Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Origins of Hmong-Mien
Topic Started: Jan 31 2011, 05:13:34 PM (553 Views)
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
2010-11-14
Trying to trace back the origins of the Miao-Yao/Hmong-Mien.. crucial in Y-chrom. O3-M134 origins.
The Chinese legend about them being descended from the Jiuli seems to be unsubstantiable. I've found no evidence linking them with Yi (Dongyi), who at that point had migrated southwards as the Huayi and living pretty close to the San Miao Kingdom, so I'm beginning to think the Hmong-Mien were directly descended from the Neolithic-Bronze age cultures of the region. That's the only way to explain the Mien/Yao branch, if I'm not too unfounded in assuming they have been in SEtern China earlier than Miao.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miao_people

Yao/Mien
http://www.chinatravel.com/facts/chinese-ethnic-groups/yao-ethnic-minority-.htm

On the Huai Yi:
On the Migration and Differentiation of the Dongyi Ethnic Group in the Light of the Culturo-geographical Pattern in the Shang Dynasty's Eastern Terri- tory
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-KAGU200803007.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongyi
From JCA:
Yao/Hunan (Shi Hong et al. 2005)
4/20 = 20.0% O3a3c1-M117

She (Xue et al. 2006)
6/34 = 17.6% O3a3c1-M117

Yao/Liannan, Guangdong (Xue et al. 2006)
5/35 = 14.3% O3a3c1-M117

Yao/Guangdong (Shi Hong et al. 2005)
5/37 = 13.5% O3a3c1-M117

Yao/Guangxi (Shi Hong et al. 2005)
25/225 = 11.1% O3a3c1-M117

Yao/Yunnan (Shi Hong et al. 2005)
6/90 = 6.7% O3a3c1-M117

Miao/Yunnan (Shi Hong et al. 2005)
2/48 = 4.2% O3a3c1-M117

Miao/Hunan (Shi Hong et al. 2005)
3/105 = 2.9% O3a3c1-M117

Yao/Bama, Guangxi (Xue et al. 2006)
0/35 O3a3c1-M117




However, the advance guard of the Hmong migration, from whom the
Quote:
 
Mong Leng and Hmong
Daw are descended, seem to have left the sphere of Chinese influence sometime after the Tang
dynasty. They fled southward to the Gu`ızh¯ou region, which was then beyond China’s control. Not
surprisingly, there seems to have been a hiatus in borrowing from Sinitic languages at this point,
explaining the exceptionally distinct phonological boundary that exists in Hmong between modern
Chinese loans and loans from the pre–modern period. These Hmong would not come into regular
contact with Chinese speakers again until after the Mongol–lead Chinese invasion of Gu`ızh¯ou and
Y`unn´an in the thirteenth century.

Quote:
 
Under Chinese influence, the Hmong adopted the Mandarin
forms of Chinese surnames (Eberhard 1982:84).

Quote:
 
For the most part, the Miao did not come into regular contact with the Chinese until
the mideighteenth century. From that point on, the Han encroached steadily on Miao
lands, and the Miao responded with frequent rebellions.

Quote:
 
The Hmong rebellions—in
which various other minority elements, and even Han Chinese, seem to have participated (Jenks
1994:4)—were crushed brutally. The largest of these occurred in 1734–1736 and 1795–1806
(Eberhard 1982:146). The bulk of the Hmong in Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand (including the
Mong Leng and Hmong Daw of Southeast Asia) are the descendants of refugees from these harsh
defeats.

