Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
M122+, P201-/M122+, P201+ rationes in Koreans
Topic Started: Jun 2 2018, 02:42:50 PM (138 Views)
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
Gyeongsang sample (n=84): 19/12=1,5833
Beijing Han control sample (n=51): 14/21=0,6667
Jeolla sample: 14/24=0,5833
"Seoul-Gyeonggi" sample (n=111): 20/36=0,5556
total Korean sample of Kim Soon-Hee et al. 2011 (n=506): 78/146=0,5342
Gangwon sample (n=63): 8/16=0,5
Jeju sample (n=87): 5/32=0,1563

Source:
Kim Soon-Hee et al. 2011: "High frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup O2b-SRY465 lineages in Korea: a genetic perspective on the peopling of Korea"; doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-2-10
Edited by black man, Jun 3 2018, 08:46:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
luxemen
Member
[ *  * ]
Could you please explain what this thread in laymen's terms? Very confused.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
Nurizone
Jun 2 2018, 10:07:40 PM
Could you please explain what this thread in laymen's terms? Very confused.
This is an offshoot of our thread at http://www.anthropedia.science/topic/10039011/1/#new , which is on the spread of certain y-chromosomal SNP markers. As you can see above, e.g., the " M122+, P201-" seems to be absolutely and relatively common in the Beijing Han control sample (14 of 51). But it's apparently absolutely less common in the Korean samples (all in all 78/506=15,4%). Then again, it seems to be relatively common in the Gyeongsang sample of Kim et al. 2011. IF the data are correct*, the rationes are particularly different from each other in the Gyeongsang samples on the one hand and in the Jeju samples on the other. So either there is sample bias (due to founder effect or gene drift at one location) or Gyeongsang and Jeju really tend to be different from each other in this regard.

* the authors can revise such data.

In sum, differences between regions could turn out to be very interesting in future studies. But the data are not sufficient, yet. The participation of different lineages in the genesis and long-term development of settlements in the Korean peninsula will have to be clarified by researchers who would use larger sample sizes from different and more clearly defined types of communities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
luxemen
Member
[ *  * ]
black man
Jun 2 2018, 10:37:57 PM
Nurizone
Jun 2 2018, 10:07:40 PM
Could you please explain what this thread in laymen's terms? Very confused.
This is an offshoot of our thread at http://www.anthropedia.science/topic/10039011/1/#new , which is on the spread of certain y-chromosomal SNP markers. As you can see above, e.g., the " M122+, P201-" seems to be absolutely and relatively common in the Beijing Han control sample (14 of 51). But it's apparently absolutely less common in the Korean samples (all in all 78/506=15,4%). Then again, it seems to be relatively common in the Gyeongsang sample of Kim et al. 2011. IF the data are correct*, the rationes are particularly different from each other in the Gyeongsang samples on the one hand and in the Jeju samples on the other. So either there is sample bias (due to founder effect or gene drift at one location) or Gyeongsang and Jeju really tend to be different from each other in this regard.

* the authors can revise such data.

In sum, differences between regions could turn out to be very interesting in future studies. But the data are not sufficient, yet. The participation of different lineages in the genesis and long-term development of settlements in the Korean peninsula will have to be clarified by researchers who would use larger sample sizes from different and more clearly defined types of communities.
Thanks Black Man. I'd also love to know if there truly are any statistical differences between the Gyeongsang and Jeju regions.

By the way, by "rationes", do you mean "ratios"?
Edited by luxemen, Jun 2 2018, 11:09:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
Nurizone
Jun 2 2018, 11:07:24 PM
black man
Jun 2 2018, 10:37:57 PM
Nurizone
Jun 2 2018, 10:07:40 PM
Could you please explain what this thread in laymen's terms? Very confused.
This is an offshoot of our thread at http://www.anthropedia.science/topic/10039011/1/#new , which is on the spread of certain y-chromosomal SNP markers. As you can see above, e.g., the " M122+, P201-" seems to be absolutely and relatively common in the Beijing Han control sample (14 of 51). But it's apparently absolutely less common in the Korean samples (all in all 78/506=15,4%). Then again, it seems to be relatively common in the Gyeongsang sample of Kim et al. 2011. IF the data are correct*, the rationes are particularly different from each other in the Gyeongsang samples on the one hand and in the Jeju samples on the other. So either there is sample bias (due to founder effect or gene drift at one location) or Gyeongsang and Jeju really tend to be different from each other in this regard.

* the authors can revise such data.

