tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post5033575403353794042..comments2023-05-15T07:11:30.874+02:00Comments on Leherensuge: Genetic flow across the Strait of GibraltarMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-28445772777368730822010-09-17T06:55:27.337+02:002010-09-17T06:55:27.337+02:00"Only O2a*-M95 has been reported in samples o..."Only O2a*-M95 has been reported in samples of Munda-speaking populations". <br /><br />Thanks for that clarification. And for the information regarding Kashmir.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-6877664686280498232010-09-16T12:13:11.642+02:002010-09-16T12:13:11.642+02:00I have never seen any report of any O2a1-M88 being...I have never seen any report of any O2a1-M88 being found in a Munda-speaking population. O2a1-M88 has been found in various populations of southern China (especially the southwestern parts of that country, such as Sichuan and Yunnan, but not in Xizang), Indochina, and Borneo and in Indo-Iranian-speaking populations of South Asia. Only O2a*-M95 has been reported in samples of Munda-speaking populations.<br /><br />As for Kashmiris, they seem to belong mainly to Y-DNA haplogroup R, with a quantum of at least Y-DNA haplogroup J in addition to R:<br /><br />Qamar et al. 2002<br />Kashmiri<br />3/12 P-92R7(xR1a1-SRY1532.2, R1b1b2a1a2c-SRY2627)<br />7/12 R1a1a-M17<br />2/12 J-12f2<br /><br />Two of the P(xR1a1) Kashmiris in this small sample appear to share an identical haplotype that belongs to haplogroup R1b. The other P(xR1a1) Kashmiri belongs to some unusual sort of P-92R7, probably the recently identified R2*-M479(xR2a-M124).Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-19612035999738864272010-09-14T10:15:13.631+02:002010-09-14T10:15:13.631+02:00By the way Ebizur. Do you have any information fo...By the way Ebizur. Do you have any information for various populations in Kashmir? Obviously this is not the place to post the information, but if you have we'll come up with something.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-92093756132148718292010-09-14T10:13:37.715+02:002010-09-14T10:13:37.715+02:00"However, both subclades have been observed o..."However, both subclades have been observed occasionally outside of their typical zones of occurrence" <br /><br />To me that is yet more evidence for a relatively recent expansion, not the Paleolithic one that Maju is so keen on. <br /><br />"The subclade O2a1-M88 has not been found further north than the Qiang in East Asia as far as I can recall, but it has been found among Indo-Iranian speakers in South Asia (Pashtuns, Tharus, etc.)". <br /><br />To me O2a1-M88 is the only possible candidate for being any male element having carried the SE Asian-related Munda languages into India. These languages, too, are much more likely to be a Neolithic introduction rather than Paleolithic.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-6482256586782489712010-09-13T11:43:07.772+02:002010-09-13T11:43:07.772+02:00The high frequency of O2*-P31 in the Yao people of...The high frequency of O2*-P31 in the Yao people of Bama, Guangxi is due to a fairly recent founder effect (as I recall, they all share an identical or almost identical haplotype). Note that O2*-P31 has not been found in the other Hmong-Mien samples in this study (Yao from Liannan, Guangdong and She).<br /><br />The most clearly latitudinally biased subclades of O-M175 are the two common subclades of O2-P31, namely O2a-M95 and O2b-SRY465; the former has been found mainly in Southeast Asia and South Asia, while the latter has been found mainly in the vicinity of the Sea of Japan. However, both subclades have been observed occasionally outside of their typical zones of occurrence (O2a-M95 in Daurs, Japanese, Evenks, Uzbeks, etc. and O2b-SRY465 in Thais, Vietnamese, etc.). The subclade O2a1-M88 has not been found further north than the Qiang in East Asia as far as I can recall, but it has been found among Indo-Iranian speakers in South Asia (Pashtuns, Tharus, etc.).Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-88826407339716313992010-09-13T11:17:51.754+02:002010-09-13T11:17:51.754+02:00Xue et al. 2006
O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88)
20/34 = 58.8% ...Xue et al. 2006<br /><br />O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88)<br />20/34 = 58.8% Li<br />13/35 = 37.1% Buyi<br />6/39 = 15.4% Daur<br />3/33 = 9.1% Qiang<br />3/34 = 8.8% She<br />2/34 = 5.9% Hani<br />2/35 = 5.7% Yao/Liannan, Guangdong<br />2/47 = 4.3% Japanese<br />1/26 = 3.8% Evenk/PRC<br />1/30 = 3.3% Han/Lanzhou, Gansu<br />1/32 = 3.1% Han/Yili, Xinjiang<br />1/34 = 2.9% Han/Chengdu, Sichuan<br />1/35 = 2.9% Yao/Bama, Guangxi<br />0/25 Korean/PRC<br />0/31 Oroqen<br />0/31 Uygur/Urumqi, Xinjiang<br />0/35 Hui/PRC<br />0/35 Manchu<br />0/35 Han/Meixian, Guangdong<br />0/35 Han/Harbin, Heilongjiang<br />0/35 Tibetan<br />0/39 Uygur/Yili, Xinjiang<br />0/41 Xibe<br />0/43 Korean/Korea<br />0/45 Nanai/PRC<br />0/45 Inner Mongolian<br />0/65 Outer Mongolian<br /><br />O2a1-M88<br />15/34 = 44.1% Hani<br />6/35 = 17.1% Buyi<br />4/34 = 11.8% Han/Chengdu, Sichuan<br />1/33 = 3.0% Qiang<br />1/34 = 2.9% Li<br />1/35 = 2.9% Yao/Liannan, Guangdong<br />0/25 Korean/PRC<br />0/26 Evenk/PRC<br />0/30 Han/Lanzhou, Gansu<br />0/31 Oroqen<br />0/31 Uygur/Urumqi, Xinjiang<br />0/32 Han/Yili, Xinjiang<br />0/34 She<br />0/35 Tibetan<br />0/35 Yao/Bama, Guangxi<br />0/35 Han/Meixian, Guangdong<br />0/35 Han/Harbin, Heilongjiang<br />0/35 Hui/PRC<br />0/35 Manchu<br />0/39 Daur<br />0/39 Uygur/Yili, Xinjiang<br />0/41 Xibe<br />0/43 Korean/Korea<br />0/45 Nanai/PRC<br />0/45 Inner Mongolian<br />0/47 Japanese<br />0/65 Outer Mongolian<br /><br />O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />13/35 = 37.1% Yao/Bama, Guangxi<br />5/35 = 14.3% Han/Meixian, Guangdong<br />3/32 = 9.4% Han/Yili, Xinjiang<br />3/35 = 8.6% Han/Harbin, Heilongjiang<br />3/35 = 8.6% Manchu<br />2/31 = 6.5% Oroqen<br />1/25 = 4.0% Korean/PRC<br />1/33 = 3.0% Qiang<br />1/34 = 2.9% Han/Chengdu, Sichuan<br />1/34 = 2.9% Li<br />1/35 = 2.9% Hui/PRC<br />1/39 = 2.6% Daur<br />1/43 = 2.3% Korean/Korea<br />1/45 = 2.2% Nanai/PRC<br />1/45 = 2.2% Inner Mongolian<br />1/65 = 1.5% Outer Mongolian<br />0/26 Evenk/PRC<br />0/30 Han/Lanzhou, Gansu<br />0/31 Uygur/Urumqi, Xinjiang<br />0/34 Hani<br />0/34 She<br />0/35 Buyi<br />0/35 Tibetan<br />0/35 Yao/Liannan, Guangdong<br />0/39 Uygur/Yili, Xinjiang<br />0/41 Xibe<br />0/47 JapaneseEbizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-60999071742238254942010-09-13T09:46:08.176+02:002010-09-13T09:46:08.176+02:00"So in the future, let's please all, incl..."So in the future, let's please all, including myself, try to stay on topic a bit". <br /><br />I agree, so I won't comment on your next entry although I see some huge holes and unwarranted assumptions in your reasoning.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-61374349767331517942010-09-13T06:33:38.226+02:002010-09-13T06:33:38.226+02:00"And O2 in the south is almost exclusively O2..."And O2 in the south is almost exclusively O2a".<br /><br />Well, according to Wikipedia and my memory O2b is also found in SE Asia. I remember the island of Hainan, in southernmost China, from another discussion, but Wikipedia also mentions Thais and Vietnamese. O2a is not found in the north instead. That's a reason to think that O2 as a whole originated towards the South. <br /><br />We'd need anyhow a better resolution for the whole continental region to judge properly on this matter. <br /><br />"... it's extremely unlikely that it was O that migrated north, it was NO".<br /><br />If O1 is southerner and O2 and O3 flowed from South to North, then O as whole must have coalesced in the South. <br /><br />N anyhow also has a rather southerner coalescence area (south China probably), specially considering its hyper-northerner spread. So it's reasonable to think that the expansion of N southwards was blocked by its "big brother" O.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-89479252202898011412010-09-13T06:23:54.133+02:002010-09-13T06:23:54.133+02:00"Sorry. Couldn't resist".
Guess it&..."Sorry. Couldn't resist".<br /><br />Guess it's ok because as soon as I told you to stay on topic, Ebizur came with the stuff from days ago...<br /><br />But it'd be nice if discussions on East Asian genetics would be placed under East Asian genetic topics, for several reasons: (1) a mere matter of some order, (2) a casual reader can come and not find this interesting stuff as it's not where it "should be", (3) a reader may expect to find 100+ comments here on Gibraltar and it happens that almost all are on East Asian and Oceanian genetics what can be frustrating, and (4) any of us may find later hard to find this thread and the references and data thrown in here. <br /><br />So in the future, let's please all, including myself, try to stay on topic a bit.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-58128664376960022072010-09-13T04:43:34.562+02:002010-09-13T04:43:34.562+02:00"OK. Last comment here. From me anyway"...."OK. Last comment here. From me anyway". <br /><br />Sorry. Couldn't resist: <br /><br />"It gives the impression of there being a relevant O2(xO2a,O2b) in NE Asia. I'm not sure of the apportions in SE Asia but if nothing like that exists, we should consider if O2 did expand from North to South" <br /><br />Yes, we should. And O2 in the south is almost exclusively O2a. As I said, O2 basically divides into northern and southern versions. So why the qualification: <br /><br />"after a first South to North migration if we accept that the origin of MNOPS, NO and O are in the South" <br /><br />I mean it's extremely unlikely that it was O that migrated north, it was NO. <br /><br />"I see no reason to think that haplogroup O (any variant) was important in Central Asia before Turkic expansion". <br /><br />I think you are correct here. O in the north is a late phenomenon, even later than its expansion south in the early Neolithic.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-64485695184785546332010-09-12T09:07:07.813+02:002010-09-12T09:07:07.813+02:00Oops, sorry, I forgot about that.