SINITIC LOANWORDS IN TWO HMONG
DIALECTS OF SOUTHEAST ASIA
Edited by ren, Aug 29 2011, 04:51:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
If the y-chromosomal data of Cai Xiaoyun et al. are representative, this can be said about Hmong-Mien y-chromosomes:

C-M130: present in 14/22=63,6% of the groups checked by them
-- among Hammer's sample from 2006 2 Miao carried the M217 mutation but 1 Miao and 12 Yao didn't
DE-M15-: absent
D-M15+: present in 10/22=45,5%
F(xK): present in 7/22=31,8%
K(xO,P): present in 9/22=40,9%
-- all 3 of Cai's (northern Laotian) Hmong Daw in this para-group have the TatC mutation but a haplotype very different from North Asian ones (the others were not tested)
-- this para-group didn't occur in Hammer's Miao, Yao and She samples
O-M175+, M119-, M110-, M95-, M122-: present in 17/22=77,3%
-- both of Cai's Hmong Daw individuals in this para-group have the P31 mutation for hg O2
-- the P31+, M95-, SRY465- combination occurred in 12 of Hammer's Yao, too
O1-M119+: present in 13/22=59,1%
O1-M110+: absent
O2a-M95+, M88-: present in 18/22=81,8%
O2a-M95+, M88+: present in 15/22=68,3%
O3-M122+, M7-, M134-: present in 19/22=86,4%
-- didn't occur in Cai's Hmong Daw
-- occurred in about 1/5 of Hammer's 58 Miao
O3-M7+: present in 16/22=72,7%
-- as far as I remember, always in combination with LY1 in the table of Xue et al.
O3-M134+, M117-: present in 11/22=50%
O3-M117+: present in 19/22=86,4%
P-M45: absent (except in 1 man with the M120 mutation)

===>
- probably non-HM: DE-M15-, O1-M110+, P-M45+
- question: what was/is the relationship between HM and TK like? (Note that M95 is very frequent in both of them, and Cai's Y-STR network doesn't exclude the possibility that this mutation was initially present in both of them, too.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kradai and Hmong-Mien probably met no more than 2,000 years ago, based the Tai ethnonym for Hmong: Meo. This is a Chinese word, which means the Tai knew the Hmong through a Chinese medium, and Chinese presence in the Lingnan (including Pearl Delta) region is no more than 2,000 years. This fits well with historical accounts and circumstantial evidence of Hmong dispersal very recently due to Han persecution in Western Hunan.

Kradai seems now to be firmly established as related to Austronesian, although this development hasn't yet fully dawned upon the lay-world. This means Kradai either comes from Taiwan or southwards along the coast. Since Taiwanese aborigines don't have (practically) M95, this marker is likely a pre-Kradai stratum in the Pearl Delta region (Austro-Asiatic). I also discovered archaeological evidence for this.

The Hmong, based on the archaeology, seems to me originally situated north of the Yangtze, and M95 as well as M7 seems to be from an earlier stratum, again AA.

There seems to be no close relationship between Hmong-Mien and Kradai, and in both cases M95 is an earlier stratum.
Edited by ren, Oct 7 2011, 01:43:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
2nd addendum:

According to the MJN of Cai et al., major HM M7+ hts split from AA M7+ relatively early on, while major HM HM M95+ hts and major HM M117+ hts didn't. Moreover, many HM M95+ and M117+ lineages must have been at least geographically close to AA and TK M117+ and M95+ lineages because of the shared hts. So the majority of the HM hts in these hgs might have joined HM alliances in the Yangzi river region.

Probably by contrast ("Altaic" hts being absent from the M117+ and M95+ networks), major HM O2(xO2a) lineages are first of all close to "Altaic" ones. And same for many HM and TK hg C lineages... It should be possible to discuss whether they took eastern or a western routes to the Yangzi river valley.

