quote: CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HEADQUARTERS—The biological makeup of humans in East Asia is shaping up to be a very complex story, with greater diversity and more distant contacts than previously known, according to a new study in Current Biologyanalyzing the genome of a man that died in the Tianyuan Cave near Beijing, China 40,000 years ago. His bones had enough DNA molecules left that a team led by Professor FU Qiaomei, at the Molecular Paleontology Lab at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), could use advanced ancient DNA sequencing techniques to retrieve DNA from him that spans the human genome.
Though several ancient humans have been sequenced in Europe and Siberia, few have been sequenced from East Asia, particularly China, where the archaeological record shows a rich history for early modern humans. This new study on the Tianyuan man marks the earliest ancient DNA from East Asia, and the first ancient genome-wide data from China.
The Tianyuan man was studied in 2013 by the same lab. Then, they found that he showed a closer relationship to present-day Asians than present-day Europeans, suggesting present-day Asian history in the region extends as far back as 40,000 years ago. With new molecular techniques only published in the last two years, Professor FU and her team, in a joint collaboration with experts at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology and UC Berkeley, sequenced and analyzed more regions of the genome, particularly at positions also sequenced in other ancient humans.
Since 2013, DNA generated from ancient Europeans has shown that all present-day Europeans derive some of their population history from a prehistoric population that separated from other early non-African populations soon after the migration out of Africa. The mixed ancestry of present-day Europeans could bias tests of genetic similarity, including the results found for the Tianyuan man. With the newly published data, however, the Fu lab showed that his genetic similarity to Asians remained in comparisons including ancient Europeans without mixed ancestry. They confirmed that the closest relationship he shares is with present-day Asians. That was not, however, the most exciting result they found.
With a close relationship to present-day Asians, they expected him to act similarly to present-day Asian populations with respect to Europeans. It was a surprise when they found that a 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, GoyetQ116-1, who in other ways behaved as an ancient European, shared some genetic similarity to the Tianyuan individual that no other ancient Europeans shared. It is unlikely that this is due to direct interactions between populations near the east and west coasts of Eurasia, since other ancient Europeans do not show a similar result. Instead, the researchers suggested that the two populations represented by the Tianyuan and GoyetQ116-1 individuals derived some of their ancestry from the same sub-population prior to the European-Asian separation. The genetic relationship observed between these two ancient individuals is direct evidence that European and Asian populations have a complex history.
A second unexpected result shed some light on human genetic diversity in prehistoric East Asia. In 2015, a study comparing present-day populations in Asia, the Pacific and the Americas showed that some Native American populations from South America had an unusual connection to some populations south of mainland Asia, most notably the Melanesian Papuan and the Andamanese Onge. That study proposed that the population that crossed into the Americas around 20,000 years ago could not be thought of as a single unit. Instead, one or more related but distinct populations crossed at around the same time period, and at least one of these groups had additional ties to an Asian population that also contributed to the present-day Papuan and Onge.
No trace of this connection is observed in present-day East Asians and Siberians, but unlike them, the Tianyuan man also possesses genetic similarities to the same South Americans, in a pattern similar to that found for the Papuan and Onge. The new study directly confirms that the multiple ancestries represented in Native Americans were all from populations in mainland Asia. What is intriguing, however, is that the migration to the Americas occurred approximately 20,000 years ago, but the Tianyuan individual is twice that age. Thus, the population diversity represented in the Americas must have persisted in mainland Asia in two or more distinct populations since 40,000 years ago.
What's with this broad generalization when reporting certain regions of the world? I want to know specifics though this paper had some interesting tibits.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
An East Asian possessing affinity with Indigenous Americans. Interesting.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: An East Asian possessing affinity with Indigenous Americans. Interesting.
The idea is not surprising at all. Autosomal results prior to Ancient DNA always hinted at this. The AGE of the remains is whats interesting.
Its implications for other regions around the world is what I look forward to.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
Northern native look far more Chinese than southern and central natives so it isn't all that surprising.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Always had a lingering suspicion that GoyetQ-116's mtDNA M represents an affinity not shared with most other UP Europeans. They were trying to pass GoyetQ-116's mtDNA off as a European heritage that died off. It may have died off, but it's definitely not a European heritage.
Just superimpose a map of mtDNA M on Tianyuang's global affinities. Tianyuang's affinities seem mtDNA M mediated, and entirely distinct from the mtDNA N-dominated OOA wave that today survives mostly in western Eurasia and the Sahul. Looks like Mellars was right all along about a distinctive OOA presence in Asia, albeit not in the way he envisioned it.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
This is not about the general East Asian ancestry of Native Americans. The majority of all Amerindians' ancestry is North East Asian, related to Chinese, Mongols, Samoyeds, Tungus, etc. It's also not about more recent gene flow from Arctic bringing additional East Asian ancestry - which is probably what you are thinking of with northern Natives, Thereal. This is about something else entirely.
So certain indigenous people of the Amazon turn out to be slightly more closely related to Papuans, Melanesians, Australian Aborigines, etc, and Onge (from the Andamanese islands) than other Amerindians are. Amerindians are thought to pretty much all descend from the same relatively small founding population and hence any one Amerindian group normally will have almost exactly the same degree of relationship to any population outside of the Americas as any other Amerindian group (barring obviously Post-Columbian ancestry, and also that Arctic gene flow mentioned earlier).
So Amazonians have a few percent of some kind of ancestry that is closer to these indigenous Indo-Pacific populations than to North East Asians (we can call this 'Paleo-Asian'). The mystery population that contributed it is called 'Population Y'. We don't know how the heck they ended up in the middle of the Amazon specifically.
Tianyuan Man, 40 000 years old, comes from a cave in the Beijing area. A small part of his genome were actually sequenced several years ago, but now his whole genome has been done. He isn't directly ancestral to modern East Asians to any significant degree, but he does turn out to be a kind of Paleo-Asian; the Amazonians are related to him as well.
Also GoyetQ116-1, who is from Belgium and 35 000 years old, has some of this Tianyuan-related ancestry too (mostly he is like other Ice Age Europeans). So it seems this kind of Paleo-Asian got around back in the day. (I suspect that we will find small amounts of it are all over the place, but I could be wrong, and that isn't in the actual study.)
Anyway, finding the potential source of ancestry found in Amerindians in northern China should not come as a surprise to anyone, because they come from Northeast Asia! But the Population Y mystery remains.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Just superimpose a map of mtDNA M on Tianyuang's global affinities. Tianyuang's affinities seem mtDNA M mediated, and entirely distinct from the mtDNA N-dominated OOA wave that today survives mostly in western Eurasia and the Sahul.
Tianyuan was haplogroup R (specifically B) and Sahul has more of the Paleo-Asian element than places with more M. So I don't think that makes sense. Not to say that the Paleo-Asian in GoyetQ116-1 isn't linked to his M, that's surely plausible.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: An East Asian possessing affinity with Indigenous Americans. Interesting.
The idea is not surprising at all. Autosomal results prior to Ancient DNA always hinted at this. The AGE of the remains is whats interesting.
Its implications for other regions around the world is what I look forward to.
Now that you mentioned it really isn't surprising. But I do hope to see more.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Just superimpose a map of mtDNA M on Tianyuang's global affinities. Tianyuang's affinities seem mtDNA M mediated, and entirely distinct from the mtDNA N-dominated OOA wave that today survives mostly in western Eurasia and the Sahul
Tianyuan was haplogroup R (specifically B) and Sahul has more of the Paleo-Asian element than places with more M. So I don't think that makes sense. Not to say that the Paleo-Asian in GoyetQ116-1 isn't linked to his M, that's surely plausible.
True. Just remember that Tianyuan just has this affinity. Tianyuan is not necessarily the source of this affinity, and so he doesn't necessarily have to have mtDNA M in the scenario I just painted. MtDNA M could easily be in his pedigree (e.g. if his father had mtDNA M he wouldn't have inherited it) even if he doesn't carry it. And, quite possibly, since mtDNA N is older according to some sources (e.g. Behar et al 2012), the mtDNA M people could also have carried some mtDNA N.
It might look like a hasty conclusion drawn from a couple of aDNA samples, but there is a lot of evidence to support it. Start with Mellars' research if you're interested.
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
But, most interestingly it was surprising that when they compared Tianyuan to the 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, GoyetQ116-1, who in other ways reflected an ancient European, he shared some genetic similarity to the Tianyuan individual that no other ancient Europeans shared.
Why? Because they had domestic dogs from Phu Quoc Island.
Remains for the older prehistoric dog, which were excavated at Goyet Cave in Belgium
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
My personal opinion on this is that across Eurasia there were many aboriginal types with a wide diversity in features and hair textures, including straight hair which we see remnants of in India, Australia and the Pacific. Those populations in the north becoming the later East Asian populations we see today. There are still some pockets of these northern Aboriginals in the Eskimo and parts of Tibet and Northern India. And it is that kind of aboriginal type of mainland Asian that settled the Americas.
Unfortunately many people have the opinion that the only aboriginal "type" of mainland Asia is the short Negrito which is absolutely not correct.