For me it look...Oops, sorry, I forgot about that. <br /><br />For me it looks a Tungus area founder effect then but more detailed research would be needed to confirm (i.e. haplotype trees and such). Maybe a Tungusic clan became heavily involved in early Turkic expansion and turkified in the process. Little is known of Turkic origins and early expansion. <br /><br />I see no reason to think that haplogroup O (any variant) was important in Central Asia before Turkic expansion. I may be wrong but, would this be the case, we should see it also in South Asia and Iran, even if in minor apportions, right?<br /><br />In any case, thanks for the detailed information.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-90957445293003464802010-09-12T08:44:57.253+02:002010-09-12T08:44:57.253+02:00No, Maju. I already showed you the relevant data d...No, Maju. I already showed you the relevant data derived from the Khalkh sample of Katoh et al. 2004.<br /><br />Mongol Y-DNA haplogroup O-M175 data:<br /><br />Daur (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2-P31, O3-M122)<br />2/39 = 5.1% O1a-M119<br />1/39 = 2.6% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br />6/39 = 15.4% O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88)<br />7/39 = 17.9% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />3/39 = 7.7% O3a3c1-M117<br />21/39 = 53.8% O-M175 total<br /><br />Inner Mongolian (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/45 = 2.2% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />5/45 = 11.1% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />3/45 = 6.7% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)<br />5/45 = 11.1% O3a3c1-M117<br />14/45 = 31.1% O-M175 total<br /><br />Zakhchin (Katoh et al. 2004)<br />2/60 = 3.3% O2b-SRY465<br />5/60 = 8.3% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2b-SRY465, O3-M122)<br />5/60 = 8.3% O3-M122<br />12/60 = 20.0% O-M175 total<br /><br />Khalkh (Katoh et al. 2004)<br />16/85 = 18.8% O3-M122<br /><br />Outer Mongolian (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/65 = 1.5% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />3/65 = 4.6% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />1/65 = 1.5% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)<br />3/65 = 4.6% O3a3c1-M117<br />8/65 = 12.3% O-M175 total<br /><br />Uriankhai (Katoh et al. 2004)<br />3/60 = 5.0% O2b-SRY465<br />4/60 = 6.7% O3-M122<br />7/60 = 11.7% O-M175 total<br /><br />Khoton (Katoh et al. 2004)<br />1/40 = 2.5% O3-M122<br /><br />As you can see, there is 1/65 O2*-P31 in the Outer Mongolian sample of Xue et al. 2006 and 0/85 O-M175(xO3-M122) in the Khalkh sample of Katoh et al. 2004.<br /><br />However, you are correct that the frequency of O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) may be slightly higher in northern Manchuria and Hulunbuir than in Central Asia:<br /><br />Manchu (Xue et al. 2006)<br />3/35 = 8.6% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />2/35 = 5.7% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br /><br />5/35 = 14.3% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /><br />Oroqen (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/31 = 3.2% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2-P31, O3-M122)<br />2/31 = 6.5% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br /><br />3/31 = 9.7% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /><br />Daur (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2-P31, O3-M122)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br /><br />3/39 = 7.7% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /><br />Nanai/PRC (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/45 = 2.2% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />2/45 = 4.4% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br /><br />3/45 = 6.7% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /><br />Evenk/PRC (Xue et al. 2006)<br />0/26 O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) <br /><br />The Manchus, Oroqens, Evenks, and Nanais are traditionally Tungusic-speaking populations, though all these groups, and especially the Manchus, have suffered varying degrees of language shift. The Daurs are an eccentric Mongolic-speaking population that lives in close proximity with some Tungusic populations.<br /><br />Anyway, the presently available samples are probably insufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant cline in the frequency of O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) between Central Asia and northern East Asia (excluding southern Manchuria, Korea, and Japan, where O2b-SRY465 is common).Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-46151100515843149002010-09-12T08:02:37.142+02:002010-09-12T08:02:37.142+02:00"as you can see, the combined frequency of th..."as you can see, the combined frequency of these haplogroups is generally not significantly greater in the easterly Mongolic and Tungusic populations than it is in the westerly Iranic and Turkic populations".