, dated to c. 8000–4000 BCE".
Doesn't really look like a blade technology.
I'm going to have to concede in the issue of blades. I was saying from memory but I cannot find a single support right now after a long search.
ReplyDelete@Maju
ReplyDeleteYou don't appear to be differentiate between historical and prehistoric migrations and take into account ethnogenesis.
The Chinese geneticists who said that O3 indicates Han Chinese expansion from north to southern China did not mean that they thought O3 originated in the north.
What their premise is that while O3 originated in the south in pre-historic times (note the pre historic), and it moved from south to north, ethnic groups didn't form yet. There was no such thing as Han Chinese or Tibetans or the southern minorities in China like the Miao, Yi, Zhuang, and others.
Ethnic groups began forming later and then nation states formed, and as these ethnicities formed, it happened that the Han Chinese ethnic group in northern China formed with a majority of O3, while the natives of southern China like the Zhuang formed with majority O1 and O2.
Then in historic times (note historic, where we have recorded history), the Han Chinese conquered southern China and began mass migration to the south, bringing O3 to make up the majority of the Haplogroup in southern China, after conquering and then expanding their population at the expanse of the natives.
If you look at the first census in Chinese history from Han dynasty China 2,000 years ago, (in 2 CE) the Han Chinese population in northern China numbers in the tens of millions around the Yellow River and Huai River valleys, while southern China by comparison is a vast emptiness, with the native peoples sparsely populating the population. Keep in mind that with earlier state formation and large scale agriculture, the Han Chinese were able to expand their population much more.
Later we have recorded migrations of large numbers of Han Chinese fleeing from northern to southern China during the Wu Hu invasions and the Jin invasion of the Song dynasty.
While O3 originated in the south in prehistoric times, and moved from south to north, before any ethnic groups appeared, after the onset of ethnogenesis and the formation of nation states, the recorded migration of majority O3 carrying Han Chinese is north to south.
The differences between native ethnic groups and Han is stark in southern China. Southern Han have majority O3 while the Tai Kadai Zhuang are majority O1 and O2.
Just look at what happened in Taiwan and Singapore. Before the 17th century, the majority of Taiwan was inhabited by the aboriginal Austronesians and Singapore was majority Malay. Since the 17th century up till 1895, millions of Han Chinese poured into Taiwan and swamped the native aboriginals and over a million arrived again after 1949, to the point where Taiwan is now 98% Han and only 2% aboriginal.
Now Singapore likewise is over 70% Han Chinese, while Malays make up a minority.
You cannot attribute that to elite dominance or switching languages or culture. Even though their ancestral O3 originated in the south in prehistoric times, in historical times, the migration has been north to south.
Its like a white American moving back to Europe and then you test his Y chromosome and tell him that he never came from America because his Y chromosome originated in Europe.
I believe that I'm well aware of the fact that modern peoples' ethnogenesis is more recent than Paleolithic but even those peoples arose from something. Southern Han are very distinct from the Northern Han and often are more similar to their non-Han neighbors than to Northern Chinese. They are by no means a mere offshoot but a complex mix whose main components are clearly pre-Chinese.
DeleteIn any case there was also a S→N expansion of O3 in the Metal Ages' period, so, genetically speaking the core of Han formation in the North has also southern roots. Previously the populations of the North were more similar to Mongols and Siberians. There must have been also a Metal Ages' expansion to the Sanghai area, which was in the Neolithic similar to Taiwan Aborigines and Austronesians. I insist: the origin of this O3 expansion does not seem to be in the North at all but neither in the East.
"... in historical times, the migration has been north to south."
Notwithstanding exceptions, the "migration" is not such but essentially just conquest and assimilation (seems a quite generalized pattern in the Metal Ages'). An exception could be the Shangai area (unsure) but otherwise there is no strong evidence of mass colonization-replacement from Northern China but rather a great deal of continuity.
Southern Han have the same mtdna and autosomal DNA as non-Han minorities, but their Y chromosome proportions are vastly different. But southern Han and northern Han have the same Y chromosome proportions ( both majority O3), while their mtdna and autosomal DNA are different.
DeleteAn example are the Cantonese (a southern Han group) in Guangdong, and the Tai speaking Zhuang minority who live next door to them in Guangxi, (the pre-Han native inhabitants of Guangdong were Tai like the Zhuang)
Cantonese are majority O3 just like Northern Han, while Zhuang are majority O, O2a and O1. The Zhuang should also be majority O3 if it was mostly from natives.
The theory those researchers came up with is that southern Han's Y chromosome was largely contributed by northern Han and their mtdna and autosomal DNA came from the native peoples.
The north-south migration is not just posited for Han people. Ethnic minorities themselves migrated from north to south in historic times.
The Miao minority within the last few hundred years, migrated from southern China into southeast asia (Laos and Vietnam) where they became the Hmong, due to Han migrants pushing the Miao south and crushing Miao rebellions in southern China.
Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) speaking peoples are in fact believed to have originated near the central Yangtze river region in Hubei and Hunan provinces of China, but now they are scattered far south of that region in Yunnan, Guizhou, and as I mentioned, in southeast asia too.
Tai speaking peoples originated in southern China but pushed into modern day Thailand where they took over from the Mon-Khmer peoples.
O3 is a large category, and one that originated in the South, not the North, as I explained to you previously with link and maps of aDNA.
DeleteBut let's see if I can help you a bit further:
Hong Shi 2005 (on the Southern origin of O3) → http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226206/
Just a quick look at fig.1 shows that South China minorities have frequencies of O3 perfectly comparable to those of the Han or even greater.
Fig. 4 details the most important O3 subclades, all of which peak in the South.
Fig. 6 shows how ever single O3 sublineage appears to have a southern root. Most of them in minorities (red) and the other two (M324 and M122) in the Southern Han (assimilated minorities probably). Not a single O3 subclade originates in the North of China.
It is very clear and it is known since 2005!!! Nobody yet has challenged this key paper.
→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/04/haplogroup-o3-downstream-structure.html (differences between three regional Han populations and refined O3 structure).
"The north-south migration is not just posited for Han people. Ethnic minorities themselves migrated from north to south in historic times".
That's a myth in essence. Military conquest is not "migration".
Don't worry: it happens everywhere: "migration" has become a fetiche word for conquest and assimilation. That way the "race", the "stock" is imaginarily preserved and people don't have to face that they are >90% descendants of the victims of such military conquest.
But in most cases it is a myth everywhere, Germanic, Slavs, Chinese, Indo-Aryans, Burmese, Jews, Arabs, Thai, Turkic, Malays... all them were conquerors rather than migrants. Of course localized colonization surely happened here and there, not necessarily originating from the same source as the conqueror force (enough that it was dependent on them) and, once assimilated, the new subjects could become force for new expansions, but in general all these ethno-cultural expansion patterns of the Metal Ages relied on the military might of an elite which needed more subjects to exploit. These subjects were eventually assimilated into the elite's ethno-linguistic identity, naturally.