potential evidence for eastern routes:
- HM hts are close to "Altaic" hts in hgs C and O2(xO2a)
- "sea journey myth" in "many" Mien groups and at least one Kimmun group (Pourret 2002, p. 20); this could be related to the presence of HMs in the Jiangnan region at the beginning of the Ming period when the Han were more active concerning sea travels (Pourret 2002, p. 22)
- there are mountain ranges where they could withdraw from Han expansion
- remnants of HM populations mostly living in mixed settlements together with Han in the mountainous parts of Zhejiang were reported to have been observed in the 20th century (they already intermarried with Han; I don't know whether they now belong to the "She" minzu or they are Han)
- many HMs in general (and Mien women in particular) are phenotypically closer to Jiangnan Han than to Tibeto-Burmans (just my opinion concerning both anthropometric features and features which might be addressed in anthroposcopic studies; to my knowledge, no physical anthropologist ever compared HMs with both TBs and Jiangnan Han, though)
- when HMs have yellow skin, it's more similar to yellow skin in southern Koreans and Shandong Han than to that in Tibeto-Burmans (just my opinion)

potential evidence for western routes:
- there is a cluster of HM and TK hts in the D-M15+ MJN of Cai et al.
- there are mountain ranges where they could withdraw from Han expansion
- the She of Zhejiang are said to have moved from west to east (and that's also what their y hg distribution indicates)

=> This is the way it IMO appears to have been like:
1) At least one group of phenotypically somehow Korean-like people moved from north to south maybe from what is now Shandong to the eastern Chinese mountain ranges to the south of what is now Shandong. With y hg O2 being partly "Altaic" and rare in present-day Shandong, one might assume that the ancestors of the HMs in group O2(xO2a) and probably also those in hg C (since the latter seem to have accompanied the former) were already patrilineal.
2) Of these, the ancestors of the Mien might have lived at lower altitudes and might have had more contacts to the aboriginal lowlanders of the coastal regions to the south of what is now Shandong. And since neither Mien nor any other HMs include a particularly high frequency of men in hg O1, admixture must have been mostly via maternal lineages.
3) From there these men in y hgs C and O2(xO2a) must have migrated upriver until they encountered the M7+ clans which seem to be the core of all HM patriclan systems.
4) After major M7+ lineages and minor D-M15+, O2(xO2a) and C lineages had joined a kind of inter-clannish alliance somehwere at the middle Yangzi river, they might have absorbed O2a and O3 lineages the hts of which are more or less the same as those of MKs, TKs and STs. (That said, my guess is that one part of the probably MK aboriginal population became HM, whereas others moved to the south and partly became TK. So HMs didn't need to have assimilated any TKs at all.)



Allegedly, the Hmong proper consist of just about 20 "clans".

If geneticists bothered to record the genealogical data of their samples, they could significantly improve the pre-conditions for research on the origins of the Hmong.

- It could be easier to guess recent admixtures.
- It could be easier to reconstruct Hmong ethnogenesis.




1st addendum:

three major B5a-16266 lineages of HM-speakers seem to occur in STs, too. The features which distinguishes them a major TK B5a lineage is the 16183 mutation in HM-speakers (Zhao et al. 2010, fig. 4). The network also indicates that B5a might have been around in STs for a while. So HM B5a could be derived from an ST lineage which spread like that due to a founder effect. Then again, there are just few northern Han in the network. Furthermore, the statistics known from Wen et al. 2004 (table 3) imply that HM lineages might have become TB lineages in Hunan and in the more accessible parts of Yunnan (Xishuangbanna. Lijiang and Dali). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the 16183 is significant to derived hts. So the major HM hts are possibly rather upstream to the major TK ht. And IMO this would be in accordance with HMs being traditionally patrilocal but TKs having been matrilocal. If the predecessors of HM B5a had already been HM, these hts should be trans-ethnically spread in a more chaotic manner like, e.g., D4j in Han and many others.

