November 27, 2011

Y-haplogroup O3 in the eastern Himalayas

From the paper:
The samples were typed through seven panels of 75 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as listed in the latest Y- chromosome phylogenetic tree (Karafet et al., 2008). The panels were organized as follows: Panel 1 (within Haplogroup O), M175, M119, P203, M110, M268, P31, M95, M176, M122, M324, M121, P201, M7, M134, M117, 002611, P164, L127 (rs17269396), KL1 (rs17276338); Panel 2 (non- Haplogroup O), M130, P256, M1, M231, M168, M174, M45, M89, M272, M258, M242, M207, M9, M96, P125, M304, M201, M306; Panel 3 (Haplogroup C), M217; Panel 4 (Haplogroup D), P47, N1, P99, M15, M125, M55, M64.1, M116.1, M151, N2, 022457; Panel 5 (Haplogroup N), M214, LLY22g, M128, M46/Tat, P63, P119, P105, P43,M178; Panel 6 (Haplogroup R), M306, M173, M124, M420, SRY10831.2, M17, M64.2, M198, M343, V88, M458, M73, M434, P312, M269, U106/M405; Panel 7 (Haplogroup Q), P36.2.
Wikipedia article on Luoba and Deng.

Annals of Human Genetics DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00690.x

Y-chromosome O3 Haplogroup Diversity in Sino-Tibetan Populations Reveals Two Migration Routes into the Eastern Himalayas

Longli Kang et al.

The eastern Himalayas are located near the southern entrance through which early modern humans expanded into East Asia. The genetic structure in this region is therefore of great importance in the study of East Asian origins. However, few genetic studies have been performed on the Sino-Tibetan populations (Luoba and Deng) in this region. Here, we analyzed the Y-chromosome diversity of the two populations. The Luoba possessed haplogroups D, N, O, J, Q, and R, indicating gene flow from Tibetans, as well as the western and northern Eurasians. The Deng exhibited haplogroups O, D, N, and C, similar to most Sino-Tibetan populations in the east. Short tandem repeat (STR) diversity within the dominant haplogroup O3 in Sino-Tibetan populations showed that the Luoba are genetically close to Tibetans and the Deng are close to the Qiang. The Qiang had the greatest diversity of Sino-Tibetan populations, supporting the view of this population being the oldest in the family. The lowest diversity occurred in the eastern Himalayas, suggesting that this area was an endpoint for the expansion of Sino-Tibetan people. Thus, we have shown that populations with haplogroup O3 moved into the eastern Himalayas through at least two routes.

70 comments:

eurologist said...

I haven't had time to read the paper, but that abstract certainly sound like another attempt to make Tibetans "originally Chinese."

Spread of 30% - 60% rice farmer y-DNA may have relatively little to do with autosomal - at least in some areas.

Pascvaks said...

The Chinese Government today certainly has an "ethnic pride" agenda. Can't say I'm inclined to believe much they say without a lot more independent study/proof. Still can't get it out of my mind that the "original" route into SE Asia and China was via the now inundated coastal areas and not inland, overland, and via high mountain passes. The original Tibetan population "should have come" from the West and South, and the Sino bloodlines in them today "should have come" from the East and North. Time/distance and a map says the the first Tibetans were not Chinese. But... time will tell.

mregdna said...

Luoba and Deng are rather tibeto-burmese than sino-tibetan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhoba_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishmi_people

Dienekes said...

Tibeto-Burman is part of Sino-Tibetan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Tibetan_languages

Maju said...

From your Wiki-link, Dienekes:

"A few scholars, most prominently Christopher Beckwith and Roy Andrew Miller, argue that Chinese is not related to Tibeto-Burman. They point to what they consider an absence of regular sound correspondences, an absence of reconstructable shared morphology, and evidence that much shared lexical material has been borrowed from Chinese into Tibeto-Burman.[7][8][9]"

I personally like to keep an open mind on this matter, because it's not clear at all.

(I wonder how did I manage to subscribe to this thread and yet there is no comment of mine here before this one - meh!)

terryt said...

"Still can't get it out of my mind that the 'original' route into SE Asia and China was via the now inundated coastal areas and not inland, overland, and via high mountain passes".

Doubtful. A strictly coastal route would involve expanses of mangrove swamp forst and dangerous coastal cliffs. I'm much more inclined to accept an inland route through the Assam/Burma/Yunan region. The 'mountain passes' are not actually that high, about 2000 metres. The middle reaches of the Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong and Yangtze are quite close to each other in that region providing easy access to much of East and Southeast Asia. And mitochondrial DNA haplogroups can be easily arranged to fit an expansion from Northeast India through that region.

"The Chinese Government today certainly has an 'ethnic pride' agenda. Can't say I'm inclined to believe much they say without a lot more independent study/proof".

I agree with that although I think they are keenest to obscure any evidence that people from within what today is China have ever moved anywhere else.

Gregory76 said...

I agree with Pascvaks that a route across the Himalayas seems too difficult to be likely. And in any case it seems that at least some of the ancestors of the Mongoloid people must have come from the north, since the Mongoloid phenotype is an adaptation to cold weather. Most likely those of Y haplotype O, and, to a lesser extent, N and Q, carried it south. (Moreover, it seems to me that they in turn came from West Eurasia, since there reside most of their close relatives—R, and to some extent L, and, more distantly, G, I, J, and T, and, to some extent, H.) Now C and D probably came originally from the south, since most others of these haplotypes (outside of the Americas) are found in South and Southeast Asia, New Guinea and Australia, but it seems that then they came up the coast, as Pascvaks suggests, and then headed west inland, and then some headed back south, since East Eurasian C and D are more common in the north than the south.

Andrew Oh-Willeke said...

"The eastern Himalayas are located near the southern entrance through which early modern humans expanded into East Asia."

Probably.

"The genetic structure in this region is therefore of great importance in the study of East Asian origins."

Less reliably. This region has seen major ethnic upheaval in the last few thousand years, long after East Asian populations had their origins. The Tibeto-Burman linguistic populations of South Asia are more recent in origin, and less admixed with other South Asian populations than any of its other linguistic groups. Some important Tibeto-Burman migrations in the area can be traced to the historic era and all of them probably date to the last 9,000 years.

"the Luoba are genetically close to Tibetans and the Deng are close to the Qiang. The Qiang had the greatest diversity of Sino-Tibetan populations, supporting the view of this population being the oldest in the family. The lowest diversity occurred in the eastern Himalayas, suggesting that this area was an endpoint for the expansion of Sino-Tibetan people."

The claim that there are at least two source populations is certainly solid. But, the Qiang could have acquired diversity from admixture instead of antiquity; this reasoning alone is too shallow to support the conclusion. One would want to know more about where the diverse varieties of O3 in the Qiang fit in the phylogeny and the recent population history of the region and the extent to which the various haplogroups have reached fixation in subpopulations of the Qiang to be confident in the abstract's assessment.

Justin said...

"since East Eurasian C and D are more common in the north than the south."

That is incorrect. Y-DNA haplogroup C is spread quite evenly throughout Asia-Pacific, with C3 predominating in North Asia (while also having a significant presence in Southeast Asia) and C2, C4 and C6 are found in the Pacific Islands, Australia and Papua New Guinea, respectively.

Y-DNA haplogroup D is a different story. It is mainly found among the Andaman Islanders (proto-Australoids), Tibeto-Burmans and Japanese.

The low frequency of D in Northeast Asia suggests that Y-DNA haplogroup D did not originate in Northeast Asia. Thais also have approximately 10% Y-DNA haplogroup D. Thus the evidence suggests a southern origin of haplogroup D.

Interestingly Y-DNA haplogroup D is linked with ASI admixture. The Andaman Islanders being proto-Australoids have a lot of ASI, as well as the Thais, Cambodians, Jomon tribes of Japan (Ryukyuans, Okinawans and Ainu) and the Japanese people themselves. A lot of studies have found a non-Mongoloid pattern among Japanese teeth. A lot of Japanese have a mixed Sinodont (Northern Asian- the predominant type in Korea, Manchuria and Northern China) and Sundadont (Southeast Asian- the predominant type in Malaysia, Indonesia and IndoChina) dental pattern.

terryt said...

"I agree with Pascvaks that a route across the Himalayas seems too difficult to be likely".

But the eastern end of the Himalayas is nowhere near as formidable as are the Himalayas proper.

"And in any case it seems that at least some of the ancestors of the Mongoloid people must have come from the north, since the Mongoloid phenotype is an adaptation to cold weather".

I agree completely with that, although many claim the phenotype is a product of random drift.

"Some important Tibeto-Burman migrations in the area can be traced to the historic era and all of them probably date to the last 9,000 years".

Again I totally agree. Y-haplogroup O3 (and probably D) were carried south with that expansion.

"Luoba and Deng are rather tibeto-burmese than sino-tibetan".

Either way it makes their direction of migration most likely from north to south.

"Y-DNA haplogroup C is spread quite evenly throughout Asia-Pacific, with C3 predominating in North Asia (while also having a significant presence in Southeast Asia) and C2, C4 and C6 are found in the Pacific Islands, Australia and Papua New Guinea, respectively".

Unfortunately the authors don't specify which subgroup of C we are dealing with here. Most likely C3 although it could be C*. Does anyone know the C haplogroup involved?

Gregory76 said...

Justin said in reply to me:

“ "since East Eurasian C and D are more common in the north than the south."

That is incorrect. Y-DNA haplogroup C is spread quite evenly throughout Asia-Pacific, with C3 predominating in North Asia (while also having a significant presence in Southeast Asia) and C2, C4 and C6 are found in the Pacific Islands, Australia and Papua New Guinea, respectively. “

I reply:
Australia, New Guinea and are not part of East Eurasia—which term I used in what seems to be the current standard manner: to cover Northern, Central, Eastern and Southeastern Asia. By “the more northern part of East Eurasia” I meant to covers Northern , Central and, to a lesser extern, Eastern Asia, by “the southern part of East Eurasia” I meant to cover Southeast Asia. C and D are stronger Central and Northern Asia than in Southeast Asia (and when found in the latter are mainly associated with Australoid and Negritoid peoples).

Justin continued:

“the evidence suggests a southern origin of haplogroup D.”
I reply:
As I said: the presence of C and D among Australoid and Negritoid peoples of Australia, New Guinea and some part of Southeast Asia suggests that it entered East Asia from the South.
However, the fact C and D are stronger in the Mongoloids of North and Central Asia (together with Japan and Tibet) suggests that C and D among Mongoloids in the Southeast Asia is the result of a latter, reverse migration from north to south (after having mixed with 0).

Justin added:
Interestingly Y-DNA haplogroup D is linked with ASI admixture. The Andaman Islanders being proto-Australoids have a lot of ASI….”
I reply:
Andamanese have little or no Australoid admixture, being phenotypically mainly Negroid (I call those who are phenotypically Negroid in Asia and the Pacific “Negritoids” since their phenotype may be the result of convergent evolution with the Negroids of Africa rather than being the result of a common ancestry.) Now traits of a non-Negroid (Australoid or Caucasoid) phenotype seem to increase as you go from the Andamanese to to Semang to Malaysia to the Aeta of the Philippines to the Tapiro of New Guinea.