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
Doug M: "Unfortunately many people have the opinion that the only aboriginal "type" of mainland Asia is the short Negrito which is absolutely not correct."
Pygmies, actually, first along the tropical belt, now mostly admixed with later arrivals including AMHs OOA2; Denisovans in Papuans & Australians and some Philippinos.
Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
Doug M, your academic link from China is a little bit incomplete, and not on the point! Therefore, I decide to post a link about Tianyuan Man written by Ann Gibbons, which has more details in all aspects, including his European inherited Neanderthal DNA, and the Tribe names of Amerindians living in South America, which share DNA with Tianyuan Man. I am also posting 2 videos from Brazil about an isolated tribe from Peru, which crossed the border to ask for help, because they were attacked by WHITE MEN. As you will see in those videos, there is no doubt those nude isolated Amerindians living in the Amazonas Forest, are in fact Mongoloids, possible from East China, because they still have mongoloid eyes with tight epicanthic folds.
Was this ancient person from China the offspring of modern humans and Neandertals?
By Ann GibbonsOct. 12, 2017 , 12:00 PM
When scientists excavated a 40,000-year-old skeleton in China in 2003, they thought they had discovered the offspring of a Neandertal and a modern human. But ancient DNA now reveals that the “Tianyuan Man” has only traces of Neandertal DNA and none detectable from another type of extinct human known as a Denisovan. Instead, he was a full-fledged member of our species, Homo sapiens, and a distant relative of people who today live in East Asia and South America. The work could help scientists retrace some of the earliest steps of human migration.
“The paper is very exciting because it is the first genome to fill a really big gap, both geographically and temporally, in East Asia,” says paleogeneticist Pontus Skoglund of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the work.
The first modern humans arose in Africa about 300,000 years ago. By 60,000 years ago, a subset swept out of Africa and mated with Neandertals, perhaps in the Middle East. After that, they spread around the world—DNA from ancient humans in Europe, western Asia, and the Americas has revealed the identity of those early migrants and whether they were related to people living today, especially in Europe. But the trail grows cold in eastern Asia, where warmer climates have made it hard to get ancient DNA from fossils.
The new genome sheds some light on those missing years. In the first genome-wide study of an ancient East Asian, researchers led by Qiaomei Fu, a paleogeneticist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, extracted DNA from the thighbone of the Tianyuan Man—so named because he was found in Tianyuan Cave, 56 kilometers southwest of Beijing.
The team calculated that the Tianyuan Man inherited about as much Neandertal DNA—4% to 5%—as ancient Europeans and Asians of similar age. That’s a bit higher than the 1.8% to 2.6% of Neandertal DNA in living Europeans and Asians. The Tianyuan Man did not have any detectable DNA from Denisovans, an elusive cousin of Neandertals known only from their DNA extracted from a few teeth and small bones from a Siberian cave and from traces of their DNA that can still be found in people in Melanesia—where they got it is a major mystery.
A big surprise is that the Tianyuan Man shares DNA with one ancient European—a 35,000-year-old modern human from Goyet Caves in Belgium. But he doesn’t share it with other ancient humans who lived at roughly the same time in Romania and Siberia—or with living Europeans. But the Tianyuan Man is most closely related to living people in east Asia—including in China, Japan, and the Koreas—and in Southeast Asia, including Papua New Guinea and Australia.
All of this suggests that the Tianyuan Man was not a direct ancestor, but rather a distant cousin, of a founding population in Asia that gave rise to present-day Asians, Fu’s team reports today in Current Biology. It also shows that these ancient “populations moved around a lot and intermixed,” says paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis in Missouri, who is not a co-author.
And some left offspring whereas others did not. “I find it interesting that … some of the early modern colonizers of Eurasia were successful while others were not,” says co-author Svante Pääbo, a paleogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
The Tianyuan Man also was a distant relative of Native Americans living today in the Amazon of South America, such as the Karitiana and Surui peoples of Brazil and the Chane people of northern Argentina and southern Bolivia. They inherited about 9% to 15% of their DNA from an ancestral population in Asia that also gave rise to the Tianyuan Man. But he is not an ancestor to ancient or living Native Americans in North America, which suggests there were two different source populations in Asia for Native Americans.
This is welcome news to Skoglund, who found in a separate study in 2015 that the Karitiana and Surui peoples are closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans, and Andaman Islanders. At the time, he predicted that they came from the same “ghost” source population in Asia, which was separate from another Asian population that gave rise to Native Americans in North America. “It’s fascinating that a prediction of a ‘ghost population’ based on modern-day populations alone can be confirmed in this way,” he says.
The sample used in the study were the archaic humanoids: Altai Neanderthals, and the Denisova; the western Eurasian clade was represented by Mal’ta 1 and , Ust’-Ishim individuals; indigenous populations from , New Guinea, Australia, Onge ( from the Andaman Islands), and the Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese) represented the eastern clade.
The basic error in this method is that the authors are comparing ancient and modern DNA, with the full knowledge that the ancient DNA, rarely corresponds to contemporary populations. In addition the authors use the date of the Ust’-Ishim individual as the terminal date for the separation of the eastern and western clades.
Granted, the authors acknowledge that the Ust’-Ishim individual shows no admixture in Australasians . But this is not surprising , there are no living descendants of Ust’-Ishim. As a result, s/ he can not represent the point when the eastern and western clades separated .
Interestingly, the Tianyuan DNA, belongs to the mtDNA R macrohaplogroup, namely haplogroup B, in addition a deletion of a 9-bp motif (5′-CCCCCTCTA-3′, revised Cambridge reference sequence positions 8,281–8,289). This haplogroup is not carried by the indigenous populations from , New Guinea, Australia, Onge ( from the Andaman Islands), and the Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese) that represented the eastern clade in this study.
The failure to adequately discuss the Tianyuan DNA, makes the conclusion of the paper suspect, since the authors are claiming that the Australasians, represent the eastern clade, eventhough the Tianyuan individual is 45ky old. Moreover, the presence of the 9-bp motif clearly indicates an African influence among the Tianyuan.
The argument implying that Tianyuan man relates to Native Americans is pure bs. It is bs because Asians could not cross the Bearing Straits until 25,000 years after this man had died. Given the separation in time between the Native Americans and Tianyuan man make this proposition ludicrous.
Reference: Qiaomei Fu et al. DNA analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China. PNAS, published online before print January 22, 2013. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2223.full Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bump for Djehuti
Tried to get your attention here, but seems like you missed it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Happy New Year to everyone and sorry for the late response as I have been meaning to since I saw your post above Swenet.
I have a few cents to add to this topic if not a dollar.
First of all, it's no surprise that pre-Holocene populations in East Asia were more diverse than they are today as was the case with all human populations back then. But I agree with Swenet in his suspicions that GoyetQ116-1 probably represents an outlier of sorts. We know there are populations in Europe today who are genetic outliers in that they share more affinities with East Asians, specifically siberians. I've read of evidence connecting the Gravettian Culture to the Mal'ta-Buret Culture of North Asia though GoyetQ116-1 corresponds to the Aurignacian Culture. Lastly, as far as the Australasian ancestry seen in some Indigenous Americans though not found modern East Asians but apparently found in UP Tianyuan man, this was explained about 3 years ago by David Reich's theory of a ghost population he calls 'Population Y' that once existed in East Asia. The autosomal features are actually not directly Australasian but from this 'Population Y' which contributed their genes to both Amerindian ancestors to their north and Australasian ancestors to their south! I will explain more on that in Red's thread here.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Yes.
But I also think mtDNA N actually represents an OOA migration event distinct from M (the latter, I think spread with D-M174, while the former spread with CF).
If this is correct, this OOA migration could have happened shortly before 35ky ago, as this is when we find assemblages in India (e.g. at Patne) that have distinct links with assemblages in Sub-Saharan Africa (specifically, in parts of SSA along the Indian Ocean). The links are different from how the Aurignacian and Ahmarian link to these SSA assemblages (i.e. assemblages found at sites like Patne are much closer to the SSA ones, while the Ahmarian and Aurignacian are closer to others, found in North Africa). This is consistent with these Indian industries representing another (and later) OOA migration.
Read the paper below to get up to speed quickly (if you're not already). Although be mindful that Mellars et al lump all Indian microlithic industries together, even though the full suite of commonalities with the SSA assemblages are much younger than his combined sample. Because of this, he overestimates the age of the SSA commonalities and makes his ideas more vulnerable to refutation. He also fails to realize that mtDNA M and N cannot be lumped as if they have the same distribution. Their unique distributions should be taken into account. This doesn't mean one has to subscribe to my idea of two OOA migrations. However, to treat M and N as having the same genetic history (and merely having preserved better in Asia compared to West Eurasia) is clearly wrong.
^ Sorry again for the late response as I have not only been busy with work but also taking care of flu-ridden family members so I don't have the time to post here like I wanted.
To get to your point I too have long theorized two seperate OOA events with regards to mtDNA hgs M & N which is hinted at in both their respective distribution and variance patterns, even if both are derived from a common hg MN. Though what I haven't been able to do was successfully associate each maternal clades to their paternal counterparts. I'm also unable to associate any of these clades with archaeology though I know that a good source of this archaeology is found in South Asia (India) if not Southwest Asia (Arabia) though the latter is more scarce in matrial finds.