As usual, MK and AN data are missing in the network. Nevertheless, there are already statistics which confirm the following statements:
- most Cambodian MK-speakers in hg B5a1-6960 (Zhang et al. 2013, fig. 2)
- all Taiwanese aborigines seem to be in hg B5a2-10398 (Trejaut et al. 2005, fig. 2)
- Japanese, Koreans and Han in hg B5a have the 16187 mutation (Trejaut et al. 2005, p. 5)

Further,
- TAs should be different from both HMs and TKs because of a 16266-related mutation according to Li Hui et al. 2007, fig. 2
- there is a branch which mostly includes TBs and southern Han and TBs (Zhang et al. 2013, fig. 2, at the bottom on the right)

Since the mostly Sinitic B5a branch of Zhang et al. which includes three of five northern Han-specific hts is defined by a 16187-related difference, I guess that it's identical with what Trejaut et al. 2005 described as specific to Japanese, Koreans and Han. It includes the same number of southern Han. However, most southern Han are outside of this branch.

Sources:
Li Hui et al. 2007, Mitochondrial DNA Diversity and Population Differentiation in Souther n East Asia
Trejaut et al. 2005: Traces of Archaic Mitochondrial Lineages Persist in Austronesian- Speaking Formosan Populations
Wen et al. 2004: Analyses of Genetic Structure of Tibeto-Burman Populations Reveals Sex-Biased Admixture in Southern Tibeto-Burmans
Zhang et al. 2013: Analysis of mitochondrial genome diversity identifies new and ancient maternal lineages in Cambodian aborigines
Zhao et al. 2010: Ancient DNA Evidence Supports the Contribution of Di-Qiang People to the Han Chinese Gene Pool
Edited by ren, Jan 5 2016, 12:02:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ebizur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
black man
Aug 29 2013, 08:55:33 PM
2nd addendum:

According to the MJN of Cai et al., major HM M7+ hts split from AA M7+ relatively early on, while major HM HM M95+ hts and major HM M117+ hts didn't. Moreover, many HM M95+ and M117+ lineages must have been at least geographically close to AA and TK M117+ and M95+ lineages because of the shared hts. So the majority of the HM hts in these hgs might have joined HM alliances in the Yangzi river region.

Probably by contrast ("Altaic" hts being absent from the M117+ and M95+ networks), major HM O2(xO2a) lineages are first of all close to "Altaic" ones. And same for many HM and TK hg C lineages... It should be possible to discuss whether they took eastern or a western routes to the Yangzi river valley.

potential evidence for eastern routes:
- HM hts are close to "Altaic" hts in hgs C and O2(xO2a)
- "sea journey myth" in "many" Mien groups and at least one Kimmun group (Pourret 2002, p. 20); this could be related to the presence of HMs in the Jiangnan region at the beginning of the Ming period when the Han were more active concerning sea travels (Pourret 2002, p. 22)
- there are mountain ranges where they could withdraw from Han expansion
- remnants of HM populations mostly living in mixed settlements together with Han in the mountainous parts of Zhejiang were reported to have been observed in the 20th century (they already intermarried with Han; I don't know whether they now belong to the "She" minzu or they are Han)
- many HMs in general (and Mien women in particular) are phenotypically closer to Jiangnan Han than to Tibeto-Burmans (just my opinion concerning both anthropometric features and features which might be addressed in anthroposcopic studies; to my knowledge, no physical anthropologist ever compared HMs with both TBs and Jiangnan Han, though)
- when HMs have yellow skin, it's more similar to yellow skin in southern Koreans and Shandong Han than to that in Tibeto-Burmans (just my opinion)

potential evidence for western routes:
- there is a cluster of HM and TK hts in the D-M15+ MJN of Cai et al.
- there are mountain ranges where they could withdraw from Han expansion
- the She of Zhejiang are said to have moved from west to east (and that's also what their y hg distribution indicates)