Lathdrinor said...

"A few scholars, most prominently Christopher Beckwith and Roy Andrew Miller, argue that Chinese is not related to Tibeto-Burman. They point to what they consider an absence of regular sound correspondences, an absence of reconstructable shared morphology, and evidence that much shared lexical material has been borrowed from Chinese into Tibeto-Burman.[7][8][9]"

On the other hand, Roy Andrew Miller is himself a supporter of the idea that Korean and Japanese are Altaic, which other linguists consider to be incorrect for some of the same reasons he considers Chinese to be unrelated to Tibeto-Burman.

Historical linguistics is fraught with controversies and disagreements, many of it methodological, which is enough to make me think that current available theories are insufficient to model the development and dispersal of languages.

In any case, to address a genetic point raised earlier - if C and/or D cannot be from the north because its low frequency there, then how can O be? O's distribution decreases rapidly with distance from continental East Asia. North of a certain latitude, corresponding roughly to southern Manchuria, it is barely found at all, whereas its southern distribution extends all way to Oceania.

As for O3 and whether it came into the Himalayas from China - I can't say, but I do know that the history of Burma is full of T-B migrations from the north (ie the Pyu). Northwest China may have been a locus of T-B dispersal, but whether they replaced non-T-B indigenous languages in the Himalayan region, or merely variants of other T-B languages, is difficult to say.

Andrew Oh-Willeke said...

"Y-DNA haplogroup D is a different story. It is mainly found among the Andaman Islanders (proto-Australoids), Tibeto-Burmans and Japanese."

Neither the Y-DNA nor the autosomal genetics back Andaman Islanders as proto-Australoids, and of course, there is no hg D in Australia or Papua New Guinea's indigenous populations.

"Interestingly Y-DNA haplogroup D is linked with ASI admixture. The Andaman Islanders being proto-Australoids have a lot of ASI, as well as the Thais, Cambodians, Jomon tribes of Japan (Ryukyuans, Okinawans and Ainu) and the Japanese people themselves."

The Japanese and Ainu don't have significant ASI admixture or any great affinity genetically to Australian or Papuan indigenous populations. There is some hg D in SE Asia, but not heaps.

"A lot of studies have found a non-Mongoloid pattern among Japanese teeth. A lot of Japanese have a mixed Sinodont (Northern Asian- the predominant type in Korea, Manchuria and Northern China) and Sundadont (Southeast Asian- the predominant type in Malaysia, Indonesia and IndoChina) dental pattern."

Are the Sinodonts or the Sundadonts the purported non-Mongoloids? And, where do the Ainu fit in your classification scheme (something that puzzled 19th century physical anthropologists).

Gregory76 said...

Lathrindor said
"if C and/or D cannot be from the north because its low frequency there, then how can O be?.... North of a certain latitude, corresponding roughly to southern Manchuria, it is barely found at all..."
I reply:
If you think that this is my view you misunderstand me. I do not say that C and D are rare in North Asia, as I know they are common there. I think that they originate in the south not because they are rare in the north but because they are common in the south, and I have no reason to question the common view that they came to Eastern, Central and Northern Asia from the south (though I doubt that they came across the Himalayas, and though I think that, after hybridizing with those peoples whose males carried the O, the combined population moved south again). As for O, I do believe that it originated in North Asia, as it is the best candidate for carrying the Mongoloid phenotype from the cold area of its origin, and its closest relative, N, is found mostly in North Asia as well. Presumably the earliest bearers of O, which may have been a small group of people, migrated in their entirety from North to Central Asia (along with some N), leaving no members behind in North Asia, and migrated further from there.

Justin said...

"Australia, New Guinea and are not part of East Eurasia—which term I used in what seems to be the current standard manner: to cover Northern, Central, Eastern and Southeastern Asia. By “the more northern part of East Eurasia” I meant to covers Northern , Central and, to a lesser extern, Eastern Asia, by “the southern part of East Eurasia” I meant to cover Southeast Asia. C and D are stronger Central and Northern Asia than in Southeast Asia (and when found in the latter are mainly associated with Australoid and Negritoid peoples)."

Again, you're incorrect. C has a very significant presence in Southeast Asia. N3 dominates Eastern Siberia, while C3 is more of a Manchurian-Tungusic Y-DNA haplogroup. You can't deny the C* that exists in Australian Aboriginies, Pacific Islanders and New Guineans.

"Andamanese have little or no Australoid admixture, being phenotypically mainly Negroid"

You seem to have no idea about the genetics of Andamanese Negritos (who are majority Y-DNA haplogroup D as found in Japanese). Negritos are the closest to ASI (Australoids) and they are anthropologically classified as proto-Australoids (please Google it). Andamanese Negritos are not Negroids.

Japanese are also related to Australoids because a significant portion of their genome is ASI. This is due to the Jomon (Australoid) influence. Have you seen some old photos of Jomon Japanese (Okinawan, Ryukyuan or Ainu)? A lot of them look exactly like Australian Aboriginies, and some look more Austronesian like Southeast Asians.

Justin said...

The common view among the scientific community is that D reached Asia from a coastal migration from Africa, through southern coast of Arabia and then to the Andaman Islands. Please check where the Adnaman Islands are located on the map. They are located just west of Thailand and south of Burma.

Also the earliest form of haplogroup D (D* or paragroup D) is found at a 100% rate among Andaman Negritos, suggesting that Y-DNA haplogroup D originated in Southeast Asia, not Northeast Asia.

Y-DNA haplogroup D in East Asia is mainly limited to Tibeto-Burmans (Himalayas and Southeast Asia), Thais (also Southeast Asia) and Japan (East Asia). The sporadic occurrence of D in Northeast Asia are negligible and are due to interactions with Tibetans.

Gregory76 said...

You’re wrong, Justin. Read what I say more carefully in the future. I never denied that D is strong among the Andamanese, since I am well aware of the fact. Apparently you are unaware of that D is not common among the Australians. Your main problem seems to be relying to much on the concept of ASI (Ancestral South Indians), which seems useful mainly as a residual category for all Indians who are not Caucasoid (or are in tribes rather than castes): it is heterogeneous, covering both Andamanese and Veddiods. Though they have some similarity as regards female haplotypes, they differ considerably in male haplotypes, since the Andamanese are more D than C, while the reverse is true of the Veddoids (though the genetic boundary between the Veddoids and later Indians is not sharp as phenotypes and social separation led us to expect). The concept of ASI causes much the same problem as that of Austro-Melanesians or Near Oceanians: it obscures the distinction between phenotypical ly Australoid and phenotypically Negroid peoples who have contrasting genetic profiles.
I have also been aware of the location of the Andamans since my elementary school days in the late 1960s. To avoid any confusion, I will say as I have said before that I believe that the Andamanoid and Australoid migrations both proceeded eastward along the south coast of Asia to southeast Asia, where each one forked in 2, sending one branch to Near Oceania and another north up the eastern coast of Asia (which covers island-hopping, hugging the mainland coast, or taking a path somewhat farther inland, though not over the Himalayas). Then both groups sent branches west into the interior ; this time there was less overlap in the migrations, as D was stronger in East Asia and C was stronger farther north. The remainder proceded north and east to the Americas. Meanwhile, I believe that a third migration went from southwest Asia to Europe, North Asia and Central Asia (as well as on to the Americas), and some of these went to East Asia, where mixture with the other migrations (especially the D branch) took place. Finally, there were movements from East Asia (back) to Southeast Asia.

Justin said...

Gregory I just corrected you that Y-DNA haplogroup D did not go from Northeast to Southeast Asia. Y-DNA haplogroup D first originated near the Andaman Islands or Southeast Asia then migrated north into the Himalayas and east to Japan. This is because the most ancient form of Y-DNA haplogroup D (para-group D) is found among Andaman Negritos, not any other Asians.

Thus the origins of haplogroup D is Southeast Asia, not Northeast Asia.

I agree with you that the Australoids originated around the southern coast of Asia and then migrated southeast into Southeast Asia. Australoid admixture seems to correlate well with ASI admixture. Also, I've seen many genotype comparisons and Andaman Negritos (majority haplogroup D like Himalayans and Japanese) seem to be the closest cluster towards Australoids (ASI). Also you said that Andaman Negritos are Negroids. That's incorrect. Andaman Negritos are classified as proto-Australoids.

master_of_americans said...

Re: Sino-Tibetan languages, I understand the objection that regular sound changes have not been proven, but I have not been able to understand how Beckwith and Miller think this overcomes the prima facie case based on the obvious similarity of Tibetan and Chinese numerals, esp. 2, 3, and 4, which are not so easy to borrow (the similarity of the words for 1 is not as obvious). Based on this sort of data, it seems more plausible to say that we don't know how to describe the exact connections between T-B and Chinese, rather than saying that there is no connection (either a genetic relationship or some kind of radical language contact, not just run-of-the-mill borrowing).

Maju said...

Justin: it's the basal diversity of D what is in SE Asia (of what Andaman's D is just the tip of the iceberg - and not really that important anyhow): D*, D1 and D3 are all located in the SE Asia area (Andaman, Indochina, South China) and haplotype trees get cozy over there, while further north D is generally concentrated in specific branches. The only study on the matter AFAIK is anyhow Hong Shi 2008 and they conclude for a Southern origin.

C also looks southern by the way, with C*, C2, C4 and C6 concentrated near Australia. The peripheral distribution of these Y-DNA lineages makes them look as if MNOPS (notably O) pushed them around in a second phase (but hard to know because the archaeology of the region is full of blanks).

terryt said...

"Presumably the earliest bearers of O, which may have been a small group of people, migrated in their entirety from North to Central Asia"

I'm reasonably certain that O can be closely associated with the early Neolithic expansion from the Yangtze valley, starting perhaps 12,000 years ago. It is therefore unnecessary to postulate, 'leaving no members behind in North Asia'. On the other hand I agree completely that 'it is the best candidate for carrying the Mongoloid phenotype from the cold area of its origin, and its closest relative, N, is found mostly in North Asia as well'. That does imply an origin somewhere in the northern part of the Yangtze or Huang Ho basins, perhaps the headwaters.

"You seem to have no idea about the genetics of Andamanese Negritos (who are majority Y-DNA haplogroup D as found in Japanese)".

But the connection between Japan and the Andamans is almost certainly over land, not via the coast.

"The common view among the scientific community is that D reached Asia from a coastal migration from Africa, through southern coast of Arabia and then to the Andaman Islands".

It is very unlikely that the Andamans were settled any earlier than about 15,000 years ago, at the earliest. So they did not arrive as part of any OoA. They are the product of a secondary migration, presumably from the nearby mainland (Burma?).