In sum, differences between regions could turn out to be very interesting in future studies. But the data are not sufficient, yet. The participation of different lineages in the genesis and long-term development of settlements in the Korean peninsula will have to be clarified by researchers who would use larger sample sizes from different and more clearly defined types of communities.
Thanks Black Man. I'd also love to know if there truly are any statistical differences between the Gyeongsang and Jeju regions.
Well, there do seem to be slightly different major "substratum" lineages which can be identified in the mtDNA hg profiles: N9a in Gyeongsang-do and Y in Jeju-do. Even more, the "substratum" in Jeju-do seems to be statistically more relevant than the one in Gyeongsang-do. So people from Jeju-do possibly do not only look "Palaeoasiatic" in a distinctive way but also "more Palaeoasiatic" as a whole than people from Gyeongsang-do. However, O-M122+ lineages could have arrived later on as "adstratum" lineages. And the racial or typological differences between the men in the different branches of O-M122+ who went to the Korean peninsula might have been more negligible.

Quote:
 
By the way, by "rationes", do you mean "ratios"?


Yes, I decline certain English words like they do in Latin. I hardly ever use the spoken English language. I prefer to emphasise that I just use it as a lingua franca and a language of science.
Edited by black man, Jun 3 2018, 12:27:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
luxemen
Member
[ *  * ]
It is very interesting that even in such a small country as Korea, you still see these statistically meaningful differences.

Slightly off-topic, but I think that the linguistics of Korean languages in some part do reflect the rather complex and mosaic-like genetic makeup of Koreans.

Some linguists have actually made some connections between Korean and Paleosiberian languages, with Korean featuring other characteristics influneced by the near-by Altaic languages (i.e. notably syntax) and Sino-Tibetan (i.e. notably in the form of borrowed vocabulary). Some have also drawn links to certain Austronesian or Tamil languages (i.e. similarities in the most basic lexicon).

Not a linguist but I think that Korean language has had influences in this fashion (more important to less important):

essential language blocks (aka Grammar and syntax)--> Paleosiberian + Tungus/Altaic
essential native vocabulary--> Paleosiberian + Tungus/Altaic + Austronesian
essential phonology --> Paleosiberian + Tungus/Altaic + Austronesian + Sino-Tibetan
essential high-levelvocabulary --> Sino-Tibetan and to a much lesser degree, Tungus/Altaic (lots of borrowed terms from Mongolian found in Jeju dialect)

I think that Korean people actually have ancestry from all four, with the Paleosiberian and Austronesian substratums being the most ancient. I do think that history makes a good point for showing that the recent additions to the Korean gene and linguistic pool are more from the near-by Tungusic/Altaic and Sino-groups (Northern and Middle Chinese).

Waves of immigration into the Korean Peninsula over the last thousand years (researched by Korean face scholar):

Posted Image
Creds: Jo Yong Jin, Korea Face Institute (2007)

You can see from this chart that the Paleo-Siberian and Austronesian (i.e. Taiwan aboriginals) groups arrived in the peninsula first, so Koreans have always had a dual origin with respect both lineage and language. Korean 'Dangun' myth also hints at this too. Koreans also themselves don't believe themselves to have a 'single' origin (except crazy nationalists), but rather 'homogeneous' in the sense that Koreans have been mixing for years due to very high rates of endogamy.

So some Korean peoples' (and some non-Koreans') perception of the Korean 'purity' is largely misplaced and misunderstood.

The more recent arrivals are from Tungusic-Altaic and Chinese groups.
Edited by luxemen, Jun 5 2018, 05:27:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
luxemen
Member
[ *  * ]
^By the way black circles represent cities where the "southern" lineages are more prominent; white circles where the "northern" lineages more prominent.

I think the author actually categories groups like Ainu/Jomon into the "southern" category, whereas the "northern" groups would be largely Paleosiberians + Tungus/Altaic + Northern Chinese influences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
update/addenda:

1) moved your last post to http://www.anthropedia.science/topic/528192/1/#new .

2) as for the Austronesian linguistic family, it expanded relatively recently. And since van Driem's "father tongue hypothesis" seems to be applicable concerning its spread, it appears to be unlikely to have had any significant impact on Korea and 99% of Japan. So I wonder from where that idea is when a Korean author mentions it. Which terms does the Korea author use in the text to which you refer above? Can you transcribe them, please?