=> This is the way it IMO appears to have been like:
1) At least one group of phenotypically somehow Korean-like people moved from north to south maybe from what is now Shandong to the eastern Chinese mountain ranges to the south of what is now Shandong. With y hg O2 being partly "Altaic" and rare in present-day Shandong, one might assume that the ancestors of the HMs in group O2(xO2a) and probably also those in hg C (since the latter seem to have accompanied the former) were already patrilineal.
2) Of these, the ancestors of the Mien might have lived at lower altitudes and might have had more contacts to the aboriginal lowlanders of the coastal regions to the south of what is now Shandong. And since neither Mien nor any other HMs include a particularly high frequency of men in hg O1, admixture must have been mostly via maternal lineages.
3) From there these men in y hgs C and O2(xO2a) must have migrated upriver until they encountered the M7+ clans which seem to be the core of all HM patriclan systems.
4) After major M7+ lineages and minor D-M15+, O2(xO2a) and C lineages had joined a kind of inter-clannish alliance somehwere at the middle Yangzi river, they might have absorbed O2a and O3 lineages the hts of which are more or less the same as those of MKs, TKs and STs. (That said, my guess is that one part of the probably MK aboriginal population became HM, whereas others moved to the south and partly became TK. So HMs didn't need to have assimilated any TKs at all.)
It is important to keep in mind that every instance of O2-P31(xM95) that has been tested with high precision to date has turned out to belong to one of two early branches of O2a, and is thus more relevant to the question of the origin of that clade than to the question of the origin of O2b. The split between O2a and O2b is only about 2,000 years more recent than the split between O1 and O2 (yFull has estimated this value to be only 800 years), and the split between O1 and O2 is only about 3,000 years more recent than the split between O1'2 and O3 (yFull estimate: 1,600 years). In other words, O2a and O2b have shared a common genealogy apart from the most distant descendants of the MRCA of extant O-M175 Y-chromosomes for only about 2,400 to 5,000 years.

One of these two early branches of O2a is O-CTS11792, which appears as O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95) in Yan et al. 2011, "An updated tree of Y-chromosome Haplogroup O and revised phylogenetic positions of mutations P164 and PK4." According to that paper's data, O-PK4(xM95) shares a southerly bias to its distribution among Han Chinese with its sister clade, O-M95. If anything, O-PK4(xM95) may be even more southerly in its present distribution within China than O-M95:

North China Han
1/129 = 0.8% O-PK4(xM95)
3/129 = 2.3% O-M95
vs.
8/129 = 6.2% O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176)

East China Han (Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Shanghai)
1/167 = 0.6% O-PK4(xM95)
3/167 = 1.8% O-M95
vs.
8/167 = 4.8% O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176)
(The slightly lower frequencies of the O2 subclades in East China Han vs. North China Han are probably ascribable to influence of assimilated O1-bearing pre-Han populations of the lower Yangtze upon the present-day inhabitants of that region if not stochastic sampling error.)

South China Han
3/65 = 4.6% O-PK4(xM95)
3/65 = 4.6% O-M95
vs.
2/65 = 3.1% O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176)
vs.
1/65 = 1.5% O2b-M176

The other early branch of O2a is O-CTS10887. This branch should account for nearly all extant O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176) at least among Han Chinese. This branch does not exhibit any southerly bias in its distribution among Han Chinese, and a fairly ancient offshoot has been found in a member of the JPT (Japanese in Tokyo) sample. A lack of southerly bias (and even perhaps a slight northerly bias) in a haplogroup found in Han Chinese suggests an ancient northerly origin for this haplogroup, probably somewhere between the Yellow River valley and Japan. It is important to note that the TMRCA of extant O-CTS10887 is, if anything, somewhat more ancient than the TMRCA of extant O-PK4. Their distant relatives in O2b are found mainly in Japan and Korea, and their slightly more distant relatives in O1 are found mainly in an area that suggests an ancient spread from the lower Yangtze River basin and/or Taiwan. A circum-East China Sea origin ca. 30,000 to 40,000 YBP for all the primary subclades of haplogroup O appears to be likely.