With regards to Y-DNA clades DE and CF I personally believe the latter actually could be split into two events with C leaving Africa first followed by F. What is your take on this?
Thanks for the paper, I'm not as fimiliar with Terminal Pleistocene South Asian archaeology as I am with archaeology of Southeast and East Asia of the same time period. It will be a while before I'll finish the paper for me to give my opinions on it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: An East Asian possessing affinity with Indigenous Americans. Interesting.
The idea is not surprising at all. Autosomal results prior to Ancient DNA always hinted at this. The AGE of the remains is whats interesting.
Its implications for other regions around the world is what I look forward to.
Beyoku is right, not only is China not that far from the Russian Far East (from where the ancestors of Amerindians originated) but both skeletal remains as well as genetics (both uniparental signatures and autosomes) show this.
Here's a more detailed map
And here are maps showing uniparental clades
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Sorry again for the late response as I have not only been busy with work but also taking care of flu-ridden family members so I don't have the time to post here like I wanted.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Thanks for the paper, I'm not as fimiliar with Terminal Pleistocene South Asian archaeology as I am with archaeology of Southeast and East Asia of the same time period. It will be a while before I'll finish the paper for me to give my opinions on it.
We understand. Fam and work comes first. Take your time.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To get to your point I too have long theorized two seperate OOA events with regards to mtDNA hgs M & N which is hinted at in both their respective distribution and variance patterns, even if both are derived from a common hg MN. Though what I haven't been able to do was successfully associate each maternal clades to their paternal counterparts. I'm also unable to associate any of these clades with archaeology though I know that a good source of this archaeology is found in South Asia (India) if not Southwest Asia (Arabia) though the latter is more scarce in matrial finds.
Yeah. When you try to reconstruct prehistoric populations, you will inevitably stumble on data that can throw you off. Physical anthropology has it, but genetics definitely has it, too (despite being worshipped in some quarters as the holy grail of bioanthropology).
In the scenario that mtDNA M represents a separate OOA event, if carriers of this hg were more successful reproducing, you could get a distribution pattern where M seemingly has no male counterpart. This can throw people off, as it leads them to assume that M and N are associated with the same male counterparts. Something similar is going on in our uniparental trees, where the Y-DNA tree is seemingly older than the mtDNA tree. Some people have gone so far as to say that the Y-DNA Adam originated in North/West Africa, while mtDNA Eve originated in southern Africa. Of course, the Y-DNA tree is not really older, and both trees don't have different regional origins. We just haven't found the maternal lineages that push back the mtDNA tree to the same degree. And we may never find the maternal counterparts of A00 and A0, because, just like mtDNA M was more successful than her male counterpart, A00 and A0 were more successful than their female counterparts.
I used to think that Lake Mungo's mtDNA was related to Y-DNA A0 and A00. You might remember that from our previous discussions. In 2016 a paper was published that seems to have put a nail in that coffin. See Heupink et al.
quote:With regards to Y-DNA clades DE and CF I personally believe the latter actually could be split into two events with C leaving Africa first followed by F. What is your take on this?
That's a tempting idea I've played around with myself. An ancient presence of F subclades in Africa certainly would explain why traces of SSA ancestry and Basal Eurasian are far more associated with Y-DNA F (i.e. Y-DNA G) in farmers, than they are with E-M78. (Although there may be nothing to 'explain', as E-M78 and related E lineages could simply have decreased due to founder effect early on in the history of farming). Also, based on some archaeological clues I can tell that CT carriers were originally much more numerous than just C, D, E and F. This supports a retention of some CT* in Africa long after the initial OOA event. But as for F being fully African (i.e. not just some subclades, like the aforementioned Y-DNA G, but the full hg), it depends on how long you propose it would have stayed. F as a whole remaining in Africa longer is constrained by ancient DNA. For instance, Ust-Ishim and Oase are early F carriers in Eurasia and Ust-Ishim is pretty old at 44ky. Since Ust-Ishim is an early lineage within a subclade most Asian F carriers belong to (i.e. K-M9), that entire Asian subclade must have already been outside of Africa by 44ky ago.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah. When you try to reconstruct prehistoric populations, you will inevitably stumble on data that can throw you off. Physical anthropology has it, but genetics definitely has it, too (despite being worshipped in some quarters as the holy grail of bioanthropology).
In the scenario that mtDNA M represents a separate OOA event, if carriers of this hg were more successful reproducing, you could get a distribution pattern where M seemingly has no male counterpart. This can throw people off, as it leads them to assume that M and N are associated with the same male counterparts. Something similar is going on in our uniparental trees, where the Y-DNA tree is seemingly older than the mtDNA tree. Some people have gone so far as to say that the Y-DNA Adam originated in North/West Africa, while mtDNA Eve originated in southern Africa. Of course, the Y-DNA tree is not really older, and both trees don't have different regional origins. We just haven't found the maternal lineages that push back the mtDNA tree to the same degree. And we may never find the maternal counterparts of A00 and A0, because, just like mtDNA M was more successful than her male counterpart, A00 and A0 were more successful than their female counterparts.
So judging by the archaeological record, what culture in South Asia do you associate with M carriers and which with N carriers??
quote:I used to think that Lake Mungo's mtDNA was related to Y-DNA A0 and A00. You might remember that from our previous discussions. In 2016 a paper was published that seems to have put a nail in that coffin. See Heupink et al.
Yes I remember that. Even some white Australians were quick to deny the Aborigines First Nation status. The DNA had to come from another set of remains not far from Mungo. The problem unfortunately is that all the well known prehistoric remains in Australasia are either too degraded or there non at all because the remains are completely fossilized.
quote:That's a tempting idea I've played around with myself. An ancient presence of F subclades in Africa certainly would explain why traces of SSA ancestry and Basal Eurasian are far more associated with Y-DNA F (i.e. Y-DNA G) in farmers, than they are with E-M78. (Although there may be nothing to 'explain', as E-M78 and related E lineages could simply have decreased due to founder effect early on in the history of farming). Also, based on some archaeological clues I can tell that CT carriers were originally much more numerous than just C, D, E and F. This supports a retention of some CT* in Africa long after the initial OOA event. But as for F being fully African (i.e. not just some subclades, like the aforementioned Y-DNA G, but the full hg), it depends on how long you propose it would have stayed. F as a whole remaining in Africa longer is constrained by ancient DNA. For instance, Ust-Ishim and Oase are early F carriers in Eurasia and Ust-Ishim is pretty old at 44ky. Since Ust-Ishim is an early lineage within a subclade most Asian F carriers belong to (i.e. K-M9), that entire Asian subclade must have already been outside of Africa by 44ky ago.
So what do you make of the basal F*-M89 and F1 carriers found in rural areas of the Kordofan in Sudan?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah. When you try to reconstruct prehistoric populations, you will inevitably stumble on data that can throw you off. Physical anthropology has it, but genetics definitely has it, too (despite being worshipped in some quarters as the holy grail of bioanthropology).
In the scenario that mtDNA M represents a separate OOA event, if carriers of this hg were more successful reproducing, you could get a distribution pattern where M seemingly has no male counterpart. This can throw people off, as it leads them to assume that M and N are associated with the same male counterparts. Something similar is going on in our uniparental trees, where the Y-DNA tree is seemingly older than the mtDNA tree. Some people have gone so far as to say that the Y-DNA Adam originated in North/West Africa, while mtDNA Eve originated in southern Africa. Of course, the Y-DNA tree is not really older, and both trees don't have different regional origins. We just haven't found the maternal lineages that push back the mtDNA tree to the same degree. And we may never find the maternal counterparts of A00 and A0, because, just like mtDNA M was more successful than her male counterpart, A00 and A0 were more successful than their female counterparts.[/qb]
So judging by the archaeological record, what culture in South Asia do you associate with M carriers and which with N carriers??
See these microlithic tools dating to 45kya:
quote:We extend the continuity of microblade technology in the Indian Subcontinent to 45 ka, on the basis of optical dating of microblade assemblages from the site of Mehtakheri, (22° 13' 44′′ N Lat 76° 01' 36′′ E Long) in Madhya Pradesh, India.
Aside from their superficial similarities with southeast African industries (i.e. mere microlithization), these tools lack close commonalities with southeast African industries. The way I see it, the ones before 55ky are completely disqualified from being associated with N carriers, the ones in between 55-35ky are good candidates for being N carriers or for being mixed with them, and the ones that date to ~35ky and younger are good candidates for being M carriers or mixed with them.
