| Sino-Austronesian in terms of genetics | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 8 2011, 03:00:09 AM (686 Views) | |
| Ebizur | Jan 8 2011, 03:00:09 AM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How would you explain the fact that Northern Han seem to be more similar autosomally to Japanese than they are to any Austronesian population? Assuming that there is a Sino-Austronesian connection in regard to Y-DNA, should there have to have been some sort of "gender-biased admixture event" in order to explain the autosomal results? Note that approximately three of every four modern Japanese males (77% according to my own estimate that I have posted in the Japonic subforum) belongs to Y-DNA haplogroup D(2), O2b, or C1. None of these haplogroups has been found with any regular frequency among Han Chinese. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 8 2011, 05:18:19 AM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would chalk that up to the Austronesian expansion and absorption of non-Austronesians, if we are just talking about the north-south gradient. Japanese and Chinese only seem close because Austronesian has moved so far away. It would be like how English and Spanish would seem close only because Hispanics are mixed. In terms of more detailed clusters, Chinese and Japanese belong to their own clusters.
|
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 8 2011, 11:01:40 PM Post #3 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you ignore South(west) Asian admixtures, Uygur, Tharu and Spitian samples will cluster with Koreans on the K=14 graphic. Then there could have been the following hypothetical combinations: - inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago: yellow - D2, C1 - South Siberians, northwestern TBs and Koreans: blue, yellow - C3, O3 (O2b and C3 having been lost in northwestern TBs and O2b having been increased in Koreans) - AAs: red, blue - O3, O2a So "light green" in Beijing Han could mean admixture from Austronesians due to previous northern coastal expansion of the latter. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jan 9 2011, 02:59:47 AM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How can you claim that South Siberians, northwestern Tibeto-Burmans, and Koreans form a "hybrid" group consisting of a roughly equal mixture of the yellow (Japan-related) and dark blue (Yellow River/Ancient North China-related?) autosomal clusters while not ascribing any Japan-related Y-DNA haplogroups to this cluster? Are you assuming that the Japan-related component in these populations of the northern fringe of East Asia has been contributed exclusively by females? Actually, one notable characteristic of the Y-DNA pools of South Siberians (or southern Turko-Mongols in general), northern Tibeto-Burmans, and Koreans is the presence of haplogroup DE Y-DNA with varying frequency (generally low among southern Turko-Mongols and Koreans, and high among northern Tibeto-Burmans). I suppose the occurrence of Y-DNA haplogroup DE in these populations could be a patrilineal correlate of the Japan-related autosomal component. However, the Japan-related autosomal component might have been contributed mainly by females in the case of the Koreans and the southern Turko-Mongols (e.g. Uyghurs). |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 9 2011, 09:18:45 AM Post #5 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My idea was to loosely associate both C and D y hgs in East Asia with the yellow autosomal cluster. I didn't fully elaborate above because the thread was about O1 and O3 hgs. Also, there could be an already remarkable difference between typically Korean yellow cluster genes and typically Ryukyuan yellow cluster genes. Hypothetically speaking, one could assume that carriers of yellow cluster genes who contributed to the Jomon gene pool mostly died out on the Korean peninsula but were replaced by distantly related carriers of yellow cluster genes who arrived from a distant region with (partly of completely) different patrilineages. (Don't know whether my formulation is technically ok. I hope, it's understandable.) So the association with different patrilineages is IMO not too far-fetched.
You may be technically right. But I find the strict association of autosomal clusters with y hgs somehow distracting from IMO more important events. As can be seen from the Mlabri and Htin autosomal profiles as well as from many y-chromosomal profiles, small populations can develop in extreme ways so that the original correlations are no longer unambiguous or no longer present at all. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 9 2011, 05:50:15 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think you guys are jumping the gun on the "yellow cluster". Clusters are relative and can change when new samples are added. There aren't any real "northern" peoples in the samples for the yellow cluster to have any meaning at this point. The other clusters show a pattern, fi you've been following my analysis, because there are enough groups used to generate informative clusters. We have to bring in Dienekes's work on northern peoples to analyze more northerly connections and relationships. Also, black man, I don't consider Austronesian to have originated anywhere south of the North China Plain. If we subscribe to the Sino-Austronesian theory, then proto-Austronesian originated in the Shandong Peninsula. There was an expansion of Liangzhu in the Yangtze mouth to as north as the southern Shandong border later on though, which may be the green segment seen in North Chinese. Edited by ren, Jan 9 2011, 05:53:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Austronesian-Kradai - Sino-Tibetan continuum · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