"Y-DNA haplogroup D in East Asia is mainly limited to Tibeto-Burmans (Himalayas and Southeast Asia), Thais (also Southeast Asia) and Japan (East Asia)".

And that suggests a mainland connection, not a coastal one, because, as Gregory76 says, 'D is not common among the Australians'. Or in New Guinea. Unknown, as far as I'm aware. Or in India, which also argues against a southern coastal route for the haplogroup.

"D*, D1 and D3 are all located in the SE Asia area (Andaman, Indochina, South China)"

The information I've been able to accumulate has D* common in the Andamans (but also found in Thais, Turks and Mongols, as well as a little in Sumatra), D1 in Tibet (with a few in wider East Asia) and D3 in Tibet, Tadzhikistan and Central Asia. D* could well be monophyletic so with D2 being Japanese it is difficult to argue convincingly for a SE Asian origin for D.

Onur said...

The information I've been able to accumulate has D* common in the Andamans (but also found in Thais, Turks and Mongols, as well as a little in Sumatra)

By Turk you must have meant Central Asian Turkic peoples, as I have never seen haplogroup D clades in Turks of Turkey.

Justin said...

Here is some information about ancient settlement in the Andaman Islands by Andamanese Negritos:

"Their ancestors are thought to have arrived in the islands 60,000 years ago from coastal India (or crossed over a land bridge from Burma during a glacial period) as part of the first human peopling of India and Southeast Asia, in the initial Great Coastal Migration on what is now the Continental shelf of the northern Indian Ocean that was the first expansion of humanity out of Africa that began 60,000 years ago."

So your claim that "It is very unlikely that the Andamans were settled any earlier than about 15,000 years ago" is incorrect.

And you seem to ignore the fact that paragroup D is found among Andaman Negritos and not any other Asian populations. Paragroup D is not found in Thais, Turks or Mongols. The sporadic (<5%) D among Mongols and Turks are due to interactions with Tibetans.

The D found in Central Asia is so minimal and only found in isolated tribes and is most likely due to interactions with Tibeto-Burmans (who have both D1 and D3). Tibeto-Burmans also have quite a lot of ASI (especially Burmese). The Japanese have significant ASI too, and noticeably more than the Koreans, Hezhes and Native Siberians (who have no ASI).

Haplogroup D is not via a mainland connection, it is a coastal (majority) AND mainland (minority) connection.

This is because Y-DNA haplogroup D originated in South Asia, near the Andaman Islands about 60,000-70,000 years ago, then spread north into Burma then Tibet. Another branch of haplogroup D spread east towards Japan. Some haplogroup D "leaked" out from Tibet-Burman area into surrounding areas, like Central and Southeast Asia.

If you suggest that the connection from Japan to the Andamans is via land, then how did D arrive in Japan? Koreans, Siberians and Northern Chinese do not have haplogroup D (very little if any). It is certainly not found in any native Siberians. Most geneticists believe that haplogroup D is associated with a great coastal migration, similar to haplogroup C.

However haplogroup D did not reach Siberia and the Americas. Also haplogroup D is found among Andaman Negritos, while haplogroup C is not.

The most important fact to understand is that paragroup D (the earliest form of Y-DNA haplogroup D) is only found among Andaman Islanders, and this suggests a southern origin of haplogroup D.

Justin said...

Also the mixed dental pattern found in Japan clearly demonstrates a mixed origin model for the ethnogenesis of the Japanese.

The Sundadont dental pattern predominates in the southern and northern Japan, where Jomon genetic influence is common (except maybe some parts of Tohoku where Yayoi exerted a lot of influence). The majority of Japanese have a mixed Sinodont (northern- the type found in Korea, Northern China and Siberia, Central Asians and Native Americans) and Sundadont (southern- the type found in Malaysia, southern China and IndoChina) dental pattern.

The Jomon (Okinawans, Ryukyuans and Ainu- there are probably more Jomon people) display a Sundadont dental pattern, which suggests a southern origin of Jomon Japanese people.

terryt said...

"So your claim that 'It is very unlikely that the Andamans were settled any earlier than about 15,000 years ago' is incorrect".

No it's not. There is no evidence for any arrival 'in the islands 60,000 years ago'. The only reason for the claim is the assumption of a 'great southern coastal migration' for which the evidence is becoming slimmer and slimmer. As far as I'm aware the earliest evidence for human presence on the Andamans is a little before the spread of the Hoabinhian, around 15,000 years ago. The 60,000 year date is simply made up to fit the belief.

"And you seem to ignore the fact that paragroup D is found among Andaman Negritos and not any other Asian populations. Paragroup D is not found in Thais, Turks or Mongols".

It's your turn to be mistaken. Turning to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D_(Y-DNA)

Quote:

"It is found today at high frequency among populations in Tibet, the Japanese Archipelago, and the Andaman Islands, though curiously not in India".

So there goes any theory that it came from 'coastal India' for a start.

"Haplogroup D chromosomes are also found at low to moderate frequencies among populations of Central Asia and northern East Asia as well as the Han and Miao–Yao peoples of China and among several minority populations of Sichuan and Yunnan that speak Tibeto-Burman languages and reside in close proximity to the Tibetans".

So D is actually quite widespread. But concerning paragroup D* specifically:

"Another type (or types) of paragroup D* is found at a very low frequency among the Turkic and Mongolic populations of Central Asia, amounting to no more than 1% in total. This apparently ancient diversification of Haplogroup D suggests that it may perhaps be better characterized as a 'super-haplogroup' or 'macro-haplogroup.' In one study, the frequency of Haplogroup D* found among Thais was 10%".

How can the author be so sure it is 'Another type (or types)' if we are dealing with a paragroup here?

"Haplogroup D is not via a mainland connection, it is a coastal (majority)"

How can it be 'coastal' if it is not actually spread around the coast?

"If you suggest that the connection from Japan to the Andamans is via land, then how did D arrive in Japan?"

They walked? Japan has been connected to the mainland at times of lowered sea level.

"Koreans, Siberians and Northern Chinese do not have haplogroup D (very little if any)".

Presumably because O and N have largely replaced it.

"Most geneticists believe that haplogroup D is associated with a great coastal migration, similar to haplogroup C".

As one of Dienekes recent posts shows that theory is rapidly becoming discredited.

"It is certainly not found in any native Siberians".

But it is quite diverse in Tibetans.

terryt said...

"The most important fact to understand is that paragroup D (the earliest form of Y-DNA haplogroup D) is only found among Andaman Islanders, and this suggests a southern origin of haplogroup D".

Using that logic I assume you are adamant that Y-DNA J has an origin on Socotra.

Maju said...

No Terry: it is you who are misleading yourself and the rest: Hong Shi 2008 clearly indicated that D* is found among Daic peoples (Chuang and Dai specifically), and that the root was among them (shared with Tibetans?).

But that's not so important because it's possible that D* is a single (yet undescribed) haplogroup (it has tree-like structure). Assuming that, what we have is that D has four subclades: of which three are concentrated and likely originated (per the haplogroup structures (fig. 3) at Southern China (SE Asia in my terminology): Daic/Tibetans for D*, Hmong-Mien/Tibetans for D1 and Tibetans for D3. Only D2 (exclusively Japanese) breaks this pattern.

As we know that Tibetans originate from the eastern outskirts of the Tibetan Plateau, which were colonized in the Paleolithic, we can with some safety place the origin of D*, D1 and D3 in that area of South China. The weight of the Japanese D2 clade would only pull a bit towards the NE (and then the local Tibetan DE*, pre-D surely, pulls bach towards Tibet).

So D and pre-D are from South China with all likelihood.

The Northern scatter (Han, micro-Altaic) is invariably derived from the lineages of the South.

Justin said...

You're wrong, terryt.

"It's your turn to be mistaken. Turning to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D_(Y-DNA)"

You use Wikipedia as a source? Since you've used it I'll give you a second chance. Please link me the exact studies which show that paragroup D exists in Turks and Mongols. And it can't be D* because many studies put the "*" symbol to indicate a haplogroup "other than D#". Such as... you will see many studies on East Asians identify C3c, while putting haplogroups "other than C3c" as C*, even though it could be C1, C3, C4, etc.

Also, AFTER you can prove that the authors identified the <1% of D found among Turks and Mongols are indeed paragroup D, then I want to know if the STR's and SNP's are exactly the same.

Also your theory that the Andaman Islands were inhabited only 15,000 years ago is based on your own imagination because all modern scientific sources say the likely time of Andaman Negritos inhabiting the Andaman Islands is at least 60,000 years ago.

Here is a study that proves that the Andaman Negritos inhabited the Andaman islands 60,000 years ago.

South Asia, the Andamanese, and the Genetic Evidence for an “Early” Human Dispersal out of Africa

The Andaman M4 haplotype has been found previously in mainland India (Kivisild et al. 1999b), whereas the two Andaman M2 haplotypes are (so far) unique to the Andamanese. Given that (1) the latter two types occupy a basal position in the M2 network, which has an estimated coalescence time of 63,000±6,000 years (Kivisild et al. 1999b), and (2) they are not found in mainland India, Endicott et al. (2003) conclude they represent an “early” settlement of the Andaman Islands. These two points need discussion.

Regarding point 1, the age of a haplogroup cannot be automatically equated to the age of subsets of this haplogroup. The founding type of haplogroup M2, characterized by 16223T and 16319A relative to the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS) (Anderson et al. 1981) (fig. 1), is dated to 63,000 years but is still present in mainland India. This does not mean that any cluster branching off of this node is 63,000 years old, but rather that it is, at most, 63,000 years old. In principle, the Andaman M2 cluster could be dated to any time between 63,000 years and today.


So the date of when the Andamanese (proto-Australoids) first inhabited the Andaman Islands is actually 60,000 to 70,000 years ago.

Since the studies have found that the Andamanese Negritos inhabited the Andaman Islands 60,000 to 70,000 years ago and that the oldest form of haplogroup D is found in them this suggests a southern origin of haplogroup D.

Justin said...

Another study that supports the fact that the Andamanese Negritos were the first group to inhabit Southeast Asia out of Africa:

Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations

However, a recent study reported a high frequency of D-M174 in Andamanese (56.25%), people who live in the remote islands in the Indian Ocean and considered one of the earliest modern human settlers of African origin in Southeast Asia .

As shown in Table 2, consistent with previous reports [7,9-11,13,16], the prevalence of D-M174 is mostly in western and southern China and Japan.

Hence, the alternative explanation of northern origin of D-M174 is unlikely considering the absence of YAP+ in North Asia [29] and the sporadic appearance of D-M174 in Central Asia [23]. Consequently, the southern origin of D-M174 can be established, which is consistent with the proposed initial settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia and the migration pattern of other Y chromosome lineages [8,9,13].

When plenty southern populations were studied, we observed a higher diversity in those populations compared with the northern populations [8,9].



Also haplgroup D can be described as being part of the great coastal migration because it spread from Africa, through southern Arabia and into Southeast Asia (including the Andaman Islands) before spreading to the Himalayas and Japan. All peer-reviewed scientific sources from 2006 onwards support this.