It is possible, though unlikely, that the O-P31(xM95, M176) Y-DNA found with high frequency among the Yaos of some districts (e.g. Bama in Guangxi) might belong to an early branch of O2b rather than O2a (or, even less likely, to a third primary branch of O2). However, I suspect that the Yaos will turn out to belong to either O-CTS11792 a.k.a. O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95) or O-CTS10887 (perhaps more likely the former, since that clade seems to exhibit an extremely southerly bias within China). If the Yaos do belong to O-CTS11792, then the Hmong-Miens would contain notable amounts of both O-M95 and O-CTS11792. On the other hand, you have mentioned that the Y-STR haplotypes of Hmong-Miens in O-P31(xM95, M176) appear to be close to those of "Altaics," so I suppose they might turn out to belong to O-CTS10887, since that clade seems to exhibit a slight northerly bias within China.
Edited by ren, Jan 5 2016, 12:13:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
JCA
Aug 1 2015, 04:39:23 PM
It is important to keep in mind that every instance of O2-P31(xM95) that has been tested with high precision to date has turned out to belong to one of two early branches of O2a, and is thus more relevant to the question of the origin of that clade than to the question of the origin of O2b. The split between O2a and O2b is only about 2,000 years more recent than the split between O1 and O2 (yFull has estimated this value to be only 800 years), and the split between O1 and O2 is only about 3,000 years more recent than the split between O1'2 and O3 (yFull estimate: 1,600 years). In other words, O2a and O2b have shared a common genealogy apart from the most distant descendants of the MRCA of extant O-M175 Y-chromosomes for only about 2,400 to 5,000 years.

One of these two early branches of O2a is O-CTS11792, which appears as O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95) in Yan et al. 2011, "An updated tree of Y-chromosome Haplogroup O and revised phylogenetic positions of mutations P164 and PK4." According to that paper's data, O-PK4(xM95) shares a southerly bias to its distribution among Han Chinese with its sister clade, O-M95. If anything, O-PK4(xM95) may be even more southerly in its present distribution within China than O-M95:

North China Han
1/129 = 0.8% O-PK4(xM95)
3/129 = 2.3% O-M95
vs.
8/129 = 6.2% O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176)

East China Han (Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Shanghai)
1/167 = 0.6% O-PK4(xM95)
3/167 = 1.8% O-M95
vs.
8/167 = 4.8% O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176)
(The slightly lower frequencies of the O2 subclades in East China Han vs. North China Han are probably ascribable to influence of assimilated O1-bearing pre-Han populations of the lower Yangtze upon the present-day inhabitants of that region if not stochastic sampling error.)

South China Han
3/65 = 4.6% O-PK4(xM95)
3/65 = 4.6% O-M95
vs.
2/65 = 3.1% O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176)
vs.
1/65 = 1.5% O2b-M176

The other early branch of O2a is O-CTS10887. This branch should account for nearly all extant O-P31/M268(xPK4, M176) at least among Han Chinese. This branch does not exhibit any southerly bias in its distribution among Han Chinese, and a fairly ancient offshoot has been found in a member of the JPT (Japanese in Tokyo) sample. A lack of southerly bias (and even perhaps a slight northerly bias) in a haplogroup found in Han Chinese suggests an ancient northerly origin for this haplogroup, probably somewhere between the Yellow River valley and Japan. It is important to note that the TMRCA of extant O-CTS10887 is, if anything, somewhat more ancient than the TMRCA of extant O-PK4. Their distant relatives in O2b are found mainly in Japan and Korea, and their slightly more distant relatives in O1 are found mainly in an area that suggests an ancient spread from the lower Yangtze River basin and/or Taiwan. A circum-East China Sea origin ca. 30,000 to 40,000 YBP for all the primary subclades of haplogroup O appears to be likely.