<br /><br />But no data from Mongols proper. The Manchu and Oroqen frequencies of O2* are important (6-9%) and larger than those in Central Asians for all O* (which could also be O2b)<br /><br />Overall, O(xO1a, O2a, O3) the apportions among NE Altaics are rather large: 7-14% , clearly more and a possible source of Central Asian one (1-6%). Founder effects within the Turkic expansion should also be considered as the densities were rather low and the overall Turkic impact major in Central Asia, specially in Y-DNA.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-61387747962396527142010-09-12T07:40:04.149+02:002010-09-12T07:40:04.149+02:00Actually, I should have said that the Manchu sampl...Actually, I should have said that the Manchu sample of Xue et al. 2006 also has a moderately high frequency of {O2b+O2*} (5/35 = 14.3%), but in that case it is mostly due to O2*-P31 (3/35), whereas the Manchu sample of Katoh et al. 2004 has only 1/101 potential O2*-P31 (1/101 O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2b-SRY465, O3-M122)).<br /><br />In other words, the Manchu sample of Katoh et al. 2004 has a high frequency of O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) Y-DNA, but this is, as in the case of the Koreans, almost entirely due to their large apportion of O2b-SRY465. The Manchu sample of Xue et al. 2006 has a moderate frequency of O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) Y-DNA, but in that case O2*-P31 makes a much greater contribution to the {O2b+O2*} total.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-57821163541137166682010-09-12T07:35:07.024+02:002010-09-12T07:35:07.024+02:00Thanks, Ebizur. It gives the impression of there b...Thanks, Ebizur. It gives the impression of there being a relevant O2(xO2a,O2b) in NE Asia. I'm not sure of the apportions in SE Asia but if nothing like that exists, we should consider if O2 did expand from North to South (after a first South to North migration if we accept that the origin of MNOPS, NO and O are in the South). <br /><br />This can be very interesting because it could make O2 people the carriers of bladelet technology, assuming that this one arrived to East Asia via Altai (40 Ka) and Mongolia (20 Ka) with Son Vi culture known in SE Asia (also 20 Ka).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-81298899347972674462010-09-12T07:23:59.785+02:002010-09-12T07:23:59.785+02:00Both O2b-SRY465 and O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465) ...Both O2b-SRY465 and O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465) have been found in Tungusic and Mongolic populations of Greater Manchuria. Even O1a-M119 and O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88) have been found in some of these populations, especially the Mongolic-speaking Daurs. I suppose the O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) individuals that Wells et al. have found in their Central Asian samples are probably O2b-SRY465 or O2*-P31, but, as you can see, the combined frequency of these haplogroups is generally not significantly greater in the easterly Mongolic and Tungusic populations than it is in the westerly Iranic and Turkic populations. Only the Koreans and the Manchu sample of Katoh et al. 2004 have much higher frequencies of O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) Y-DNA, but that is entirely due to the elevated frequency of O2b-SRY465 among them.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-50452260963874706112010-09-12T07:14:03.632+02:002010-09-12T07:14:03.632+02:00Maju said,
"Ebizur: what percentage of that ...Maju said,<br /><br />"Ebizur: what percentage of that same O* category is found in Mongols and other related NE Asian "micro-Altaics" (specially Tungusic peoples)?<br /><br />I understand that, if those O* of Central Asia have a Turco-Mongolic origin, they should be found at meaningful levels in Mongols and possibly Tungus, additionally to Koreans."<br /><br />34/101 = 33.7% O2b-SRY465 Manchu (Katoh et al. 2004) [1/101 O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2b-SRY465, O3-M122), 3/101 O1a-M119, 43/101 O3-M122]<br /><br />14/45 = 31.1% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Korean (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />Manchu (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/35 = 2.9% O1a-M119<br />3/35 = 8.6% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />2/35 = 5.7% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br />6/35 = 17.1% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />2/35 = 5.7% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)<br />5/35 = 14.3% O3a3c1-M117<br /><br />5/35 = 14.3% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br />19/35 = 54.3% O-M175 total<br /><br />Oroqen (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/31 = 3.2% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2-P31, O3-M122)<br />2/31 = 6.5% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />2/31 = 6.5% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />2/31 = 6.5% O3a3b-M7<br />1/31 = 3.2% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)<br />1/31 = 3.2% O3a3c1-M117<br /><br />3/31 = 9.7% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br />9/31 = 29.0% O-M175 total<br /><br />Daur (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2-P31, O3-M122)<br />2/39 = 5.1% O1a-M119<br />1/39 = 2.6% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />1/39 = 2.6% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br />6/39 = 15.4% O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88)<br />7/39 = 17.9% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />3/39 = 7.7% O3a3c1-M117<br /><br />3/39 = 7.7% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br />21/39 = 53.8% O-M175 total<br /><br />Nanai/PRC (Xue et al. 2006)<br />1/45 = 2.2% O2*-P31(xO2a-M95, O2b-SRY465)<br />2/45 = 4.4% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)<br />11/45 = 24.4% O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />2/45 = 4.4% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)<br />7/45 = 15.6% O3a3c1-M117<br /><br />3/45 = 6.7% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br />23/45 = 51.1% O-M175 total<br /><br />1/16 = 6.3% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Tajik/Dushanbe, Tajikistan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />3/60 = 5.0% O2b-SRY465 Uriankhai (Katoh et al. 2004) [4/60 = 6.7% O3-M122]<br /><br />2/41 = 4.9% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Uighur/Kazakstan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />1/22 = 4.5% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Crimean Tatar/Uzbekistan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />2/60 = 3.3% O2b-SRY465 Zakhchin (Katoh et al. 2004) [5/60 = 8.3% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2b-SRY465, O3-M122), 5/60 = 8.3% O3-M122]<br /><br />1/40 = 2.5% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Tajik/Samarkand, Uzbekistan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />1/54 = 1.9% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Kazak/Kazakstan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />1/68 = 1.5% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> Uzbek/Surkhandarya, Uzbekistan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />1/70 = O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122)<br /> 1.4% Uzbek/Khorezm, Uzbekistan (Wells et al. 2001)<br /><br />0/26 O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a-M95, O3-M122) Evenk/PRC (Xue et al. 2006)<br />2/26 O1a-M119<br />1/26 O2a-M95(xO2a1-M88)<br />1/26 O3-M122(xO3a3a-M159, O3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)<br />1/26 O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)<br />4/26 O3a3c1-M117<br />9/26 = 34.6% O-M175 total<br /><br />0/85 O-M175(xO3-M122) Khalkh (Katoh et al. 2004) [16/85 = 18.8% O3-M122]Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-62251221756191930512010-09-10T23:44:34.168+02:002010-09-10T23:44:34.168+02:00"Han (not sure what kind of Han right now) cl..."Han (not sure what kind of Han right now) cluster with SE Asians (all them) rather than with NE Asians" <br /><br />So? Surely you realise that NE Asians are predominantly Y-haps N and C3, not O. <br /><br />"so please no more off-topic posts". <br /><br />OK. Last comment here. From me anyway.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-31138661166388953752010-09-10T23:38:15.347+02:002010-09-10T23:38:15.347+02:00"You will never claim that Papuan Y-DNA M and..."You will never claim that Papuan Y-DNA M and S (and other MNOPS*) are 'Neolithic', then why dare you claim that the parallel expansion of NO in East Asia is?" <br /><br />I don't. I claim it is Paleolithic. Our disagreement is where NO expanded from. I agree that MNOPS* is SE Asian, but it looks to me very much as if NO moved north and then N went north (with some small amount also moving south) and O moved south. <br /><br />"Can you bother looking at fig. 6?!" <br /><br />I have. And I see virtually no geographic differentiation. That surely fails to provide evidence for an ancient O3 expansion. In fact it supports the concept of a Neolithic expansion. <br /><br />"I did not forget C3, which is the only C haplogroup in mainland NE Asia". <br /><br />From here on you post is sprinkled liberally with 'could have' and 'maybe'. I agree that C and D represent an older layer. To me the haplogroup evidence for the whole of East Asia, from Japan to Australia, is most parsimoniously explained if we postulate that C and D were originally northern haplogroups, C1 and D reaching Japan quite early, leaving what became C3 behind somewhere. What became C2 and C4 moved down the eastern Eurasian coastline and crossed Wallace's line to reach Australia, missing New Guinea. And D moved south by a more inland route. Near Wallacea somewhere C met up with MNOPS*. From there MNOPS*'s descendants expanded. M, S and some K crossed Wallace's line in turn and colonised New Guinea and a few islands beyond. NO moved north, reaching what is today the border between China and Inner Mongolia. N moved into the higher country beyond, and O diversified in the region to the south, later moving further south again once the Neolithic had developed in the region. That leaves Y-hap P. To me it seems most likely that P moved west, into India, where it gave rise to R, and then P and R moved on north into south Central Asia, where P gave rise to Q and R1b