Also the diversity of haplogroups or other genes is not reliable if the effective population sizes are smaller for one group compared to another.

And nearly all haplogroups migrated northwards, then how did haplogroups R, O, and C reach northern Eurasia? It's pointless to argue if D migrated upwards, because most other haplogroups obviously did, however the origin of haplogroup D is Southeast Asia.

Next time, please argue with peer-reviewed sources. I don't want this discussion to turn into an imagination fest.

Gregory76 said...

Justin,
Again you need to read what I say before critiquing it. I never denied that D and C originated in the south. To avoid any confusion I described my view at length in the last post. To repeat, I believed that the originated in the south and then some of them moved north, and then some of those moved south again. I will not repeat the rest of it; re-read my last post.
As to Negritos being classified as Proto-Australoid, they are not so classified by me nor by most who have written on the subject. Perhaps that view is common currently, but I am not sure that it is the majority view even today. At one time even Australoids were classified as Negroid. By the mid-20th century it was common classify them as Caucasoid, or as in race of their own. But Negritos and Papuans were traditionally left in the Negroid category, though it was increasingly believed that their similarities to African Negroids were the result of convergent or parallel evolution. In any case, it is inappropriate to classify Negritoes as Australoids phenotypically, since they have major differences, especially hair form. (Phenotypically the Andamanese are more or less Negroid, but since they are genotypically distinct from Africans, I call them “Negritoid” or “Andamanoid’ rather than classing them as Negroid.) Further we now we see that Andamanese and Australoid are genotypically different as well, if not wholly distinct. And insofar as there is mixture between the two stocks, it is rare in the Andaman.

Terry,
As I understand it, you agree with me that people with Y- haplotype O are the main carriers of the Mongoloid phenotype, yet you think that it originated in Southern China. However, this is not possible, since the Mongoloid phenotype is an adaptation to cold and so must have originated in the North. Southern China is about as warm as the Mediterranean region, where southern Caucasoids prevail, and Northern China has the same type of climate as northern Europe, where northern Caucasoid prevail. Central Asia is a better candidate, yet even it is faulty: in the western part there not Mongoloids until relatively recently, when they replaced Caucasoids. So it seems that it was in the subarctic taiga of Siberia (if not the arctic tundra) that the Mongoloid phenotype originated.

terryt said...

"As I understand it, you agree with me that people with Y- haplotype O are the main carriers of the Mongoloid phenotype, yet you think that it originated in Southern China".

'Southern China' as defined by Justin and Maju, which covers more than half of the modern country we call 'China'. Specifically I think O originated in the Yangtze/Yellow River catchment and expanded with the early Chinese Neolithic. By then it had mixed with members of the Mongoloid phenotype from further north.

"the Mongoloid phenotype is an adaptation to cold and so must have originated in the North".

Agree 100%.

"D* is found among Daic peoples (Chuang and Dai specifically), and that the root was among them (shared with Tibetans?)".

Yes, shared with Tibetans.

"As we know that Tibetans originate from the eastern outskirts of the Tibetan Plateau, which were colonized in the Paleolithic, we can with some safety place the origin of D*, D1 and D3 in that area of South China".

Which is exactly what I suggested elsewhere (I think on your blog).

"are concentrated and likely originated (per the haplogroup structures (fig. 3) at Southern China (SE Asia in my terminology)"

That's a huge area. It's like saying something originated 'in Europe'. Your definition of 'South China' appears to include the whole of the Yangtze Basin, so the area is actually much larger than the whole of Europe. I think we can narrow it down and specify somewhere between the modern cities of Kunming and Lanchou.

"Only D2 (exclusively Japanese) breaks this pattern".

And that requires explaining. Presumably Japanese D migrated from near the Eastern Tibet/West China border. Down the Yellow River to the Yellow Sea?

"The weight of the Japanese D2 clade would only pull a bit towards the NE (and then the local Tibetan DE*, pre-D surely, pulls bach towards Tibet)".

So we agree: Tibet. Not the coast opposite the Andamans.

"The Northern scatter (Han, micro-Altaic) is invariably derived from the lineages of the South".

I basically agree with that too.

"You use Wikipedia as a source? Since you've used it I'll give you a second chance".

The quote you provided regarding the 60,000 year age for the Andamans comes from Wikipedia, I presume.

"Please link me the exact studies which show that paragroup D exists in Turks and Mongols".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17633562

"And it can't be D*"

They do simply list it as D(xM15), so it's not Tibetan D1.

terryt said...

"all modern scientific sources say the likely time of Andaman Negritos inhabiting the Andaman Islands is at least 60,000 years ago".

What 'scientific sources'? As far as I'm aware the earliest physical evidence for Andaman occupation dates to just 2-3000 years ago. I'll grant the Andamans have probably been occupied much longer than that though.

"the age of a haplogroup cannot be automatically equated to the age of subsets of this haplogroup".

Quite. It is entirely possible that the haplogroup became extinct on the mainland some time after it had arrived in the Andamans.

"In principle, the Andaman M2 cluster could be dated to any time between 63,000 years and today".

Exactly.

"a recent study reported a high frequency of D-M174 in Andamanese (56.25%)"

That merely proves that D was particularly common in the first settlers. Socotra has a high frequency of J* but Socotra was almost certainly first settled just 12,000 years ago.

"considered one of the earliest modern human settlers of African origin in Southeast Asia"

On what grounds? Simply to fit with the classic, and rapidly crumbling, OoA scenario?

"prevalence of D-M174 is mostly in western and southern China and Japan".

Yes. The connection between Japan and the Andamans is not 'coastal'.

"haplgroup D can be described as being part of the great coastal migration because it spread from Africa, through southern Arabia and into Southeast Asia"

As far as I'm aware it is more common in Central Asia than it is in Arabia, Pakistan or India. How is that evidence of 'the great coastal migration'?

Lathdrinor said...

@Gregory there is no reason to believe that the "Mongoloid phenotype" was developed and carried by any one haplotype. The set of traits that define Mongoloids could just as well have been the product of a complex process of interactions between various pre-Mongoloid types in and around East Asia, including ancient Paleo-Siberian who today rarely bear the O haplogroup.

Not all "Mongoloid" traits are cold adapted, either. For example, Mongoloids are frequently less hairy, with some subsets having very little hair at all. Epicanthic folds, which are stereotypically thought of as a Mongoloid trait, are also present in Sub-Saharan Afirca, and are not found in many of the southern parts of East Asia, which are heavily O. Short limbs and stocky bodies, while characteristic of various northern O bearers, are not characteristic of the O bearers to the south, who exhibit more diversity in terms of the O haplotype.

Consequently, to say that O is the best candidate for carrying the Mongoloid phenotype southwards seems rather problematic. It could just as well be that haplotypes like N, C, and D migrated northwards into Siberia (where they feature today in the palette of Paleo-Siberians), developed certain cold adapted traits, and then back migrated southwards into areas populated by O bearers and gave rise to the array of phenotypes found among "Mongoloid" populations today. It could also be that a subset of O migrated northwards, developed the traits (either in parallel or in interaction with the bearers of other haplotypes), and then back migrated southwards, bringing the traits with them.

In any case, it is an over generalization to state that O bearers as a whole are cold adapted. Of the wide variety of O subgroups found in the southern parts of East Asia, most have traits rather typical of their tropical environments. If it is the case that this is only because of later admixture with "native" peoples, then surely there should be evidence of the cold-adapted, O-bearing migrants? I don't think I'm aware of such.

I'd be careful when trying to draw parallels between physical anthropology and haplogroup migration, especially one-sided (in this case, paternal) haplogroup migration. There are too many cases of separation between the two (for example, D-bearing Andaman Islanders and D-bearing Japanese).

Maju said...

@Tery:

"Tibet. Not the coast opposite the Andamans".

We have no data on Burma (sadly enough because it may well be a key corridor and diversity area). And we don't agree: I think it's more like Yunnan than Tibet proper, considering where the other peoples with basal haplotypes dwell: Guangxi mostly for the Zhuang and areas bordering with Burma and Laos for the Dai.

I would be quite surprised that no basal (near the root) D haplotypes and/or low diversity within this haplogroup is found across the border in Burma and Laos (and possibly Vietnam as well).

Maybe it is not obviously "coastal" but it is in any case a South-East Asian haplogroup by origin, and not so much towards the Yangtze, really but rather from the Pear River to the south and west.

terryt said...

"all modern scientific sources say the likely time of Andaman Negritos inhabiting the Andaman Islands is at least 60,000 years ago".

Not this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477783

Quote:

'the results suggested that Andaman-specific M31a1 could in fact trace its origin to northeast India. Time estimation results further indicated that the Andaman archipelago was likely settled by modern humans from northeast India via the land-bridge which connected the Andaman archipelago and Myanmar around the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), a scenario in well agreement with the evidence from linguistic and palaeoclimate studies".

As for the 'Last Glacial Maximum':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

Quote:

"The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to a period in the Earth's climate history when ice sheets were at their maximum extension, between 26,500 and 19,000–20,000 years ago,[1] marking the peak of the last glacial period".

So: not '60,000 years ago.

terryt said...

"there is no reason to believe that the 'Mongoloid phenotype' was developed and carried by any one haplotype. The set of traits that define Mongoloids could just as well have been the product of a complex process of interactions between various pre-Mongoloid types in and around East Asia, including ancient Paleo-Siberian who today rarely bear the O haplogroup".

Very true. But the 'Mongoloid phenotype' is especially marked in the north rather than 'East Asia' generally. In that region haplogroups C3 and N predominate.

"For example, Mongoloids are frequently less hairy, with some subsets having very little hair at all".

But that could well be an adaptation to cold. Facial hair traps ice from the breath and so the lack of facial hair would be an advantage in a cold climate, even while wearing clothing.

"Epicanthic folds, which are stereotypically thought of as a Mongoloid trait, are also present in Sub-Saharan Afirca"

An adaptation to a highly reflective environment whether sand or snow. suggests the 'Mongoloid phenotype' did not develop in forest.

"and are not found in many of the southern parts of East Asia, which are heavily O".

Such characters are actually 'found' there, just at a less developed level. Presumably the 'Mongoloid phenotype' was carried south at some time. The best candidate for that is haplogroup O whose relation N has the characters to a marked degree.

"It could just as well be that haplotypes like N, C, and D migrated northwards into Siberia (where they feature today in the palette of Paleo-Siberians), developed certain cold adapted traits, and then back migrated southwards into areas populated by O bearers"

Although we should hesitate to conclude that haplogroup distribution today is much the same as it was during the Paleolithic there doesn't seem to be enough of those minor haplogroups in SE Asia to explain the level of 'Mongoloid phenotype' there.

"subset of O migrated northwards, developed the traits (either in parallel or in interaction with the bearers of other haplotypes), and then back migrated southwards, bringing the traits with them".