BTW, I'm only citing that paper as a possible example of mtDNA N carriers in the region, since you asked me that question. The authors don't say that mtDNA M or any of these assemblages represent another OOA migration.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a tempting idea I've played around with myself. An ancient presence of F subclades in Africa certainly would explain why traces of SSA ancestry and Basal Eurasian are far more associated with Y-DNA F (i.e. Y-DNA G) in farmers, than they are with E-M78. (Although there may be nothing to 'explain', as E-M78 and related E lineages could simply have decreased due to founder effect early on in the history of farming). Also, based on some archaeological clues I can tell that CT carriers were originally much more numerous than just C, D, E and F. This supports a retention of some CT* in Africa long after the initial OOA event. But as for F being fully African (i.e. not just some subclades, like the aforementioned Y-DNA G, but the full hg), it depends on how long you propose it would have stayed. F as a whole remaining in Africa longer is constrained by ancient DNA. For instance, Ust-Ishim and Oase are early F carriers in Eurasia and Ust-Ishim is pretty old at 44ky. Since Ust-Ishim is an early lineage within a subclade most Asian F carriers belong to (i.e. K-M9), that entire Asian subclade must have already been outside of Africa by 44ky ago.
So what do you make of the basal F*-M89 and F1 carriers found in rural areas of the Kordofan in Sudan?
The only paper I'm aware of that explicitly listed Sudanese Y chromosomes as 'Y-DNA F', is the Hassan aDNA paper. They were testing for the upstream F-M89 mutation, so we don't actually know where these F Y-DNAs fall (i.e. whether they fall in or outside of Eurasian haplogroups).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I recall a paper years before the Hassan study you speak of wherein both M89 (F*) and P91 (F1) found in Kordofan populations, though they attribute it to back-migration. I've been trying to find that paper ever since.
What I'm curious about are the archaeological sites in SW Asia. The Mellars et al. paper you cited as well as others always focus on India. the Rose finding in Oman of a Nubian derived Middle Stone Age culture is the only one I've heard of.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Oh, I know the paper you're talking about. It's Hassan et al 2008.
You're absolutely right. Hassan 2008 is another example of a paper where Sudanese Y-DNAs are specifically listed as F. Don't know how I forgot this, because the Hassan aDNA thesis includes this 2008 paper.
quote:What I'm curious about are the archaeological sites in SW Asia. The Mellars et al. paper you cited as well as others always focus on India. the Rose finding in Oman of a Nubian derived Middle Stone Age culture is the only one I've heard of.
The industries are unrelated. The Nubian Complex is more related to the Aterian. The Indian industries are more advanced. Aterian and Nubian Complex are Middle Stone age, which became widespread 300ky ago. The Indian industries discussed by Mellars et al are part of a wider phenomenon that only became widespread globally ~40-30ky ago. An archaeologist named Clark ranked industries based on how advanced they are. He ranked them from Mode 1-5, with 1 being more primitive than 5. The Indian industries discussed by Mellars are Mode 5, while the Nubian Complex tools are Mode 3.
quote:In the 1960s, Grahame Clark attempted to make sense of the evolution of stone tools globally, and devised a system based on five lithic modes, based primarily on European stone tools but applied worldwide, that demonstrated the evolution of stone tools from simple to complex. The stone tool technology five modes, devised by Grahame Clark (Clark, 1969; Shea, 2013), were:
Mode 1 Characteristics: Pebble cores and flake tools Time period: Lower Paleolithic (early) Representative industries from Western Europe: Chellean, Clactonian, Tayacian
Mode 2 Characteristics: Large bifacial cutting tools made from flakes and cores Time period: Lower Paleolithic (later) Representative industries from Western Europe: Abbevillian, Acheulian
Mode 3 Characteristics: Flake tools struck from prepared cores Time period: Middle Paleolithic Representative industries from Western Europe: Levalloisian Mousterian
Mode 4 Characteristics: Punch-struck prismatic blades retouched into various specialized forms Time period: Upper Paleolithic Representative industries from Western Europe: Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean
Mode 5 Characteristics: Retouched microliths and other retouched components of composite tools Time period: Later Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Representative industries from Western Europe: Azilian, Magdalenian, Maglemosian, Sauveterrian, Tardenoisian
^They talk about Eurasian industries here, but the same applies to Africa. In Africa Mode 5 is more common than Mode 4, while it's reversed in West Eurasia. This is why the industries I associate with mtDNA M stick out like a sore thumb. These Indian industries are more similar to African industries in key respects. Under the explanation that there was a single OOA migration of both mtDNA M and N, you'd expect these Indian industries to be derived from (or at least parallel to) contemporary West Eurasian industries. But they aren't.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
AFAICT the Hassan et al F* is F(xG, I, J, K). One possibility would be H2-P96, fairly rare nowadays but was around in Levant Neolithic. Of course could be something unique too, too bad there are not many full Y sequences from Sudan.
Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
Written by Mr. Clyde Winters,
The argument implying that Tianyuan man relates to Native Americans is pure bs. It is bs because Asians could not cross the Bearing Straits until 25,000 years after this man had died. Given the separation in time between the Native Americans and Tianyuan man make this proposition ludicrous. ____________________________________________
Mr. Winters, I understand Chinese emergency to fit in as the one of "WORLD'S CONTROLLERS", and trying to prove it through DNA tests of their ancient cave people. Their DNA tests results are complying to their recent territorial, economic, and financial ambitions in Africa and around the World.
I noticed, it is not only trade, but it is as well the beginning of military power over Africa, as you may know about their first military base in the West, which is located in Africa at Djibouti.
The objectivity of China and India geneticists is to prove that Homo Sapiens origin is Easter and South Asia, rather than Africa. Actually, geneticists from both countries are insanely and corruptly competing among themselves by producing unreliable DNA results.
They must first take a profound look into their own history, before publish their pathetic DNA results attempts, compatible to recent simpleminded theory of fully developed Homo Sapiens from Asia return to Africa.
Starting with, the earlier last waves of African Homo Sapiens arrival on Eastern and South Asia, in 14000 years, those regions, still be roamed by creatures like Ape mixed with hominids, Ape like transitional appearance to homo Erectus, due to interbreed among Africans hominids and Eastern Asia large monkey called Orangutan which has been recently elevated to "Great Ape" status by Europeans.
Those Asian creatures transitional Ape to hominids, then interbreed with Rheus monkey which inhabited India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan, Vietnam, southern China, Malesia regions, and Snow monkey from Japan, resulting to a new Ape like transitional to Homo Erectus Asian species.
Those creatures, are present day Idols of Indian religions, as well in their written history which was passed to them, by their ancestors oral tales. They also were among Asian homo Sapiens emigration by the Sea to American Continent. You can see their images in Colombia, at Saint Augustine region. Their sculptures images captured their enormous and long Ape like canine teeth. Their images with Ape anatomy called Chiyou, are present as well, as an primitive ancestors of a Chinese king, on the tomb relief of the Han dynasty 206BC– 220AC.
Eventually, these apes mixed with hominids, interbreed with fully developed hominids, creating "Asian hominids". These Asian hominids interbreed with African Homo Sapiens, actually creating South Asians and Eastern Asian humanoids. Then, Asian humanoids interbreed with African homo Sapiens,resulting on "Asian Modern Humans"
These Asians transitional half Ape and half hominid creatures, and Modern Asian Humanoids, were living side by side, alive, and roaming in China, and India by the time fully developed African Homo Sapiens established the first Chinese Xia dynasty in 2000sBC. And is very possible that African Homo Sapiens interbreed and inbreed with Asian Humanoids established other dynasties in China.
Now... those Eastern and South Asia, emigrants to American Continent, didn't arrived only by crossing the Bering Strait. They arrived by the Sea on "BOAT" as well...Unless, Mr. Winters, you can explain a better theory of how hundred of thousands of them, arrived and settled as well on distant Islands thousands of miles from American Continent coastline, located on the middle of North and South of Pacific Ocean, such as Easter and Hawaii Islands, located in the middle of Pacific Ocean...
But, please, don't say they walked or swimmed from Asia to these Islands.
By the way...I am South American. One of my maternal ancestors was an Asian Amerindian. One of my paternal ancestor, was an African slave, over 6 feet tall, within origin of Omo River Valley in Sudan. Both of them have child and married white Europeans. Therefore, I am a diverged specie from the union of all you can image from Asia, Africa, and Europe. I can look down to all of them with my own genetic rights to criticize and point their crimes against humanity, and as well, their past glories and actual achievement. The problem is: if I mention their crimes, whites and blacks say I am racist or even antisemitic, when I mentioned that my African slave ancestor was transported from Africa, sold, and owned by Jews, even if two of my maternal and paternal ancestors were Jewish as well....I am not only the result of races, but, as well many of those races ethnic groups...
Just for the records...
Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
Now...I am finishing my thoughts in this topic, of Central and Eastern Asians subhumans and humanoids, by posting a video by David Bowie. He was a brilliant guy, and he knew well the history and the origins of his white people without shame of himself.
In his last video, he had a white woman with tail, walking in the cave and roaming around an ancient village, which I believe to be an Assyrian village, where the first Central and Eastern Asian subhumans with tails was officially recorded in ancient history and engraved on the Black Obelisk of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, showing humanoids with tails, dragged by Assyrian warriors on leaches, on their return from expedition which I think was Afghanistan, but could be an extended expedition even far Eastern, perhaps on border of China?