It is possible, though unlikely, that the O-P31(xM95, M176) Y-DNA found with high frequency among the Yaos of some districts (e.g. Bama in Guangxi) might belong to an early branch of O2b rather than O2a (or, even less likely, to a third primary branch of O2). However, I suspect that the Yaos will turn out to belong to either O-CTS11792 a.k.a. O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95) or O-CTS10887 (perhaps more likely the former, since that clade seems to exhibit an extremely southerly bias within China). If the Yaos do belong to O-CTS11792, then the Hmong-Miens would contain notable amounts of both O-M95 and O-CTS11792. On the other hand, you have mentioned that the Y-STR haplotypes of Hmong-Miens in O-P31(xM95, M176) appear to be close to those of "Altaics," so I suppose they might turn out to belong to O-CTS10887, since that clade seems to exhibit a slight northerly bias within China.
Thanks, JCA.

Speaking of O2b, it seems to have been excluded from the network constructed by Cai et al. 2011 right from the start.

Unfortunately, Cai et al. 2011 do not distinguish between and Han and Tibeto-Bumans. But in their network there are three branches in which ST hts seem to be include three or more individuals, all of them appearing to be derived from from one HM/"Altaic" ht.

Besides, judging from the notes I made some time ago, the Kalmyk O2 hts of Malyarchuk et al. seem to be relatively distant to both O2b and northern O2a hts of Xue et al. 2006 but relatively similar to those of the northern O2* hts of the latter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ebizur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
For what it's worth, I constructed a median-joining network of mostly O2-P31(xM95, SRY465) haplotypes from Xue et al. 2006, and found that the two Mongol haplotypes are located in different sections of the network. The Outer Mongolian's haplotype is one step off that of a Manchu and that of a South Korean. These haplotypes are not too distant from the center of the network, and a bunch of Hans (Meixian x 2, Yili x 2, Harbin x 1), other Manchus (x 2), and the major Bama Yao cluster (which includes a Daur individual's haplotype) are nearby.

On the other hand, the Inner Mongolian's haplotype is alone on a long branch off to the lower right corner of the network.

Despite the high frequency of some sort of O-P31(xM95, M176) in the Yaos of Bama, Guangxi, their haplotypes are quite uniform, and they actually share one haplotype with a Daur and another very similar haplotype with a Manchu. These haplotypes cluster near the center of the network, between an O2a1a-M88 Hani and an O2a1-M95 Daur, so they most likely do belong to one of those early branches of O2a that I have mentioned in my previous post.

The two most divergent haplotypes in my network are Tibet 4 (O-M117) and Chinese Korean 9 (O-P31(xM95, SRY465)). This Chinese Korean's haplotype is equally divergent from members of O2a and members of O2b, so I suppose he would be a good candidate for further testing to determine whether he represents an early branch of O2a, an early branch of O2b, or a third and almost extinct branch of O2.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
JCA
Aug 4 2015, 07:19:44 AM
Despite the high frequency of some sort of O-P31(xM95, M176) in the Yaos of Bama, Guangxi, their haplotypes are quite uniform
I noticed that, too. I don't have the time to check the details but I was under the impression that the hts of Xue et al. could be identical with those of the network of Cai et al.. The paper of Xue et al. is among their references. Plus, Cai et al. didn't test the O2 marker as for most of their own HM samples. So maybe it's the same sample. Nevertheless, at least the supplementary materials of Cai et al. contain information about two Hmong Daw samples in O2* and lots of hts in O* which could turn out to be in O2* as well. And in this sense, it might be interesting to check to what extent clan names overlap or indicate similar patrilineal backgrounds. Most likely, there is already literature on the existence of clan names in many populations. There is even literature which confirmed the presence of one or more "Manchurian" or "Manchu" clan names in the region of the lower Amur river and which might help to explain why y hg O was found there, too.