To me it is far more likely that haplogroup NO was the one that migrated north and developed (or adopted from some other population) those traits, then its descendant O back migrated.

"In any case, it is an over generalization to state that O bearers as a whole are cold adapted. Of the wide variety of O subgroups found in the southern parts of East Asia, most have traits rather typical of their tropical environments".

The 'tropical traits' are most likely to be survivals from their 'Papuan phenotype' predecessors. Most memebrs of O haplogroups show far more 'Mongoloid phenotype' that do their 'Papuan phenotype' neighbours. The old idea than much of the population of South China and Southeast Asia is a product of a mixing of those two types is to me the most likely explanation for what we see today.

"I'd be careful when trying to draw parallels between physical anthropology and haplogroup migration, especially one-sided (in this case, paternal) haplogroup migration".

Very true, but in this case we can see many mtDNA haplogroups that are very likely to have moved south also.

terryt said...

"I think it's more like Yunnan than Tibet proper"

Quite likely, but Yunnan can hardly be described as 'coastal'. In fact Yunnan shares a border with Tibet, as well as with northern Myanmar which, in turn, shares a border with Assam. That last region is likely to have been the entry point into East Asia, not the coast.

"I would be quite surprised that no basal (near the root) D haplotypes and/or low diversity within this haplogroup is found across the border in Burma and Laos (and possibly Vietnam as well)".

I'm reasonably sure that no D of any sort has been found in Laos or Vietnam. But it is present in Thailand so, like you, I'd be very surprised if it is not present in Myanmar.

"and not so much towards the Yangtze, really but rather from the Pear River to the south and west".

The Yangtze River form part of the northern Yunnan border, just north of Kunming. That region is reasonably heavily populated today and has probably always been fairly desirable human habitat.

Justin said...

Again terry you are using Wikipedia as a source. I only read sources that are peer reviewed and no older than 10 years.

The Mongoloid phenotype is very different to the Negroid phenotype. The presence of the epicanthus among the San is not related to the Mongoloids. Also, the Mongoloids are among the most distant relatives to the Africans, while Caucasoids are closer.

Have you even read the article that I quoted?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180321/

The Andaman M4 haplotype has been found previously in mainland India (Kivisild et al. 1999b), whereas the two Andaman M2 haplotypes are (so far) unique to the Andamanese. Given that (1) the latter two types occupy a basal position in the M2 network, which has an estimated coalescence time of 63,000±6,000 years (Kivisild et al. 1999b), and (2) they are not found in mainland India, Endicott et al. (2003) conclude they represent an “early” settlement of the Andaman Islands. These two points need discussion.

Regarding point 1, the age of a haplogroup cannot be automatically equated to the age of subsets of this haplogroup. The founding type of haplogroup M2, characterized by 16223T and 16319A relative to the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS) (Anderson et al. 1981) (fig. 1), is dated to 63,000 years but is still present in mainland India. This does not mean that any cluster branching off of this node is 63,000 years old, but rather that it is, at most, 63,000 years old. In principle, the Andaman M2 cluster could be dated to any time between 63,000 years and today.

Another source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/

Mitochondrial sequences were retrieved from museum specimens of the enigmatic Andaman Islanders to analyze their evolutionary history. D-loop and protein-coding data reveal that phenotypic similarities with African pygmoid groups are convergent. Genetic and epigenetic data are interpreted as favoring the long-term isolation of the Andamanese, extensive population substructure, and/or two temporally distinct settlements. An early colonization featured populations bearing mtDNA lineage M2, and this lineage is hypothesized to represent the phylogenetic signal of an early southern movement of humans through Asia. The results demonstrate that Victorian anthropological collections can be used to study extinct, or seriously admixed populations, to provide new data about early human origins.




The conclusion is that the Andaman Islands were inhabited by the earliest humans who arrived in Southeast Asia about 60,000-70,000 years ago. Also the term "last glacial maximum" is an approximation and should be treated as such.

Justin said...

So we agree that Y-DNA haplogroup D originated from Southeast Asia before moving north (Burma and Himalayas) and east (Japan). Also D is sporadically detected in Southeast Asia, Central Asia but not Siberia, which means that it originated in southern Asia. This suggests that it most likely spread to Southeast Asia and Central Asia from the Himalayas via interactions.

Also D has a higher diversity in southern populations, which suggests that D originated in Southeast Asia, not Northeast Asia.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/6/45

As shown in Table 2, consistent with previous reports [7,9-11,13,16], the prevalence of D-M174 is mostly in western and southern China and Japan.

Hence, the alternative explanation of northern origin of D-M174 is unlikely considering the absence of YAP+ in North Asia [29] and the sporadic appearance of D-M174 in Central Asia [23]. Consequently, the southern origin of D-M174 can be established, which is consistent with the proposed initial settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia and the migration pattern of other Y chromosome lineages [8,9,13].

When plenty southern populations were studied, we observed a higher diversity in those populations compared with the northern populations [8,9].



Since Y-DNA haplogroup D has the highest diversity in southern populations, this suggests that D originated in Southeast Asia.

And by coastal migration, I meant coastal when it reached Southeast Asia, not when it expanded to Burma and then to the Himalayas. You have to understand that haplogroup D is from DE (also most common among Africans) and it reached Asia via a coastal migration through Southern Arabia, Southern India and finally to Southeast Asia before moving north (Himalayas) and east (Japan).

terryt said...

"I only read sources that are peer reviewed and no older than 10 years".

Provide one that shows humans were in the Andamans 60,000 years ago then. By the way, the link claiming a LGM arrival was from a perr-reviewed journal.

"The Mongoloid phenotype is very different to the Negroid phenotype".

And in turn both are very different from the Australoid/Papuan phenotype (if we are in fact talking of a single phenotype in this lasr case).

"The presence of the epicanthus among the San is not related to the Mongoloids".

I didn't claim that. I said it was the result of similar environmental factors.

"The Andaman M4 haplotype has been found previously in mainland India (Kivisild et al. 1999b), whereas the two Andaman M2 haplotypes are (so far) unique to the Andamanese".

I was under the distinct impression that the two main Andaman haplogroups were M31 and M32'56. M4 is a subgroup of M4''67 and is spread across Central India to Eastern Arabia. And M2 is widespread in India but especially in Southeast India and Bangla Desh. If both are also present in the Andamans it is hardly convincing evidence of an early arrival there. And represenatives of both M31 and M32'56 have been found in India, so 'an estimated coalescence time of 63,000±6,000 years' is no indication of when they arrived at the Andamans.

"These two points need discussion".

Yes. The unjustified assumption the Andamans formed part of an original 'great southern coastal migration route' has led many in the wrong direction.

"In principle, the Andaman M2 cluster could be dated to any time between 63,000 years and today".

The same goes for the other Andamanese haplogroups too.

"So we agree that Y-DNA haplogroup D originated from Southeast Asia before moving north (Burma and Himalayas) and east (Japan)".

More likely South China rather than Southeast Asia, specifically somewhere around the Yunnan/Tibet border. But the route it took there remains a mystery.

"Also D has a higher diversity in southern populations, which suggests that D originated in Southeast Asia, not Northeast Asia".

Not necessarily so. If northern populations rather than southern ones had been subject to prolonged drift we would expect diversity to be less in the north even if the haplogroup had originated there. Or passed through it. And we have reason to expect that northern Paleolithic populations would have been subject to periods of drift.

"the prevalence of D-M174 is mostly in western and southern China and Japan".

Note: not India and not Southeast Asia. 'Western China' presumably includes 'Tibet' these days.

"And by coastal migration, I meant coastal when it reached Southeast Asia, not when it expanded to Burma and then to the Himalayas".

Not coastal 'when it reached Southeast Asia'. It's almost unknown along the coast of Southeast Asia. It's even doubtful that a 'coastal migration' along India holds up to critical examination.

"haplogroup D is from DE (also most common among Africans) and it reached Asia via a coastal migration through Southern Arabia, Southern India and finally to Southeast Asia"

The first part of the statement is correct but there is no evidence for any of the rest. The haplogroup is not prsent anywhere along such a route.

Gregory76 said...

To Justin:
If your recent remarks about the origin of D being in the South were directed at me, they are again misplaced. As I have said in several posts now, I do not hold that D originated in the south, but rather that it migrated from the south to the north, and then may later have moved south.

To Lathdrinor:
You say:
“The set of traits that define Mongoloids could just as well have been the product of a complex process of interactions between various pre-Mongoloid types in and around East Asia, “
That the Mongoloid phenotype originated in the cold north is a claim independent of which phenotype or phenotypes carried it south. So whether it is one or many lineages mixing does not change the fact that East Asia is not cold enough to produce the classical Mongoloid phenotype: if it has been we would have found the phenotype prevailing in eastern and north central Europe, but we do not. There are incipiently and/or partially Mongoloid phenotypes there, but fully Mongoloid ones seem to be traceable to relatively recent migrations. Even Central Asia not cold enough, as the western regions were originally occupied by Caucasoids.
Traits of those with a classically Mongoloid phenotype that are not adaptations to the cold are the exception rather than the rule. Epicanthic folds may be adaptations to protect the eye from the cold air, especially windy air—and that suggests that perhaps protection from wind (especially wind carrying sand) is the reason epicanthic folds are sometimes found among the San of the Kalahari. Now hairiness is a more serious problem. I am not sure of the answer. Yet the cold-adapted features and the reduced hairiness share the attribute of being pedomorphic, and so perhaps these were inherited as package, most but not all of whose components are advantageous in cold weather.
The fact that some classically Mongoloid features are diluted in the south is the result of (1) admixture with pre-Mongoloid peoples, or (2) adaptation of the bearers of this phenotype to a new environment by modification of the phenotype, or both; it does not mean that these features are not Mongoloid. You object that in that case
“surely there should be evidence of the cold-adapted, O-bearing migrants? I don't think I'm aware of such.”
The fact most of the people in the area have a mostly Mongoloid phenotype, which is an adaptation to cold weather than prevails there, together with the fact that the males are mostly O is evidence of an immigration of such peoples.