Ladies and Gentlemans here is David Bowie's video BLACKSTAR
By the way...By request of David Bowie, which was born and raised in England, his ashes was scattered on the Indonesian island of Bali in line with “Buddhist rituals”
He wanted to go back to the very beginning of his own race...remember Orangutan? which is originally from Indonesia?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Since the conversation is increasingly going off topic, I'll post the reply here if nobody minds. Already had a discussion here with DJ about Asia, Africa, and lithic industries, so there is some fit.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And the fact that you and I never bought into the outright dismissal of old anthropology is what is helping us in investigating these areas of anthropology that have been mishandled by scholars. I appreciate that you never went along with that bandwagon.[/qb]
Yes, well not only have I always been independent minded and always questioned things but I know that despite whatever errors scholars of the past had I knew they weren't wrong about everything. You basically take what's accurate and correct and leave the rest alone. This goes equally for early Africanist scholars like Cheikh Diop as it is does for white supremacist scholars like Carleton Coon. To put it simply, whatever erroneous theories or conclusions they may have had, you can't dismiss the objective material data they both collected.
100%.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And yeah, I've always questioned the in situ change theory as well. It never made sense how Mesolithic Nubians and late Holocene Egypto-Nubians could be the same people as if craniofacial changes that drastic could happen in so short a time. And I recognize the same exact patter with Paleo-Americans as you pointed out.
Right. And some of the differences simply cannot be reconciled, even considering adaptation. In addition to a big morphological gap in metric features, there is also a big morphological gap in non-metric features (Mesolithic Nubian teeth have non-metric affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans, while predynastic Nubian teeth have affinity with Ibero-Maurusians, Irish' Natufian sample, and other North African[-influenced] samples). It seems obvious to me that, unlike the metric gap (which could be argued to have some degree of plasticity), the non-metric features used by Irish are highly correlated with ancestry.
As you know, when it comes to Palaeo-Indians, similar objections can be raised. Why would craniofacial plasticity turn Palaeo-Indians into Sinodont populations? Sinodonty is highly correlated with ancestry, and not a simple adaptation. It's like Brace's concept of "trivial traits":
Traits that show associations with each other only within the context of a given region, then, inevitably have no adaptive significance. When a large number of features occur together in a given geographic area, the principal agent controlling their occurrence is the sharing of genes between neighboring groups that are by definition relatives. Traits that combine to produce a picture of delimited regional occurrence of necessity then will be nonadaptive or trivial traits. Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603
One would not expect Sinodonty to show up in America unless there was actual migration from an Asian Sinodont population. Likewise, one would not expect Sundadonty to show up in America unless there was actual migration from an Asian Sundadont population.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:BTW, I just edited my previous post and added a paper. Can you read it and let me know what you think? Are we being told lies by mainstream science about sapiens/LSA/UP tools only being 50ky old, or do you think they have valid reasons for under-reporting and downplaying the importance of this information?
I have yet to read the entire paper but it wouldn't surprise me that mainstream science is lying again. It's not like the first time. Recall how lithic industries were originally measured and still today often named by what happened in Europe, as if all early human development was based on Europeans. And although I don't buy into the 'Catastrophic Civilizations' theory, I do believe human cultures during the Paleolithic were likely more advanced than most believe. [/qb]
Please let me know when you've read the paper. It's less than 5 pages, but take your time.
I want to know how you solve the riddle of UP/LSA-like industries being stratigraphically sandwiched by more archaic tools. For instance, see the position of the Howiesons Poort here. Notice that it does not connect to any period in which the LSA was dominant. The appearance of the Howiesons Poort is abrupt and seemingly out of nowhere. And then it disappears again to be followed by more archaic industries.
Even though Vishnyatsky (the author) calls out the phenomenon (for which I'm very grateful because people like him prevent it from being swept under the rug), he is baffled by it and has not solved it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Up for the relevance of the implications in regards to populations genetics. Also, since I failed to address some important points before I could address the article. Mind you, the remains in discussion—Tianyuan Man 1 is only comprised of a right mandible and a right femur and right tibia, though the examination of such has yielded some interesting finds: https://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6573
ABSTRACT Thirty-four elements of an early modern human (EMH) were found in Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China in 2003. Dated to 42,000–39,000 calendrical years before present by using direct accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon, the Tianyuan 1 skeleton is among the oldest directly dated EMHs in eastern Eurasia. Morphological comparison shows Tianyuan 1 to have a series of derived modern human characteristics, including a projecting tuber symphyseos, a high anterior symphyseal angle, a broad scapular glenoid fossa, a reduced hamulus, a gluteal buttress, and a pilaster on the femora. Other features of Tianyuan 1 that are more common among EMHs are its modest humeral pectoralis major tuberosities, anteriorly rotated radial tuberosity, reduced radial curvature, and modest talar trochlea. It also lacks several mandibular features common among western Eurasian late archaic humans, including mandibular foramen bridging, mandibular notch asymmetry, and a large superior medial pterygoid tubercle. However, Tianyuan 1 exhibits several late archaic human features, such as its anterior to posterior dental proportions, a large hamulus length, and a broad and rounded distal phalangeal tuberosity. This morphological pattern implies that a simple spread of modern humans from Africa is unlikely.
Discussion The Tianyuan 1 partial skeleton, as the first east Asian well dated modern human associated skeleton >30 ka 14C BP, provides secure documentation of a suite of derived modern human characteristics in eastern Asia at this time period; among eastern Eurasian early modern remains, only the immature Niah Cave cranium is securely at least as old. These derived modern human features include the strongly projecting tuber symphyseos and high anterior symphyseal angle, the relatively broad scapular glenoid fossa, the reduced hamulus, and the presence of a gluteal buttress and a pronounced pilaster on the femora. Other features that are more common among EMHs include the modest pectoralis major tuberosities of the humeri, the anteriorly rotated radial tuberosity, the relatively straight radial diaphysis, and a modest talar trochlea. These are combined with the absence of several mandibular features (retromolar space, mandibular foramen bridging, mandibular notch asymmetry, and large superior medial pterygoid tubercle) that are common among the Neandertals and rare among Middle and Upper Paleolithic modern humans, but for which the eastern Eurasian late archaic pattern is unknown. At the same time, Tianyuan 1 exhibits several features that place it close to the late archaic humans (represented primarily by the Neandertals) or between them and EMHs. These include the anterior to posterior dental proportions, the proximodistal enlargement of the hamulus, the subcircular and radioulnarly enlarged distal phalangeal tuberosity, and the elevated tibial robusticity despite the linearly elongated body proportions implied by its high crural index. Given the dearth of late archaic human remains in eastern Eurasia, it is not possible to use Tianyuan 1 to support a specific phylogenetic model for the appearance of modern humans in the region, other than to make it likely that there was at least substantial gene flow from earlier modern human populations to the south and west of Tianyuan Cave. This is supported by the derived modern human features previously present in the MPMHs and the high crural index of Tianyuan 1, suggesting some relatively recent ancestry among more equatorial populations. At the same time, the presence of several archaic features, lost or rare in the MPMH sample, implies that a simple spread of modern human morphology eastward from Africa is unlikely, an inference already supported by the south Asian and Australo-melanesian morphology present in the slightly younger remains from Fa Hein, Batadomba lena, and Moh Khiew and especially the contemporaneous Niah Cave 1. More importantly, Tianyuan 1 provides a secure basis for analyzing the morphology and paleobiology of EMHs in eastern Eurasia close to the time of the probable transition from regional late archaic humans to modern humans. With the inevitable addition of more, securely dated, late archaic humans and EMHs from the region, it should become possible to understand the interregional dynamics of this period in human evolution.
What is implied from the morphology of the remains is not a simple demographic spread directly from Africa, but rather demographic admixture with either earlier Sapiens populations and/or Hominid species.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
But getting back to the OP:
The Tianyuan man was studied in 2013 by the same lab. Then, they found that he showed a closer relationship to present-day Asians than present-day Europeans, suggesting present-day Asian history in the region extends as far back as 40,000 years ago. With new molecular techniques only published in the last two years, Professor FU and her team, in a joint collaboration with experts at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology and UC Berkeley, sequenced and analyzed more regions of the genome, particularly at positions also sequenced in other ancient humans.
Why? Was Max Planck expecting ancient European/Aryan ancestors?! LOL
Since 2013, DNA generated from ancient Europeans has shown that all present-day Europeans derive some of their population history from a prehistoric population that separated from other early non-African populations soon after the migration out of Africa. The mixed ancestry of present-day Europeans could bias tests of genetic similarity, including the results found for the Tianyuan man. With the newly published data, however, the Fu lab showed that his genetic similarity to Asians remained in comparisons including ancient Europeans without mixed ancestry. They confirmed that the closest relationship he shares is with present-day Asians. That was not, however, the most exciting result they found.
LOL Notice how they avoid saying whom modern Europeans are mixed with—Africans! This is why on all PCAs Europeans as well as Southwest Asians pull closest to Africans than other Eurasian/OOA populations.
With a close relationship to present-day Asians, they expected him to act similarly to present-day Asian populations with respect to Europeans. It was a surprise when they found that a 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, GoyetQ116-1, who in other ways behaved as an ancient European, shared some genetic similarity to the Tianyuan individual that no other ancient Europeans shared. It is unlikely that this is due to direct interactions between populations near the east and west coasts of Eurasia, since other ancient Europeans do not show a similar result. Instead, the researchers suggested that the two populations represented by the Tianyuan and GoyetQ116-1 individuals derived some of their ancestry from the same sub-population prior to the European-Asian separation. The genetic relationship observed between these two ancient individuals is direct evidence that European and Asian populations have a complex history.