For the record:
Cai et al. 2011: Human Migration through Bottlenecks
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ebizur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
black man
Aug 4 2015, 05:50:04 PM
JCA
Aug 4 2015, 07:19:44 AM
Despite the high frequency of some sort of O-P31(xM95, M176) in the Yaos of Bama, Guangxi, their haplotypes are quite uniform
I noticed that, too. I don't have the time to check the details but I was under the impression that the hts of Xue et al. could be identical with those of the network of Cai et al.. The paper of Xue et al. is among their references. Plus, Cai et al. didn't test the O2 marker as for most of their own HM samples. So maybe it's the same sample. Nevertheless, at least the supplementary materials of Cai et al. contain information about two Hmong Daw samples in O2* and lots of hts in O* which could turn out to be in O2* as well. And in this sense, it might be interesting to check to what extent clan names overlap or indicate similar patrilineal backgrounds. Most likely, there is already literature on the existence of clan names in many populations. There is even literature which confirmed the presence of one or more "Manchurian" or "Manchu" clan names in the region of the lower Amur river and which might help to explain why y hg O was found there, too.

For the record:
Cai et al. 2011: Human Migration through Bottlenecks
Many of the samples used for constructing the median-joining networks of Cai et al. 2011 do appear to be the same samples (one "Altaic," probably Daur 35 of Xue et al., shares the major Hmong-Mien O2-P31(xM95, M176) haplotype, and another "Altaic," probably Manchu 5, shares a one-step neighbor haplotype with another Hmong-Mien individual, probably Yao Bama 17 of Xue et al.). However, only nine of the Y-STRs overlap between the data sets of Cai et al. 2011 and Xue et al. 2006, which makes me doubt that a comparison between them may reveal anything of real phylogenetic significance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
black man
 
- according to a CCTV documentary, the "Royal Reading-Records of Tombs"(?) describe(?) the head of Miao leader Chiyou as having been stored(?) in Kanxiang town in Shouzhang county of Dongping prefecture, which is present-day Yanggu prefecture in Shandong (I only read part of the English translation)
Question:

according to the legend they told in the CCTV documentary, Huangdi(?) stored some more body parts of Chiyou at locations which were more or less distant from the one mentioned above. Does anyone know where?


Chiyou is a Chinese myth that was probably retroactively adopted, by only some Hmong in Wenshan Yunnan, to explain their origins. The Miao in Hunan and Guizhou, which are more original homelands of Miao, do not have this myth. Now this myth has been popularized and accepted by a lot of Miao everywhere as well as by popular Chinese perception. (Thus, I will excise your comments about Chiyou relating to Miao, and discard it, as it is misinformative.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
ren
Jan 5 2016, 12:07:03 PM
black man
 
- according to a CCTV documentary, the "Royal Reading-Records of Tombs"(?) describe(?) the head of Miao leader Chiyou as having been stored(?) in Kanxiang town in Shouzhang county of Dongping prefecture, which is present-day Yanggu prefecture in Shandong (I only read part of the English translation)
Question:

according to the legend they told in the CCTV documentary, Huangdi(?) stored some more body parts of Chiyou at locations which were more or less distant from the one mentioned above. Does anyone know where?


Chiyou is a Chinese myth that was probably retroactively adopted, by only some Hmong in Wenshan Yunnan, to explain their origins. The Miao in Hunan and Guizhou, which are more original homelands of Miao, do not have this myth. Now this myth has been popularized and accepted by a lot of Miao everywhere as well as by popular Chinese perception. (Thus, I will excise your comments about Chiyou relating to Miao, and discard it, as it is misinformative.)
Thanks. The adoption of myths from socially apparently more prestigious groups might moreover be pretty much the norm in small-scale TB groups as well as in the Khasis.

Does the Chiyou myth make sense in the context of the annual ritual circle of the Miao in Guizhou and Hunan or in the context of their life cycle rituals? (I guess that it shouldn't.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
black man
Jan 5 2016, 04:14:54 PM
Thanks. The adoption of myths from socially apparently more prestigious groups might moreover be pretty much the norm in small-scale TB groups as well as in the Khasis.

Does the Chiyou myth make sense in the context of the annual ritual circle of the Miao in Guizhou and Hunan or in the context of their life cycle rituals? (I guess that it shouldn't.)
I don't think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · Hmong-Mien · Next Topic »
Add Reply