Now to return to the question of which lineages carried the Mongoloid phenotype southward from the cold north: most Mongoloid peoples outside of the north have males of the O haplotype and females the B and F haplotype, so I think lineages with these haplotypes are the best candidates. Now of course male C and D, and female M, C and D, are also found among Mongoloids, and so much of what I said may apply to them as well. However, that means that we have to postulate that these haplotypes moved north and then south, whereas male O and female B and F could have originated in the north from older haplotypes and then moved south. Now, as I have indicated before, I am in fact inclined toward the idea movement of male C and D and female M, C and D first northward and then again southward. However, I still think it probable the earliest classic Mongoloids in the north were N and O males, and females of various haplotypes, including I and maybe later R and its descendants B and F, and that the others reached the north only later, if at all, and got most of their Mongoloid features through mixture with O males and B and F females in Eastern and maybe Southeastern Asia.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Please make it's simple:
A Homo Sapiens Sapiens East Asians are:
- Like another human ethnic group, all Asians are a descendant from Africa, more spesifically East African.
- Can divine into 2 migration clan.
- A first people came to Asia are a Coastal Migration Clan / An Old East Asians.
- An Old East Asian can divine into 2 groups: a Tibetan and Ainuid Jomon Japanese Y Hg D* M174 - Hg D2* M55 + mtDNA Hg M7 - M12, C, D ( M Type )and mtDNA Hg N9a, Y, A and X. And an ancestors of Native Siberian and Mongolian Y Hg C* M130 - Hg C3* M217, another C3's.. + mtDNA Hg M7 - M12, C, Z, D and G ( M Type ).
- A Second Migration to Asia are an Inland Migration Clan / A New Asians.
- A New Asians DNA marker: A Y Hg K2* M526, Hg K2a / NO* M214, Hg N* LLY22 and O* M175, some Y Hg M and Hg S in East Indonesia + mtDNA Hg R*, R9 F and R11 B4'5.
- An Old East Asians are an ancestors of a Tibetan and An Ainu Jomon Japanese and A Native Siberian and Mongolian People who developed an "Asiatic" phenotipe like a slanty eyes, high cheekbones, etc.
- Y Hg O* M175 and O's subgroup + mtDNA Hg R* and it's subgroup are an ancestry of an Austronesian, austroasiatic, Tibeto Burmese and a Sino Tibetan Southern Chinese People.
- A Nothern Chinese Peoples are a results of a mix with a Sino Tibetan Chinese father Y Hg O3* M122, O3a3b M7, O3a3c M134 and O3a3c1 M177 and an "Altaic" / Mongolian mother mtDNA Hg C1, C2, D4, D5 and all mtDNA Hg M Type.
- Because a Northern Chinese, Modern Japanese and Korean have an "Altaian" and a Mongolian DNA especially from maternal line, they are often to be classified as a "Mongoloid" race because their physical appearance are more similar with an "Altaian" / Siberian rather than a Southern Chinese and a Southeast Asians people.
- Actually, nothing special about a Far East Asians DNA because An Asians DNA are less variety to An African and an Indian Subcontinent peoples DNA. But An Asians DNA shows evidence when an Asians have a 2 very different subgroup: An Old East Asians and A New Asians.

That's it. Not that difficult to learn about a Far East Asians DNA.

Maju said...

@Adrian: your description of the process of migration "into Asia" (sic) is not quite correct IMHO. First you seem to believe that there were several migrations out-of-Africa, an idea that strongly disagree with. What we see is several migrations within Asia after a single one out-of-Africa migration.

1. The first fast-paced (but not necessarily "coastal") migration that you describe in the basics but that could well be much more complex, including Y-DNA lineages like F(xK) and C (C probably expanded from near SE Asia IMO, just as D and K2). This is more apparent in the mtDNA side, in which, if we count from the L3 node at least, it seems very apparent that M expanded first and only quite later N and R (whose precursor was surely a minor accompanying L3 sublineage: pre-N, otherwise pruned off). The mtDNA M expansion is the first colonization, whichever Y-DNA lineages we imagine associated with it (I mostly think of CF honestly, with D being just a minor side note).

2. A second migration from SE Asia, plausibly soon after the Toba supervolcano cleared up some niches, probably operated in two rapidly succeeding waves:

2a. Mostly Y-DNA C with mtDNA N(xR) (to NE Asia and Australia)
2b. Mostly Y-DNA K2 with mtDNA R (to East Asia with K2a=NO, Papua and also the West via India with P1)

3. A third important episode was a backflow of the coalescing Western population, carrying the mode 4 or UP technology, as well as P1-derived Y-DNA Q1, via Central Siberia (Altai, Angara) to the East. We can track this migration in the known archaeological record in Mongolia and Gansu since c. 30 Ka BP. After admixture with peoples (mostly women) of the previous East Asian waves (1 and 2), they become the ancestors of Native Americans, but they also leave a legacy in NE Asia, which was strongly apparent in Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples of Gansu but nowadays is very diluted.

4. Finally, after the LGM, another migration similar to #3 but in the opposite (westward) direction happened with the Y-DNA N1 peoples, which are mostly ancestral to Uralic peoples.

I believe this synthesizes pretty much the formation of the peoples of Eurasia, with emphasis on East Asia, before the Neolithic (there are also later processes but not worth extending with them).

terryt said...

"A first people came to Asia are a Coastal Migration Clan"

I agree with Maju. Unlikely to be 'coastal' in any meaningful sense of the word.

"What we see is several migrations within Asia after a single one out-of-Africa migration".

Again I agree with Maju.

"could well be much more complex, including Y-DNA lineages like F(xK) and C (C probably expanded from near SE Asia IMO, just as D and K2)".

I believe the totally different distributions of Y-DNAs F and C and mt-DNAs M and N strongly suggest totally different expansion histories for the separate haplotypes. Y-DNA F certainly looks to have moved east from somewhere near Africa through South Asia as far as Australia leaving branches all along the way, but Y-DNA C suddenly appears in eastern Eurasia without leaving anything along the way. To me that indicates a major extinction event along C's original migration route. Therefore I see the route as unlikely to have been via South Asia. Mt-DNA N splits into eastern and western branches with nothing in between. Yet the N-derived R is quite common in South Asia. This pattern again indicates to me its route east is unlikely to have been via South Asia and also a major extinction event along the original route. M is a mystery to me. Like YDNAs C and D it suddenly appears in eastern Eurasia although it has many representatives in South Asia.

"A second migration from SE Asia"

From here on I again agree with Maju, except for 4 where I see the western Ns as being long-established in SW Asia.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Gregory76, you told to Lathdrinor when an Asians O's male + B and F's female are originated from Northern Asia and an original people who carrier an "Asiatic" features. Are you sure with your think? Actually i'm also a members of Y Hg O* M175 more specifically Y Hg O3 M134 / Hg O - CTS5492 and mtDNA Hg B4c2 via The Genographic Project Genographic Project Geno 1 and old Geno 2,0 and i wrote my DNA test results from them (Genographic Project) when Im also a member of a "second wave" migration from Middle East to East and Southeast Asia via "inland route" who became an ancient ancestors of an East and Southeast Asians like a Sino Tibetan and Tibeto Burmese Chinese people, an Austroasiatic and an Austronesians people in Asia. Further more on Geno 1st results they're told me when actually about 2 migration to Far East Asia, firstly a ancestors for an Old East Asians like a Native Siberian, Mongolic and Tungusic and about 25.000 years BP, my ancient ancestry Y Hg O* M175 ang mtDNA Hg B4'5 come later to Far East Asia than a Y Hg C* M130, D M174 + mtDNA Hg M and it's subclade Hg C, Z, D, G,.....or "maybe" an mtDNA Hg N9a, A and Y. Even though The Geno 2,0 didn't talked about a related between those Y Hg and mtDNA Hg to their physical appearance AT ALL, but a 1 person in Historum.com who called him/herself as Purakjelia and he/she told to another Historum members and "us" when he/she quite confidence to claim when a first carrier an "Asiatik"/Mongoloid phenotype actually came from a Y Hg C3* M217 and mtDNA Hg M, C and G, not from a " New Asians" Y Hg 0* M175 and mtDNA Hg R, B and F. Purakjelia also told when the differences about a Y Hg K* M9 descendant: Y Hg K2a* / NO* M214, Hg K2a1*/ MS and Hg K2b2* / PQR* M45 and an mtDNA Hg R and it's descendants: B and F are more similar with each other rather than a Y Hg C* M130 + Y Hg D* M174 and an mtDNA SuperHg M* because their Parental Haplogroups are too old and can't be associated with a human ethnic groups for examples an Australian Aborigines Y Hg C1*/a Southern C's are more distingly related with a Mongolian and Siberian Y Hg C2*/a Northern C's. Some people believes when an "Asiatic"/Classic Mongoloid phenotype are developed together, a Y Hg C, Hg N, Hg O, Hg Q and mtDNA Hg M, N and R, not a single Haplogroup. Now, what do you think about these theory? I got these information from my Geno 1st + Geno 2,0 DNA test results, a Human Migration map and Human Populations in the heatmap from The Family Tree DNA lab together with Dr Spencer Wells, from Wikipedia, a web "Forgotten Motherland", a Socmed likes Historum.com, Asianfinestdiscussion, NatGeo Documentary: Searching for Adam, Human Family Tree, The Journey of Man (Human Geneticist Dr Spencer Wells) and BBC: The Incredible Human Journey (Anthropologist Scientist Alice George). If you disagree with these theory, please let me know about your opinion and a solid prove/evidence from another resource if it needed, Thank You!

terryt said...

" Some people believes when an "Asiatic"/Classic Mongoloid phenotype are developed together, a Y Hg C, Hg N, Hg O, Hg Q and mtDNA Hg M, N and R, not a single Haplogroup".

I agree completely that not just single male and female haplogroups were involved. However my thinking is largely of individual branches within those large groupings. For example not all Y-DNA C are Mongoloid phenotype, just C2-M217. And by no means are all mt-DNAs M, N and R Mongoloid. In other words I believe the Mongoloid phenotype either introgressed into, or developed within, an already mixed population, probably somewhere in what is now northern China or Inner Mongolia.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Dear Terryt,
With all do my respect, Purakjelia from Historum.com told when an ancient ancestors of a Proto Altaian / Mongolic and Proto Sinitic are quite different to each other. A Mongolic ancient ancestors are the "real" an "Asiatic" phenotype, not an ancient ancestors of a Proto Sinitic. He/She - "Purakjelia" explained with a long statement in Historum.com when a Western People are definitely wrong mistaken about Mongolian and Chinese peoples, culture, and their DNA. A Mongolic Y Hg C2* M217 and mtDNA Hg M - C, D, G and Z are a first people who developed an "Asiatic" phenotipe / features. He/She also thought when a Northern Chinese are a mixing from a South Chinese Paternal line, Y Hg O* M175 and a Mongolic Maternal line, mtDNA Hg C, D, G, Z....(all of them are an M Type) for detailed you or another commentators in this forum to searched "Purakjelia" from Historum.com and you're can argue with him/her itself because , to be frank.......I horribly coufused with a lot of cyber's opinion and arguments about these topic (Mongolic and Sinitic DNA, they're have an extremely different thinks and some of them have a Racial words like: " I'm a members of Y Hg O and i don't feel when i'm a Mongoloid peoples " or " You're guys, Mongolian failed to replacement your Y Haplogroup C3 / C2 M217 to the Chinese Men Y Haplogroup O M175 " and anothers opinions....etc2
These topics make me sick and frustrated so much. Only 1 statement that all of DNA Genealogy cyber's agreed: a Y Chromosome DNA and a Mitochondrial DNA don't responsible for an individual physical appearance at all! But to another thinks,..............blahblahblah, I frustrated, frankly......