Complex indeed! Not only do Europeans and East Asians share a common ancestry in Central Asia, but apparently that ancestral Central Asian population persisted and continued gene-flow to both offshoots. What’s more is that these Central Asians were most likely ancestral to Ancestral Northern Eurasians (ANE) who were the first inhabitants of Ice Age Siberia. But more on that elsewhere.
A second unexpected result shed some light on human genetic diversity in prehistoric East Asia. In 2015, a study comparing present-day populations in Asia, the Pacific and the Americas showed that some Native American populations from South America had an unusual connection to some populations south of mainland Asia, most notably the Melanesian Papuan and the Andamanese Onge. That study proposed that the population that crossed into the Americas around 20,000 years ago could not be thought of as a single unit. Instead, one or more related but distinct populations crossed at around the same time period, and at least one of these groups had additional ties to an Asian population that also contributed to the present-day Papuan and Onge.
No trace of this connection is observed in present-day East Asians and Siberians, but unlike them, the Tianyuan man also possesses genetic similarities to the same South Americans, in a pattern similar to that found for the Papuan and Onge. The new study directly confirms that the multiple ancestries represented in Native Americans were all from populations in mainland Asia. What is intriguing, however, is that the migration to the Americas occurred approximately 20,000 years ago, but the Tianyuan individual is twice that age. Thus, the population diversity represented in the Americas must have persisted in mainland Asia in two or more distinct populations since 40,000 years ago.
So Tianyuan man could very well be a representative of Population Y or at least very close to being one!
You can read the actual paper from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in cell.com entitled '40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia' since I can't post the url tag here.
And here is their phylogenetic chart:
So it looks like I’m correct that Population Y is essentially ‘Basal East Asian’, while modern East Asians are more derived. Speaking of which, here is another article:
Mysterious East Asians Vanished During the Ice Age. A New Group Replaced Them. The ancestors of today's East Asians moved into the region about 19,000 years ago, and in doing so, they replaced the mysterious people who were living there before them, a new study finds. Researchers learned about these mysterious people by comparing the genetics of "Tianyuan man," a 40,000-year-old individual found in Tianyuan Cave in Beijing, with DNA from ancient human remains belonging to 25 individuals from the Amur region, which includes parts of eastern China and Russia. The team found that Tianyuan man's ancestry was likely widespread from 40,000 years to 33,000 years ago across East Asia. But then, it disappeared and a new population emerged around 19,000 years ago, just as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) — when the ice sheets were at their maximum extent from about 26,500 years to 19,000 years ago — was ending, said study senior author Qiaomei Fu, a paleogeneticist at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing… To investigate, Fu and her colleagues compared the DNA of Tianyuan man with the ancient remains of people living in the Amur region, which includes Songnen Plain in northeastern China, between 33,000 and 3,400 years ago… .. The ancient DNA analysis revealed that the oldest person they studied, a Pleistocene female known as AR33K, who lived about 33,000 years ago in the Amur region (AR stands for Amur and 33K stands for 33,000), had the highest genetic similarity with Tianyuan man, compared with all other published ancient and modern individuals from East Asia, Fu said.
Another ancient woman, whose DNA was described in a previous study, lived about 34,000 years ago in Salkhit Valley in northeastern Mongolia. This woman was found about 720 miles (1,159 kilometers) from AR33K and about 692 miles (1,114 km) from Tianyuan Cave. A 2020 study in the journal Science found that the Salkhit woman shared 75% of her genetics with Tianyuan man and 25% with another ancient East Asian group that lived along the Yana river in North Siberia. Given that both AR33K and the Tianyuan man share about 75% of their DNA with the Salkhit woman, it's possible that these people were part of related groups that traveled across East Asia for at least 7,000 years, Fu told Science magazine.
However, unlike the Salkhit woman, AR33K does not have more Yana-related ancestry than Tianyuan man does, the researchers wrote in the new study. "This probably indicates that Tianyuan/AR33K ancestry was widespread before the LGM in northern East Asia, both geographically, from northern China to Mongolia and the Amur region, and temporally, from 40,000 to 33,000 years ago," Fu told Live Science in the email.
To explain the Salkhit woman's genetics, perhaps people with Tianyuan-related ancestry paired off with people of Yana-related ancestry in Mongolia, but stayed isolated from ancient people in the Amur region before the LGM, the researchers wrote in the study.
Another standout individual from the study, AR19K, who lived in the Amur region about 19,000 years ago toward the end of the LGM, caught the researchers' attention. AR19K's genetic ancestry is distinct from Tianyuan and AR33K, "indicating a potential population shift," Fu said. In other words, while AR33K and Tianyuan passed on some genes to modern East Asians (Fu called them "basal to all East Asians"), the populations they came from vanished at some point during the LGM.
In fact, AR19K is "the earliest northern East Asian yet identified," meaning this individual is ancestral to ancient northern East Asians. The identification of this northern East Asian ancestor "indicates that north-south genetic separation in East Asia is as early as 19,000 years ago, 10,000 years earlier than previously discovered," Fu said.
Some East Asia areas have had remarkable genetic ties to the past, the younger samples revealed. For instance, researchers previously thought that modern populations in the Amur region had an 8,000-year genetic continuity with Neolithic foragers and farmers who lived at Devil's Gate cave in Far Eastern Russia and the Amur region. But the new analyses showed that this continuity goes back 14,000 years, or "6,000 years earlier than previously proposed," Fu said.
Here is another study published in 2020 on the genome of the Ikawazu Jomon:
Again, this is further proof of many proofs that phenotypic and genetic diversity was greater in the Late Pleistocene than in the Holocene Epoch we currently live in which began about 12-11.5 k years ago.
Razib Khan wrote an article on this issue of deep genetic origins for East Eurasians here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
It’s unfortunate we only have jaw fragments of Tianyuan 1 and not the whole cranium; however this was not the only human remains discovered in Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. There were others discovered even earlier (1933-1934) in the Upper Cave area with their crania more or less intact, specifically three skulls UC 101, 102, and 103. Unfortunately the skulls were lost during World War II and only the casts of those skulls remain with the cast of UC 102 being badly damaged. All three skulls were found in the same stratum which dates to 35-33k years BP which is just slightly younger than Tianyuan 1. Curiously, though all three skulls were found roughly around the same stratum suggesting contemporaneous burials they were very different in features as to suggest greater heterogeneity despite sharing the same sinodontic complex!
from left to right: 102, 101, 103
The first skull discovered--UC 101 is perhaps the most famous of the three and was dubbed ‘Lǎo-Rén’ meaning ‘Old Man’ in Chinese. It was also the skull studied in most detail mostly due to its better preservation and clearly adult status whereas the other two skulls were not as well preserved and were of younger sub-adults or juveniles. Experts who’ve assessed both skull and cast agree that 101 displays “Proto-Mongoloid” morphology. Interestingly this morphology was found to be closest to early Paleoamericans and Archaic Indians of North America such as Spirit Cave followed by Polynesians and Ainu.
Comparison of UC 101 with the Spirit Cave Man:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
..Meanwhile, UC 102 was described as “negroid” or more specifically “Melanesoid” in appearance as Clyde has mentioned a couple of times in his reference to ancient black Chinese.
UC 102
And then you have UC 103 whose morphology is somewhat more ambiguous. Early experts initially identified it as “Eskimo” while recent assessments suggest Australo-Melanesian affinities primarily along with Eskimo affinities.
UC 103
The features seem somewhat reminiscent of some of the Santa Lagoa Paleoindians.
Here is an excellent paper on the subject: 'The Morphometric Relationship of Upper Cave 101 and 103 to Modern Homo sapiens'
Of relevance to the latest thread on Population Y here.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] It’s unfortunate we only have jaw fragments of Tianyuan 1 and not the whole cranium; however this was not the only human remains discovered in Zhoukoudian Cave. There were others discovered even earlier (1933-1934) in the Upper Cave area with their crania more or less intact, specifically three skulls UC 101, 102, and 103. Unfortunately the skulls were lost during World War II and only the casts of those skulls remain with the cast of UC 102 being badly damaged. All three skulls were found in the same stratum which dates to 35-33k years BP which is just slightly younger than Tianyuan 1.
There were also much older remains of Homo erectus found in the Zhoukoudian caves. They were also lost during the war.
A couple of teeth were preserved though, in the collections of the Swedish paleontologist Otto Zdansky (1894 - 1988). As late as 2011 another tooth were found in a box (at the Evolution museum in Uppsala, Sweden) which housed paleontological material collected by Zdansky.
The teeth in the Evolution Museum's collections are the first four specimens found of the Peking man and the only preserved remains from the original and historically important collections from Zhoukoudian.
The three original teeth, discovered and described by Otto Zdansky.