3) Maybe of interest since you mentioned "Austronesian", last years there was an update on M122+, P201+ in Austronesians. And Ebizur mentioned Korean samples in one of his posts. Apart from that, we already discussed Western Orientalist ideas on Japanese phenotypes allegedly similar to SE Asian ones more than ten years ago.




old post:

Nurizone
Jun 5 2018, 05:03:47 PM
It is very interesting that even in such a small country as Korea, you still see these statistically meaningful differences.

Slightly off-topic, but I think that the linguistics of Korean languages in some part do reflect the rather complex and mosaic-like genetic makeup of Koreans.

Some linguists have actually made some connections between Korean and Paleosiberian languages, with Korean featuring other characteristics influneced by the near-by Altaic languages (i.e. notably syntax) and Sino-Tibetan (i.e. notably in the form of borrowed vocabulary). Some have also drawn links to certain Austronesian or Tamil languages (i.e. similarities in the most basic lexicon).

Not a linguist but I think that Korean language has had influences in this fashion (more important to less important):

essential language blocks (aka Grammar and syntax)--> Paleosiberian + Tungus/Altaic
essential native vocabulary--> Paleosiberian + Tungus/Altaic + Austronesian
essential phonology --> Paleosiberian + Tungus/Altaic + Austronesian + Sino-Tibetan
essential high-levelvocabulary --> Sino-Tibetan and to a much lesser degree, Tungus/Altaic (lots of borrowed terms from Mongolian found in Jeju dialect)

I think that Korean people actually have ancestry from all four, with the Paleosiberian and Austronesian substratums being the most ancient. I do think that history makes a good point for showing that the recent additions to the Korean gene and linguistic pool are more from the near-by Tungusic/Altaic and Sino-groups (Northern and Middle Chinese).

Waves of immigration into the Korean Peninsula over the last thousand years (researched by Korean face scholar):

Posted Image
Creds: Jo Yong Jin, Korea Face Institute (2007)

You can see from this chart that the Paleo-Siberian and Austronesian (i.e. Taiwan aboriginals) groups arrived in the peninsula first, so Koreans have always had a dual origin with respect both lineage and language. Korean 'Dangun' myth also hints at this too. Koreans also themselves don't believe themselves to have a 'single' origin (except crazy nationalists), but rather 'homogeneous' in the sense that Koreans have been mixing for years due to very high rates of endogamy.

So some Korean peoples' (and some non-Koreans') perception of the Korean 'purity' is largely misplaced and misunderstood.

The more recent arrivals are from Tungusic-Altaic and Chinese groups.


Nurizone
Jun 5 2018, 05:14:11 PM
^By the way black circles represent cities where the "southern" lineages are more prominent; white circles where the "northern" lineages more prominent.

I think the author actually categories groups like Ainu/Jomon into the "southern" category, whereas the "northern" groups would be largely Paleosiberians + Tungus/Altaic + Northern Chinese influences.


As someone who cannot read Korean language, I can only refer to what I know about Western literature. So feel free to add the indigenous Korean perspective and how it historically developed when compared with the perspectives of authors who used Western languages. See http://www.anthropedia.science/topic/8822950/1/#new for what I summed up.

Apart from that, you remind me of hg N9 in Taiwanese aboriginal mtDNA hg profiles. There is more than just one distribution pattern. I plan to link to a planned thread on Taiwanese aboriginal mtDNA hg N9 in one pinned thread in the Korean section. Then you can take a look at our overview concerning topics which potentially interlink Korean Studies with other disciplines. Such threads can be of interest in the context of reconstructions of the prehistoric and historical backgrounds of Korean islands among others.

Nurizone
Jun 5 2018, 05:25:39 PM
Linguist Alexander Vovin wrote about why he thinks that Korean can be considered as a spin-off of a Paleosiberian language, rather than an Altaic-Tungusic language:

Korean as a Paleosiberian Language

His reasons for why he thinks Korean is a (spin-off of a) Paleosiberian language (but still an isolate at the same time):

1. Phonology - e.g. Korean makes distinction between voiceless steps and voiced fricatives
2. Adjectives - e.g. Korean adjectives are verbs, not nominals
3. A different kind of aggluntiative language - e.g. Korean verbs can be "incorporated" in addition to being "compounded"
4. Ergativity vs. Accusativity - e.g. Korean language is historically ergatitive

He dismisses the Altaic-Korean connection because he doesn't see the syntax (i.e. word order) as having more importance on a language than the four features described above.


I'll split this post from this thread and merge it with our thread at http://www.anthropedia.science/topic/528192/1/#new .

(See the upper part of this post for "update/addenda".)
Edited by black man, Jun 7 2018, 03:36:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Korean · Next Topic »
Add Reply