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Dear Terryt,
With all do my respect, these Diekenes forum opinion are make me quite confuse and frustration because in this forum, all comentators have a different opinion and interpretation about these topic, a Proto Mongolic and a Proto Sinitic origines and their DNA. Someone in Historum.com forum member, Purakjelia, have a quite different opinion with another commentator both in Historum.com and the Diekenes Anthropology. Purakjelia told to another Historum.com follower when a Proto Mongolic ancient ancestors are quite different than a Proto Sinitic ancient ancestors. They're have a different culture, a different vocabulary fundamental languages: a Mongolic "Altaian" SOV and a Sinitic SVO even their DNA Haplogroups are quite difference. He confidenly told when even though the scientists don't have a solid evidence about a human physical appearance with a human Y Chromosome DNA and Mitochondrial DNA, Purakjelia felt when a Y Hg C2* M217 and mtDNA Hg C, Z, D and G (M Type) are a first human who developed a "Classic Asiatic" phenotype. He/She also told when an ancient Sinitic People who often associated with a Y Hg O* M175 and an mtDNA Hg B and F (R Type) aren't a people who developed an "Asiatic" phenotype. Purakjelia don't like with the term of a "Mongoloid" race because another people too often to claim all Far East Asians are a members of a "Mongoloid" race especially a Northern Mongoloid People like an Altaian and a Tungusic people. Purakjelia also claimed when an Eurasians people have a Y Hg N, O, P, Q and R + mtDNA Hg B and F (R Type) even though he/she knows when a Y Hg CF + DE are a descendants from an Eurasian Adam Y Hg CT* M168 except some of an African Y Hg A and B. Unfortunately, Purakjelia don't talked too much about an mtDNA Haplogroups, or a simply, an Ancient Sinitic People are more connected to an Eurasian Y Hg F* M89, G, H, IJ and K* M9 - K2* M526 rather than a Mongolic Y Hg C* M130 - C2* M217 and a Y Hg DE* YAP+, Hg D* M174 and an mtDNA Hg M* and it's brances, Hg C, D, G, Z, etc.
I just followed Purakjelia opinion and it's sounds makesense to me. Well, the Human Genealogy Geneticists and Scientists must to searched furthermore with an Autosomal Regional DNA to classified a human ethnic group if it needed. Talking about these topic (Mongolic and Sinitic), frankly,..................make me sick and frustration with a lot of cybers commentators. I don't want to argued with all of you. If you're disagree with my opinion, please contact to Purakjelia and argued him/her about these topic! I'm tired to thinking about these topic. Thank you!

terryt said...

"Proto Mongolic ancient ancestors are quite different than a Proto Sinitic ancient ancestors".

Not necessarily so. I feel sure it will ultimately be proven that the features we regard as making up the instantly recognisable Mongolian phenotype originated within a single, relatively isolated population. But the phenotype didn't spread into uninhabited territory. As it spread it mixed with the earlier inhabitants. These were quite different populations to the north and to the south. That is what gave rise to the 'separate' Proto Mongolic and Proto Sinitic populations. The Y-DNA lines expanded further than the mt-DNA lines. Y-DNAs C2 and N tended to go northward and Y-DNA O southward. To me that explains everything about modern eastern haplogroup distribution.

"Mongolic and Sinitic DNA, they're have an extremely different thinks and some of them have a Racial words like: " I'm a members of Y Hg O and i don't feel when i'm a Mongoloid peoples " or " You're guys, Mongolian failed to replacement your Y Haplogroup C3 / C2 M217 to the Chinese Men Y Haplogroup O M175 " and anothers opinions....etc. These topics make me sick and frustrated so much".

To me that is certainly placing an incorrect conclusion on the data. We are what we are. Nothing is 'superior' to anything else.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Gregory76, are you sure when a men with Y Hg NO*, N and O are a "Mongoloid" carrier? Even though there's no valid evidence about a Y Hg and mtDNA Hg with a phenotipe carrier, some Netizen like Purakjelia from History.com, etc are convidently when actually a people with a Y Hg C3-M217 and mtDNA Hg CZ, C, Z, D and G are a "Mongoloid Phenotype" developer, not a Y Hg NO and mtDNA Hg R, B and F. But if you're still think when a Y Hg NO and mtDNA Hg R* are an original people with a "Mongoloid" Phenotype, please contact Purakjelia him/herself. And check your "opinion" to The Genographic Project, FTDNA and ISOGG Human Genome Database. Or you're can measured who peoples with a Brancycephalic skull and another "Mongoloid" face are more frequent to brough a Y Hg C3-M217 + mtDNA Hg M Type or a Y Hg NO*-M214 + mtDNA Hg R Type. I'm sorry to say but a Mongolian, Northern Chinese, Altaian and Native Siberian are far difference compare to an Austronesian, Austroasiatic and a Southern "Han" Chinese aka Sino Tibetan both Paternal and Maternal line also their Autosomal + Phenotype DNA. An Old East Asians like Mongolian, Altaian and another NE Asians people Y Hg C3-M217 and mtDNA Hg M Type like CZ, C, Z, D and G come earlier to Far East Asia Pasific than Y Hg NO and mtDNA Hg R Type so they're have more time to developed a "Mongoloid" phenotype.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Lathdrinor:
Ok, if you think when a people with Y Hg O-M175, not Y Hg C3-M217 are a "Mongoloid" phenotype developer, please give us a strong evidence to support your "opinion". I never heard when a Geneticist like Dr Wells, Prof Picchapan, Dr Felix Li Jin + Li Hui and another Genographic Project and an FTDNA Geneticist claimed when a Y Hg NO, N and O people are a "Mongoloid Carrier" and don't forget about Mitochondrial DNA Maternal line.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

I don't want to argued with you and another Netizen in this forum. If you're think when a Proto Mongolic aren't that difference with a Proto Sinitic, please show to us a strong evidence about your "theory" about Sinitic and Mongolic people even though they're not better / more superior to each other. This is a Human Genealogical DNA Science who have a solid evidence and reality, not a Political or Social Problem.

terryt said...

"I'm sorry to say but a Mongolian, Northern Chinese, Altaian and Native Siberian are far difference compare to an Austronesian, Austroasiatic and a Southern "Han" Chinese"

Obviously so. And both groups are totally different from Papuans and Australian Aborigines. It is extremely obvious to me that at one time a very similar looking population was spread through India, Southeast Asia, through to New Guinea and Australia. It is unknown how far north this population existed but it was certainly present as far north as northern Vietnam. It is also extremely obvious to me that this once continuous population has been diluted, and even replaced, by the expansion of a Mongoloid population from somewhere to the north over the last few thousand years. The only haploid possibility for such an expansion is Y-DNA O. Therefore that haplotype must have been Mongoloid by the time of that expansion. The difference between the two populations you mention is then easily explained as being the product of interbreeding in the southern group between the southern and northern East Asian populations.

"I never heard when a Geneticist like Dr Wells, Prof Picchapan, Dr Felix Li Jin + Li Hui and another Genographic Project and an FTDNA Geneticist claimed when a Y Hg NO, N and O people are a 'Mongoloid Carrier' and don't forget about Mitochondrial DNA Maternal line".

Obvioulsy 'something' carried the Mongoloid phenotype into South China, Southeast Asia and out into the Pacific with the Austronesians. Y-DNA O is the only possible candidate. As for mt-DNA, there is very little difference between northern and southern haplotypes except where the Mongoloid phenotype has spread along the northern margin of the Papuan/Australian phenotype. There we find mt-DNA B4 almost on its own, with some Papuan/Australian haplotypes mixed in.

terryt said...

Sorry. A further point:

"But if you're still think when a Y Hg NO and mtDNA Hg R* are an original people with a 'Mongoloid' Phenotype"

I don't think anyone, including Lathdrinor and Gregory76, would actually think that. Certainly not all mt-DNA R haplotypes are Mongoloid. And even carriers of Y-DNA C3 (now C2) were not likely carriers of the phenotype when the haplotype first formed. C1b is definitely not Mongoloid and C1a was possibly not originally either. As you say, "there's no valid evidence about a Y Hg and mtDNA Hg with a phenotipe carrier". The same haploid branch may contain any variety of a-DNA and different haplotypes can carry the same a-DNA. However it is most parsimonious to accept that the Mongoloid phenotype developed in a specific region and spread from there. The EDAR-370A gene obviously does not define the Mongoloid phenotype I believe it can be used as representative. And we can be reasonably sure where it expanded from. To me it seems quite likely that the phenotype is yet another example of introgression into the modern human subspecies. And it seems to have entered a haplotypically diverse population which included Y-DNAs C2, N and O as well as several mt-DNA haplotypes.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Justin, you though when a Japanese Jomon Ainuid was a Australoid? From their Y Chromosome Hg D2-M55 and mtDNA Hg Y (N Type) an ancient ancestor of Ainu people probably have a distance related with an Australoid and Pasific Islander, but the Geneticist never told when Ainuid are completely an Australoid / Pasific Islander or a Southeast Asians. Did they release an "Ainuid" Autosomal Regional Percentage? If was, i want to know about it.
Learned about a Kennewick Man, some Scientist firstly though when Kennewick Man are a "Caucasian" like an Ainuid, but "his" Uniparental DNA shows when "he" is a typicall Native American people. Kennewick Man brought a Y Hg Q3-M3 and mtDNA Hg X2a, an Eurasian and American Haplogroup. But i don't know about Kennewick Man Autosomal Regional DNA.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Excuse me, Terryt and anothers Netizen in this forum, are yours "theory" about this topic are based on Scientific research or just "I think when....." or "I believe it can be.....". This is a Science who it can brake a misconception, myth and another false think. So be carefull if all of you have a different "opinion" about Human Genealogist because it is a sensitive discussion.

terryt said...

Based on information provided by scientific papers. There have been multiple papers published on Far Eastern and Australian haploid DNA and I think it would pay you to at least glance at the publication concerning the EDAR370A mutation.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

All East Asians Y Chromosome Haplogroup are from Southern and Southeast Asia excluding Y Hg Q*-M242. Both Old Asians Y Hg C*-M130, Y Hg D*-M174 and New Asians Y Hg NO*-M214 N and O are from East Africa moved toward Asia and Australia but an Old Asians apparenty moved from South Asia Coastal Migration around 50.000 Years ago BP and a New Asians moved to Asia via Southern Himalayas and Northern India and Pakistan around 35.000 Years ago BP. But their Y Haplotype: D1, D2-M55 and D3 probably born in South Asia or Soutwest China. Y Haplotype C3-M217 are probably from Eastern China Coastal Line, a Subgroup of C3, C3a, C3b, C3c....estimated from around Lake Baikal in Siberia. A Y Hg C*-M130 and another C's EXCEPT Y Hg C3* / C2-M217 are a Southern Y Haplogroups. Y Hg C-M217 are a Northeast Asians marker. Talking about Ainuid Jomon, even though a lot of peoples though an Ainu are a Southeast Asians or Australoid because their physical appearance and they're Y Hg D2-M55, descendant from Y Hg D*-M174 in Andaman Island or SE Asia but the Geneticist are never told about Ainuid Autosomal DNA. On Wikipedia, the closest related ethnic group of Ainuid are a Nivks peoples on Sakhalin Island and East Siberia near Amur River. An Ainuid and Nivks share a common Maternal lineage mtDNA Hg Y, N9a,...(N Type).