developed. Q then moved east, north of Mongolia, eventually reaching America. <br /><br />"This double wave can also be perceived to some extent in mtDNA, I believe". <br /><br />So do I. Y-haps C and D arrived in Japan with what became N9 and carried the mtDNA haplogroup south to Australia, where it became mtDNA S. Along the way mtDNA R formed, which then expanded with various derivatives of Y-hap MNOPS*. MNOPS* had already carried several mtDNA M lines into the region. MtDNA P crossed Wallace's line with Y-haps K, M and S, as did mtDNA M derivatives, including Q. Other mtDNA R lines entered India, presumably with Y-hap P, where they became a significant element of the population, even though mtDNA M was already present there. Y-hap NO had carried several of these mtDNA M lines north with them into China.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-91774932525896136062010-09-10T23:16:38.935+02:002010-09-10T23:16:38.935+02:00And as for the paper, Hong Xi 2005, the paper you ...And as for the paper, Hong Xi 2005, the paper you mentioned above is the only one I know that deals with the origins of O3. It concludes that is from the South and it has not bee contended AFAIK until today. <br /><br />You may however be interested in visiting Quetzacoatl Anthropology Forums where there is some very knowledgeable people, most of them Asians. For example, I stumbled, searching for more stuff, with Ibra who is quite an expert, IMO, and someone who taught me some good stuff) <a href="http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/03/major-east-west-divide-in-indonesian-y.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> clearly arguing in favor of the "slow boat" hypothesis for the Austronesian migration to the Pacific islands, meaning that there was an episode of admixture at the Lapita Culture, when they got the C2a lineage that made this thread diverge so much from Gibraltar. <br /><br />So yea, let's get focused: there are other threads about East Eurasia. This one is about West Eurasia, so please no more off-topic posts.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-36783512205625110352010-09-10T23:02:40.348+02:002010-09-10T23:02:40.348+02:00Look, I just stumble on that kind of data all the ...Look, I just stumble on that kind of data all the time. I was just reading <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001116" rel="nofollow">this new paper</a> on altitude adaptation of Tibetans and Andeans and, guess what, there's a structure graph of East Asian autosomal genetics in <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001116&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001116.g002#" rel="nofollow">fig. 2</a> and again Han (not sure what kind of Han right now) cluster with SE Asians (all them) rather than with NE Asians, at least at K=3 (fig.2-D). And in the PC analysis (fig.2-B) again they cluster better with SE Asians than with NE Asians. <br /><br />Han are, even the Northern ones, largely of SE Asian origin and affinity (even in Dienekes' craniometrics!)when compared with other populations of NE Asia. So you should not be surprised at all that they have a haplogroup that expanded from SE Asia somewhat (but not too much) more recently than the typical NE Asian lineages like D, C3 and C1. <br /><br />This SEA origin and affinity of even Northern Han can confuse things but you just have to sample some other NE Asians to see their real place in East Asia overall.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-50432404067342466442010-09-10T22:49:09.506+02:002010-09-10T22:49:09.506+02:00"the whole letter is written and designed in ..."the whole letter is written and designed in order not to explore the facts as much as to support a theory". <br /><br />That is exactly what you have been doing with every comment yuou've made on this post. <br /><br />"I'm sure that there are papers on these matters with more recent timestamps, and therefore more productive, hopefully". <br /><br />I invite you to try and find one, preferably one that doesn't manipulate the evidence in order to 'prove' a southern orign for Y-hap O3. I haven't been able to find one.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-71826768930348405572010-09-10T18:32:08.217+02:002010-09-10T18:32:08.217+02:00"written by a group of Chinese, so I've n..."written by a group of Chinese, so I've no doubt you'll disagree".