The new tooth seen from different angles, an upper right canine from a Peking man, discovered in 2011 in the Evolution Museum's collections
^ Yes not only Peking Man (a Homo erectus) but also a new species of hominid called Homo longi or Dragon Man.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Here is the full paper:
quote: Hominins with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 y ago. The genetic relationships between these early modern humans and present-day human populations have not been established. We have extracted DNA from a 40,000-y-old anatomically modern human from Tianyuan Cave outside Beijing, China. Using a highly scalable hybridization enrichment strategy, we determined the DNA sequences of the mitochondrial genome, the entire nonrepetitive portion of chromosome 21 (∼30 Mbp), and over 3,000 polymorphic sites across the nuclear genome of this individual. The nuclear DNA sequences determined from this early modern human reveal that the Tianyuan individual derived from a population that was ancestral to many present-day Asians and Native Americans but postdated the divergence of Asians from Europeans. They also show that this individual carried proportions of DNA variants derived from archaic humans similar to present-day people in mainland Asia.
To begin to explore the genetic relationships of early modern humans with present-day humans, we have analyzed a partial human skeleton that was unearthed in 2003, along with abundant late Pleistocene faunal remains, in the Tianyuan Cave near the Zhoukoudian site in northern China, about 50 km southwest of Beijing. The skeleton was radiocarbon-dated to 34,430 ± 510 y before present (BP) (uncalibrated), which corresponds to ∼40,000 calendar years BP (2). A morphological analysis of the skeleton (3) confirms initial assessments (4) that this individual is a modern human, but suggests that it carries some archaic traits that could indicate gene flow from earlier hominin forms. The Tianyuan skeleton is thus one of a small number of early modern humans more than 30,000 y old discovered across Eurasia (2) and an even smaller number known from East Asia (5).
It is funny how the meaning of "archaic" and "early modern" human used to mean black, as in populations of Australian Aborigines, Papuans and so forth. But now it mean "neanderthal mixed" or "denisovan mixed", where the African origin is downplayed. This all goes back to the convoluted DNA model of Eurasia as not directly tied to any African basal DNA lineages.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It is also interesting to read about the relation of the individuals from Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria with later ancient humans in East Asia and even America.
quote: An international research team has sequenced the genomes of the oldest securely dated modern humans in Europe who lived around 45,000 years ago in Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. By comparing their genomes to the genomes of people who lived later in Europe and in Asia the researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, show that this early human group in Europe contributed genes to later people, particularly present-day East Asians. The researchers also identified large stretches of Neandertal DNA in the genomes of the Bacho Kiro Cave people, showing that they had Neandertal ancestors about five to seven generations back in their family histories. This suggests that mixture with Neandertals was the rule rather than the exception when the first modern humans arrived in Europe.
quote: It was previously thought that bearers of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic died out without contributing genetically to modern humans arriving later. However, the researchers now show that the oldest Bacho Kiro Cave individuals, or groups closely related to them, contributed genes to present-day people. Surprisingly, this contribution is found particularly in East Asia and the Americas rather than in Europe where the Bacho Kiro Cave people lived. These genetic links to Asia mirror the links seen between the Initial Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and personal ornaments found in Bacho Kiro Cave and tools and ancient jewelry found across Eurasia to Mongolia.
Genomes of the earliest Europeans Ancient genomes shed new light on the earliest Europeans and their relationships with Neandertals Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2021
quote: Abstract Modern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1,2,3,4,5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry Nature 2021
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is also interesting to read about the relation of the individuals from Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria with later ancient humans in East Asia and even America.
quote: An international research team has sequenced the genomes of the oldest securely dated modern humans in Europe who lived around 45,000 years ago in Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. By comparing their genomes to the genomes of people who lived later in Europe and in Asia the researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, show that this early human group in Europe contributed genes to later people, particularly present-day East Asians. The researchers also identified large stretches of Neandertal DNA in the genomes of the Bacho Kiro Cave people, showing that they had Neandertal ancestors about five to seven generations back in their family histories. This suggests that mixture with Neandertals was the rule rather than the exception when the first modern humans arrived in Europe.
quote: It was previously thought that bearers of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic died out without contributing genetically to modern humans arriving later. However, the researchers now show that the oldest Bacho Kiro Cave individuals, or groups closely related to them, contributed genes to present-day people. Surprisingly, this contribution is found particularly in East Asia and the Americas rather than in Europe where the Bacho Kiro Cave people lived. These genetic links to Asia mirror the links seen between the Initial Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and personal ornaments found in Bacho Kiro Cave and tools and ancient jewelry found across Eurasia to Mongolia.
Genomes of the earliest Europeans Ancient genomes shed new light on the earliest Europeans and their relationships with Neandertals Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2021
quote: Abstract Modern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1,2,3,4,5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry Nature 2021
I have always had my doubts about this idea of "neanderthal mixture" for modern humans because "robust" and "archaic" hominids first arose in Africa to begin with and modern humans evolved from that. Not to mention many ancient hominid remains from Africa are still considered 'archaic' and 'robust' even if they are classified as AMH. So modern humans did not need to mix with Neanderthals to acquire 'archaic' or 'robust' features, when the fossil record in Africa shows otherwise. Not to mention modern humans inherited genes from these other hominids because they are all on the same family tree.
Either way, this idea that OOA Africans in Europe suddenly and magically split from their African ancestors on the DNA tree because of 'sex breeding' with Neanderthals is just ridiculous to me. But that is the current theory which then leads to the East Asians and Native Americans also having this supposed ancestry. But either way, Australian Aboriginal populations and other Asian aboriginal groups are the closest living relatives of these ancient OOA populations and I don't see how this neanderthal mixture theory changes anything as that is the best evidence for what these ancient populations would have looked like.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Europeans are said to be mixed with Neanderthals, and Australasians are said to be mixed with Denisovans. Even peoples in Africa have been theoreticized to be somewhat mixed with some kind of archaic ghost population. Maybe these mixing were relatively common during the times where there lived more than one human species on Earth (if one at all can say that Neanderthals, Denisovans and anatomically modern humans can be regarded as separate species. If they could mix and get fertile offspring together, it is somewhat doubtful if they can be regarded as such).
The people in the Bulgarian cave seems to be among the oldest AMH:s in Europe. It is interesting that they seem to have a genetic connection with Asia and not with later Europeans. Other early humans in Europe either seem to belong to lineages that are no more, or are related with later Europeans. It seems that the patterns of migration, and mixing and local adaptations after OOA are a bit complicated, or at least not yet fully investigated.
Here is an old European specimen who seems not to have contributed to modern Europeans or Asians.
quote: Modern humans expanded into Eurasia more than 40,000 years ago following their dispersal out of Africa. These Eurasians carried ~2–3% Neanderthal ancestry in their genomes, originating from admixture with Neanderthals that took place sometime between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, probably in the Middle East. In Europe, the modern human expansion preceded the disappearance of Neanderthals from the fossil record by 3,000–5,000 years. The genetic makeup of the first Europeans who colonized the continent more than 40,000 years ago remains poorly understood since few specimens have been studied. Here, we analyse a genome generated from the skull of a female individual from Zlatý kůň, Czechia. We found that she belonged to a population that appears to have contributed genetically neither to later Europeans nor to Asians. Her genome carries ~3% Neanderthal ancestry, similar to those of other Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. However, the lengths of the Neanderthal segments are longer than those observed in the currently oldest modern human genome of the ~45,000-year-old Ust’-Ishim individual from Siberia, suggesting that this individual from Zlatý kůň is one of the earliest Eurasian inhabitants following the expansion out of Africa.
Prüfer, Kay. et al. 2021: ´A genome sequence from a modern human skull over 45,000 years old from Zlatý kůň in Czechia` Nature Ecology & Evolution https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: Even when excluding the H. naledi material, African LMP fossils exhibit extremely variable morphologies. The Omo I22 and Herto specimens24 have a modern-like anatomy that includes the presence of the two cranio-mandibular apomorphies of the species—cranial proportions that result in a tall vault (basi-bregmatic height) and a chin, and are generally considered the earliest undisputed remains of H. sapiens16,17. All other LMP African fossils show a mosaic of derived and archaic characters. For instance, the Jebel Irhoud remains were originally described as showing strong similarities with Neandertals33, while the study of the new Irhoud remains emphasises their affinities with H. sapiens, despite the absence of key modern humans apomorphies (i.e., tall and globular vault, and inverted T chin)18. The Guomde25, Ngaloba30, Eliye Springs27 and Florisbad34 specimens along with Omo II22 and possibly the pathological Singa calvarium35, have been mostly referred to as ‘archaic H. sapiens’, a category grouping isolated fossils with disparate morphologies. This situation challenges any attempt at identifying the evolutionary mechanisms that may explain the morphological pattern in the African LMP fossil record, as well as identifying the ancestral population, or populations, of modern humans.
Here, we use a phylogenetic modelling method36 to statistically estimate the full cranial morphology of hypothetical virtual Last Common Ancestors (vLCAs) to all modern humans on the basis of two simplified phylogenies of the genus Homo (Fig. 1, Table 1, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 and Supplementary Fig. 1), and through this virtual LMP African fossil, explore the morphological diversity of the five most complete real African LMP hominins to quantitatively assess how the populations from whom those fossils are drawn may have played a role in the origin of H. sapiens.