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

You guys! Justin, Latdrinor, Gregory76, Terryt and Maju:
This topic isn't about agree or disagree. This is a Science! Not Sociology, Religion or another Social Education. So just a 1 correct answer for a several problems. I know when today, an Autosomal DNA Regional aren't yet standarization by Genealogist. A lot of your agreement about Human DNA, Autosomal DNA, Y Chromosome and mtDNA Haplogroup doesn't make your arguments are true or correct and plausible based on Scientific perspective. Really, "We actually don't know what we think what we do!" said Dr Spencer Wells from The China Mystery Mummies documentary).

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

But, i never saw a Scientific Report who told when an Asians Y Hg NO*-M214 and mtDNA Hg R Type give rise a "Mongoloid" phenotype together aoong with a NE Asians Y Hg Q*-M242 and C3-M217 + mtDNA Hg C,D,G and Z (M Type), mtDNA Hg A, Y, N9a (N Type). Please checked a Human Genealogy report by Prof Li Jin and Li Hui from Fudan University, Shanghai. An EDAR370A mutation who make a Shovel Shape Teeth, Small Breast, a lot of Sweat Glands, a Thicher and Straigh Hair are found in NE Asians Population but this markers are relatively new. A "Saqqaq Man" in Greenland have a Shovel Shape Teeth (Sinodonty) but a "Saqqaq Man" carried a Y Hg Q*-M242. Similar with a Kennewick Man Y Hg Q*-M242 and mtDNA Hg X2b, a Native American Haplogroups. But a mostly Ainuid have a Y Hg D2-M55, some Y Hg C-M217 and mtDNA Hg Y and N9a, not X* (N Type). Do you still think when an Ainuid are closely related with an Australoid or a Southeast Asians like "Native" Indonesians? The answer is Yes IF we just talked about Sinodonty and Sundadonty.
Allright, can you tell me what an Autosomal Regional Percentage about an Ainuid, Kennewick Man and Saqqaq Man? Give me a solid evidence from Scientific Report, not another Netizens "Opinion"! This is Science, 99 peoples are stil wrong if they said: 1 + 1 = 3 and a single person is correct if he/she said: 1 + 1 = 2. And i wouldn't accept a multiple theory and never tolerate a Myth and a Dishonest people.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Whathever do you thinks, there are no solid evidence about a people of Y Hg NO*-M214 + mtDNA Hg R Type and a Y Hg C3-M217 and Q*-M242 + mtDNA Hg M and N (x R) are responsible together to give rise an "Asiatic" Phenotype. Very rare people in NE Asians like Siberian, Tungusic, Western Altaian and Nobody Eskimoid, Chukchi and Northern and Southern Native American have a Y Hg NO*-M214 especially Y Hg O*-M175 and it's sub branches.

Maju said...

Sorry, Adrian, I lost track. When you replied to me above it looked to me such a complicated argument conflating extremely ancient Y-DNA lineages from times before "races" were defined (just look at the Ainu, for instance) with what is probably a more recent homogenization of the overall (autosomal) genome, which is the one defining how we look, that I really thought better to drop the matter altogether.

If Y-DNA and "racial" phenotype would be tightly related, then Irish, Uyghurs and Chadic peoples from North Cameroon would look very alike (they do not), then Finnish and Buryats would look alike (they don't), Polish and Bengalis would look alike (they don't), Yemeni Jews and Mayas would look alike (they don't) or even, going a bit upstream, Papuans, Chinese and Europeans would look alike (all them are mostly K2), yet they do not.

On the other hand, people with quite distinct dominant Y-DNA strands look much more similar: Finnish (N1c), Irish (R1b), Swedes (I1), Greeks (E1b) and Iranians (J2) are pretty much the same in looks. Same for Mongols (C1), Han (O3), Tibetans (D) and Maya (Q1). Etcetera.

This is because the lineages diverged and spread when the modern looks, what are usually called "races", were still not consolidated in any way. The formation and consolidation of those quasi-homogeneous phenotypes was probably layered (big nosed Peruvians, bearded Ainu or Orang Asli with curly hair may illustrate some of the ancient variance for the case of the East, when diversity was still greater) and got consolidated towards the modern, more recognizably quasi-homogeneous phenotype after the LGM and to some extent even since the Neolithic itself. Much of the same surely happened in the West, although the phenotype seems to be a bit more homogeneous, probably because the settlement is more recent (only since the Upper Paleolithic for the greatest part), allowing maybe for a greater impact of the "family looks" of that founder effect.

terryt said...

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo. There is a huge problem you are not facing up to. It is surely obvious that at one time a very similar-looking population that at one time stretched through South Asia, Southeast Asia, New Guinea and Australia. It was probably also present in the Philippines and into South China.

"Do you still think when an Ainuid are closely related with an Australoid or a Southeast Asians like "Native" Indonesians? The answer is Yes IF we just talked about Sinodonty and Sundadonty".

And possibly as far north as Japan. At some more recent time such a population has been largely replaced right through Southeast Asia (and in Japan) by a Mongoloid-looking population that almost certainly spread from somewhere north of SE Asia during the Early East Asian Neolithic. Do you mean to say that this population replacement did not involve any haploid DNA lines? I'm sure you agree that such a scenario is impossible.

"but this markers are relatively new'.

Yes. A little more than 30,000 years ago. And that is most likely when the Mongoloid phenotype first formed. The EDAR370A mutation is not just found in NE Asians Populations but through Southeast Asia, northeastern South Asia and out into the Pacific. It is not present at all in Australian Aborigines and only present in coastal New Guinea, especially along the northern and western coastline. This fits exactly the idea of a gradual expansion from northern China that mixed with the pre-existing population in SE Asia and formed the basis of the Austronesians.

"Y Hg NO*-M214 N and O are from East Africa moved toward Asia and Australia"

I agree that NO's deeper origins lie in SE Asia. After all it is K2 and every other branch of K2 except K2b2 (better known as P) is found there. But obviously neither N nor O formed in SE Asia.

Onur said...

@Adrian

I agree with you that the most pronounced types of the Mongoloid race are found NE Asia (the types commonly subsumed under the physical anthropological category Tungusid) and that the Mongoloid race likely originated somewhere in NE Asia. But I am currently unsure about which Y-DNA haplogroups were most represented among the earliest Mongoloids. Ancient DNA tests of the earliest known Mongoloid skulls might settle the issue.

terryt said...

"All East Asians Y Chromosome Haplogroup are from Southern and Southeast Asia excluding Y Hg Q*-M242. Both Old Asians Y Hg C*-M130, Y Hg D*-M174 and New Asians Y Hg NO*-M214 N and O are from East Africa moved toward Asia and Australia but an Old Asians apparenty moved from South Asia Coastal Migration around 50.000 Years ago BP"

The recently updated Y-DNA C-M130 phylogeny is very informative. Your C3 is now C2-M217 and is basically unchanged except for the '2'. It still forms six branches, primarily from northern China and further north. Interestingly two basal branches are virtually confined to Japan (C2a and C2f) although C2a seems to be gradually disappearing from the phylogeny. C1 forms two clades: C1a and C1b. C1a itself forms two widely separated clades, one in Japan and one in Europe. In biology widely separated subspecies are considered indicative of a formerly widespread single species whose members have become extinct through the intermediate region. That could be the case here.

Anyway, C1b is definitely 'southern' and perhaps could be used to support a migration through South Asia for the whole C haplotype. However difficulties with that idea immediately arise. Members of both C1 and C2 are present in Japan. Of course that in no way indicates the haplotype arose there. But it Probably arose somewhere not too far away.

Returning to the C1b clade: Wallace's Line has always been a major biological obstacle and so it should be no surprise to find that C1b forms two clades, one each side of Wallace's Line. C1b1 to the west and C1b2 east of the line. C1b2 simply splits into southeast Indonesian (C1b1), probably forming originally in the triangle formed by the islands Timor, Sumba, Alor and Flores; and Australian (C1b2) clades, presumably entering Australia via Timor. C1b1 also forms two clades: Indian C1b1a and Borneo C1b1b. This surely indicates that when the the ancestor of C1b reached the region Borneo was connected to the mainland at a time of very low sea level, but just the ancestor of C1b2 was able to cross open water.

Interestingly C1b1a also forms two clades, C1b1a1 in western India and C1b1a2 in Bangladesh. In other words the most westerly South Asian C Y-DNA is most certainly not a basal clade. It is very much a downstream on. That is surely not what we would expect if Y-DNA C had moved east through South Asia. It fact it looks far more likely that C arrived in South Asia from the east, not the west.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Well, actually on Geno 2,0 map showen when a migration of an mtDNA Hg M moved from East Africa to Asia via Arabian Coastal Line to East Asia via Indus River and Valley on Pakistan - Afghanistan - Kyrgistan and give rise to mtDNA Hg CZ, C, Z, D and G. Probably a similar cases with a Y Hg C's carrier.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

Onur, a Historum.com Netizen called "Purakjelia" told to anothers Historum.com Netizen about "Mongoloid" / "Asiatic" physical appearance were developed by a Human groups from Y Hg C-M217 and his counterpart, an mtDNA Hg M, C, Z, D, G, etc. I just followed his/her (Purakjelia) argument or theory about East Asians ancient ancestors.

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

So, it seems when a Human Haplogroups mutations are older than a human phenotype genetic markers aka Human "Race". But, a Family Tree DNA and The Genographic Project rejected a concept of a " Human Race" even though they're have an Autosomal Regional Population around the world. And from Wikipedia, an Ainuid people are closely related with a Nivkhs people in Sakhalin Island and Eastern Siberian (mtDNA Hg Y, N9a).

Adrian Yohanes Purnomo said...

An EDAR370A, a Sinodonty shovel teeth shape plus 3 roots of first molar teeth in lower jaw, small breast, thicher hair and more Sweat Glands. Today, a Chinese PaleoAnthropologies can't denied a Recent African Origins Theory than an ancient Chinese descendants from Sinanthropus Pekingensis or Multiregional Theory. Indeed, sometimes i founded an East and Southeast Asians with a "Butterfly" teeth shapes and supernumerary teeth in the middle of incisors tooth in Asian People. My Orthodontic Dentist told me when supernumerary teeth cases are more often in the Asians people than European and Middle Eastern.

Onur said...

On the other hand, people with quite distinct dominant Y-DNA strands look much more similar: Finnish (N1c), Irish (R1b), Swedes (I1), Greeks (E1b) and Iranians (J2) are pretty much the same in looks.

It would be a stretch to suggest that these nations are pretty much the same in looks.

Same for Mongols (C1), Han (O3), Tibetans (D) and Maya (Q1).

ditto for them