<br /><br />I have absolutely no reason to disagree with researchers just because they are Chinese. I do disregard some ideas that some of them (and not just Chinese, you are a clear example) declare thoughtlessly based only on old school historiography. Luckily not all Chinese authors fall on that trap, specially not as the dates of publication approach the present, because it's becoming more and more obvious that the overall pattern of genetic spread in East Asia is from South to North and largely (not only) along the coast, what clearly dismantles the old held beliefs to a large extent. <br /><br />I am not going to discuss all the sentences because it's tiresome and mostly pointless. What I want you to do is to look at the PC graphs (almost the only relevant info in that letter, not really a paper) and realize that almost 50% of the haploid variation goes along the horizontal axis (48% for Y-DNA) and only 13-23% goes in the vertical axis. <br /><br />So half of the variation does not align across the Han/non-Han axis but across some other axis that could well be said to run between Hmong/Austroasiatic peoples and Daic ones with Han, and specially Southern Han, aligning more with the first group than the later one. The clustering of some South Han with North Han happens indeed but one would need to know which are the samples because some South Han are more like North Han than others on light of what I have seen so far. Some other South Han instead cluster with Hmong-Mien and look not much related even by Y-DNA to North Han. <br /><br />The situation is less clear for mtDNA. Here there's no clear structure in PC1, which is polarized by two South Han individuals (and then by two Hmong-Mien ones). PC2 shows (only 13%) a Northern Han pole but still most South Han cluster with South ethnics and those who do not are intermediate. <br /><br />Anyhow I'm not sure if PC analysis has any real use in haploid genetics because you have to assign arbitrary values to haplogroups, often regardless of their phylogeny (but based on geography and such). It'd be much more useful to make a good comprehensive analysis of all Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups at depths as good as possible through all East Asia, from Wallacea to Chukotka. That would really help. <br /><br />"So they interpret the similarity of northern and southern Han Y-haplogroups as being the result of recent (in the last 2000 years) movement. How is it possible to reconcile the wider similarity between northern and southern Y-haps with a Paleolithic expansion?"<br /><br />First, this is not really clear from that letter, which lacks depth of analysis and can only be considered an exercise that must also be considered along with its 2004 timestamp (i.e. pretty old for this rapidly evolving field). <br /><br />Second, I am not denying that the Chinese expansion southwards carried some colonization with it. I am just relativizing it to its proper dimension. <br /><br />Third, the whole letter is written and designed in order not to explore the facts as much as to support a theory. Obviously they were already in 2004 facing more and more authors suggesting the south to north main flow pattern and minimizing the N->S Han one but this paradigm has grown in strength since 2006 and later, as the "coastal" migration model became dominant in our understanding of the peopling of Eurasia. <br /><br />I'm sure that there are papers on these matters with more recent timestamps, and therefore more productive, hopefully.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-48455391574883745852010-09-10T18:04:13.259+02:002010-09-10T18:04:13.259+02:00"But even you must admit that O3a3b is severa..."But even you must admit that O3a3b is several steps removed from O3*, and could well have coalesced in the south".<br /><br />Absolutely. But as far as I can see there is no lineage that must have coalesced in the North. This paper anyhow fails to provide enough resolution for the rest of the haplogroup O3, only the two mentioned, which are quite large, are dealt with any detail and both look southerner. <br /><br />"Yes, they EXCLUDED them".<br /><br />But they included Northern Han!<br /><br />And anyhow, you still have the full STR network side by side in the same graph 6. They just double-checked. <br /><br />Can you bother looking at fig. 6?!<br /><br />"And don't forget C".<br /><br />I did not forget C3, which is the only C haplogroup in mainland NE Asia. I explicitly mentioned it in my previous post, saying roughly that I am under the impression that C3 is somewhat of an older layer (together with unmentioned D and C1) that was displaced in the late Eurasian Expansion by "NO clan" people (which should be essentially the same as the mtDNA "B+F clan", plus some other mtDNA haplos like maybe N9). <br /><br />"Surely the presence of O's brother N to the Far North to the exclusion of O suggests (although I admit not necessarily so) that the four haplogroups (N, O1, O2 and O3) originated from somewhere near each other".<br /><br />I'd try to be faithful to the phylogenetic hierarchy, hence N compares with O as a whole and not with its subclades. The NO bifurcation happened surely in SE Asia (possibly in southernmost China but unsure) because N is also most diverse towards the South, AFAIK, even if it's relatively rare over there. <br /><br />So both O and N look southern East Asian by origin, with N taking the primary role in expanding northwards within this haplogroup NO and O instead being the leader locally at the original zone. <br /><br />I'm unsure if O1, O2 and O3 can be compared directly with anything under N, as the phylogenies are not really looking parallel at all and possibly their timings were also somewhat different after they parted ways. So I'll focus on O. <br /><br />Maybe in parallel to N migrating northwards, O split into its three branches: O1 spread through SE Asia, O2 along the coast and O3 more generically (i.e. probably at the interior). Without a good archaeological record for Chinese and SE Asian Paleolithic we can't really reconstruct how or when these events happened. But for me it's pretty clear that O replaced pre-existent "clans" (D, C1 and C3 in the Y-DNA record), what implies a major demic replacement that could only happen in a Paleolithic context, specially considering the TMRCA produced by this paper (and others, I believe). <br /><br />Alternatively one could imagine that C (C1 and C3) spread more or less along the NO expansion but what about D? Maybe they are just random founder effects at peripheral areas, where the dominant position of O would not drift them out but the pattern is suggestive of at least two waves in the MP-UP Paleolithic timeline of Eurasian Colonization. <br /><br />This double wave can also be perceived to some extent in mtDNA, <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/02/reconstruction-of-mtdna-spread-in.html" rel="nofollow">I believe</a>. <br /><br />If so, the expansion of D and C would correlate best with the earliest expansion starred by mtDNA M subclades (M7 and D specially), while the NO expansion would correlate well with that of R derivatives: R11'B7, B4'5 and R9 (pre-F) - and surely also with N9. <br /><br />Curiously the same pattern is found in Sahul, where Australia, that has no mtDNA R also has virtually no Y-DNA MNOPS (or K), while Melanesia, that has strong mtDNA R (P) also has abundant Y-DNA MNOPS in the form of M and S. <br /><br />And the timing must be almost the same: one coding mutation downstream of the mtDNA R node. You will never claim that Papuan Y-DNA M and S (and other MNOPS*) are "Neolithic", then why dare you claim that the parallel expansion of NO in East Asia is? <br /><br />Look at the whole picture, please.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-81754316233084065122010-09-10T10:52:37.367+02:002010-09-10T10:52:37.367+02:00"The 'Han movement' is not well attes..."The 'Han movement' is not well attested". <br /><br />That's not what these people say ('Genetic evidence supports demic diffusion of Han culture'): <br /><br />http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/wenbo%20han%20culture%20paper%20(2004).pdf<br /><br />Admittedly written by a group of Chinese, so I've no doubt you'll disagree. But some quotes: <br /><br />"The Han people, like East Asians are divided into two genetically differentiated groups, northern Han and southern Han, separated approximately by the Yangtze river" <br /><br />Surprisingly near to part of the Yangtze/Yellow river Neolithic. <br /><br />"However, the substantial sharing of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial lineages between the two groups and the historical records describing the expansion of Han people contradict the cultural diffusion model hypothesis of the Han expansion" <br /><br />From here on I'll confine the extracts to Y-haps, which is what we have been disagreeing over: <br /><br />"In addition, haplogroups O1b-M110, O2a1-M88 and O3d-M7, which are prevalent in southern natives, were only observed in some southern Hans (4% on average), but not in northern Hans" <br /><br />So they have at least endevoured to separate 'native' SE Asian haplogroups from northern ones. Note, however, they don't consider Y-hap O2b, which is a northern version of O2. And remember the authors are considering only Han movement, no consideration of possible pre-Han movement and the general similarities of northern and southern Y-haps. <br /><br />"The results of analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) further indicate that northern and southern Hans are not significantly different in their Y-haplogroups (Fst=0.006, P>0.05) demonstrating that southern Hans bear a high resemblance to northern Hans in their male lineages" <br /><br />"For the Y-chromosomes, all southern Hans showed a high proportion of northern Han contribution" <br /><br />"We provide two lines of evidence supporting the demic diffusion hypothesis for the expansion of Han culture. First, almost all Han populations bear a high resemblance in Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution, and the result of principal component analysis indicated that almost all Han populations form a tight cluster in their Y-chromosomes. Second, the estimated contribution of northern Hans to southern Hans is substantial in both paternal and maternal lineages and a geographic cline exists for mtDNA" <br /><br />Note, no cline for Y-haps. <br /><br />"A sex-biased admixture pattern was also observed in Tibeto-Burman-speaking populations" <br /><br />So there goes your theory. Finally: <br /><br />"Our genetic observation is thus in line with the historical accounts" <br /><br />So they interpret the similarity of northern and southern Han Y-haplogroups as being the result of recent (in the last 2000 years) movement. How is it possible to reconcile the wider similarity between northern and southern Y-haps with a Paleolithic expansion?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com