There is no guarantee that the that many of the OOA populations did not look like more "generalized" hominids similar to Australian Aborigines. There is a lot of diversity in the African hominid fossil record. This idea that modern humans emerged in Africa but only ran into 'archaic' humans outside of Africa is backwards. If anything they ran into them in Africa first, especially since the earliest dates for AMH in Africa have been pushed back to 300 kya.
And on top of that why do Australian Aborigines, who supposedly left Africa 60,000 years ago, along with the Andaman Islanders not have any Neanderthal ancestry? If they are the closest populations to the first OOA migrants then they should have Neanderthal ancestry if the theory of Neanderthal mixture is correct. Otherwise, something is off. So having multiple types of AMH from robust to gracile in early Asian hominids is not necessarily a sign of other hominid species in Asia. Also, the only thing that they have for Denisovans for the most part is DNA.
quote: A fully sequenced high-quality genome has revealed in 2010 the existence of a human population in Asia, the Denisovans, related to and contemporaneous with Neanderthals. Only five skeletal remains are known from Denisovans, mostly molars; the proximal fragment of a fifth finger phalanx used to generate the genome, however, was too incomplete to yield useful morphological information. Here, we demonstrate through ancient DNA analysis that a distal fragment of a fifth finger phalanx from the Denisova Cave is the larger, missing part of this phalanx. Our morphometric analysis shows that its dimensions and shape are within the variability of Homo sapiens and distinct from the Neanderthal fifth finger phalanges. Thus, unlike Denisovan molars, which display archaic characteristics not found in modern humans, the only morphologically informative Denisovan postcranial bone identified to date is suggested here to be plesiomorphic and shared between Denisovans and modern humans.
Perhaps also the ancestors to Australasians mated with Neanderthals
quote: International scientists analysed the blood types of some ancient human ancestors, the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, by looking at their DNA, and say their genes for blood type suggest both groups originated in Africa. They also found a distinct genetic link between the Neanderthal blood types and those of an Aboriginal Australian and an indigenous Papuan, suggesting modern humans mated with Neanderthals before they migrated to Southeast Asia. In addition, they found Neanderthals had blood type genetics associated with diseases that affect newborns and fetuses, and low genetic diversity for blood type genes, compared with modern humans. This fits with other evidence suggesting a small gene pool and reproductive problems contributed to their eventual demise, the authors say.
There seems to be a lot of discussions about mixing between AMH with Neanderthals, Denisovans and some archaic ancestor in Africa and maybe also some unknown archaic ancestor in South East Asia. Also Neanderthals and Denisovans can have mixed with each other.
We need more specimens and more research to entangle who mixed with whom, and where and when.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Perhaps also the ancestors to Australasians mated with Neanderthals
quote: International scientists analysed the blood types of some ancient human ancestors, the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, by looking at their DNA, and say their genes for blood type suggest both groups originated in Africa. They also found a distinct genetic link between the Neanderthal blood types and those of an Aboriginal Australian and an indigenous Papuan, suggesting modern humans mated with Neanderthals before they migrated to Southeast Asia. In addition, they found Neanderthals had blood type genetics associated with diseases that affect newborns and fetuses, and low genetic diversity for blood type genes, compared with modern humans. This fits with other evidence suggesting a small gene pool and reproductive problems contributed to their eventual demise, the authors say.
There seems to be a lot of discussions about mixing between AMH with Neanderthals, Denisovans and some archaic ancestor in Africa and maybe also some unknown archaic ancestor in South East Asia. Also Neanderthals and Denisovans can have mixed with each other.
We need more specimens and more research to entangle who mixed with whom, and where and when.
I am glad to see that geneticists are finally admitting that Neanderthal originated in Africa.
. . . .
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Undifferentiated L1'2'3'4'5'6 has been found in Neanderthal fossils from the Caucasus (Mezmaiskaya cave) and the Altai (Denisova Cave), dated to before 50 kya. This suggests that an earlier wave of expansion of Homo sapiens left Africa between about 200–130 kya (during the Penultimate Glacial Period, c.f. Skhul and Qafzeh hominins) and left genetic traces by interbreeding with Neanderthals before disappearing.
Source Wiki
They claim not to be able to get YDNA from Neanderthal fossils
How Neanderthals Lost Their Y Chromosome with Martin Petr, PhD 13,819 views Dec 20, 2020
Today we have a small collection of bones from Denisovans: from Denisova cave in the Altai, from Baishiya Karst Cave in the Tibetan plateau and from Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Cobra Cave) limestone cave in the Annamite Mountains in Laos. We also have samples of DNA.
The bones are too few to exactly know how Denisovans looked like but some attempt to reconstruct them from their DNA has been made.
Here is an article about that
First portrait of mysterious Denisovans drawn from DNA. Scientists analysed chemical changes to the ancient humans’ DNA to reveal broad, Neanderthal-like facial features. Nature, 2019
quote: Now, computational biologists have produced a rough sketch of Denisovan anatomy based on epigenetic changes — chemical modifications to DNA that can alter gene activity. Their approach reveals that Denisovans were similar in appearance to Neanderthals but had some subtle differences, such as a wider jaw and skull.
“It does help to paint a clearer picture of how they might have looked. Just the idea that it’s possible to use the DNA to predict morphology so well is very impressive,” says Bence Viola, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Toronto in Canada who has analysed Denisovan remains, but was not involved in this research.
An artist’s impression of a young female Denisovan, based on skeletal traits derived from ancient DNA.
^ I'm trying to discuss Anatomically Modern Humans of East Asia not other Hominids.
It should come as no surprise that the earlier the crania, the more 'generalized' they appear. One would expect the earliest East Asians to resemble in some way the earliest Europeans.
Take for example the ways the Upper Cave skulls resemble Oase 1 skull of Romania.
UC 103
UC 102
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is the skull from Zlaty Kun from Czechia in comparison with Oase and UC 102. It seems that the people in Zlaty Kun did not contribute to later populations in Europe and Asia. Some early groups seem just to have gone extinct at some point in time.
Unfortunately there is no complete skull from Bacho Kiro, which inhabitants were related to todays Asians and Native Americans.
Both the people at Bacho Kiro and Zlaty Kun had Neanderthal admixture. One can wonder how different admixtures with Neanderthals and/or Denisovans affected the morphology of early Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
UC 101 from Zhoukoudian has been subject to a facial reconstruction
^ Yes, but I'm sure you're aware of the biases and thus errors associated with reconstructions. Without an accurate assessment of population tissue depth not to mention soft tissue parts, an artist can make a reconstruction look like whatever he desires. They made UC101 look Chinese there when we know he looks more like the Spirit Cave Man albeit with more archaic features.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but I'm sure you're aware of the biases and thus errors associated with reconstructions. Without an accurate assessment of population tissue depth not to mention soft tissue parts, an artist can make a reconstruction look like whatever he desires. They made UC101 look Chinese there when we know he looks more like the Spirit Cave Man albeit with more archaic features.
Stop finding excuses you do not bring such excuses with ssa looking reconstructions. You don't know what tissue depth reference they used and soft issue is no more a problem in this field except for the tip of the nose and the ears.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Stop finding excuses you do not bring such excuses with ssa looking reconstructions. You don't know what tissue depth reference they used and soft issue is no more a problem in this field except for the tip of the nose and the ears.
And pray-tell which "SSA looking reconstructions" are you referring to? Are you referring to those of Egyptians or Paleo-Americans? If by "SSA looking" you are referring to actual traits of the bony skull, then there is no excuse at all because no bias can change such features. It is the soft tissue features I take issue with. I've discussed this issue with reconstructions several times before most recently here.
Unless the artist is double-blinded there is always some implicit bias and even in cases when the artist is not double-blinded bias may still exist when it comes to assumptions based on traits of the skull. This is exactly why I question ALL reconstructions. I find it hypocritical how you accept that early Americans exhibit "SSA" features but are still Amerindians yet you seem to have a problem with Egyptians and other Africans being African despite displaying "caucasoid" features.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but I'm sure you're aware of the biases and thus errors associated with reconstructions. Without an accurate assessment of population tissue depth not to mention soft tissue parts, an artist can make a reconstruction look like whatever he desires. They made UC101 look Chinese there when we know he looks more like the Spirit Cave Man albeit with more archaic features.
Yes, certain bias can be hard to avoid, and some traits are harder to assess, as hair, exact skin color and similar.
Soft tissues can to a certain degree be calculated, but it is of course harder to do with ancient samples where we are not fully sure if their tissue deep and similar corresponds fully with modern peoples.
Here one can compare the reconstruction of UC 101 with reconstructions of Spirit Cave
When reconstructing recently deceased peoples faces one goal is to achieve such likeness that people who knew the dead would recognize him/her. With ancient samples we can not do that.
If we have the DNA of the dead we can get some information from that.
When it comes to the Spirit cave mummy there was both DNA and preserved hair that could aid in the reconstruction.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here are the reconstructions in frontal view:
And the skulls:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Most often a reconstruction on a skull the skin color and hair texture and eye lid type are guessed as well as the fleshy and cartilage bearing parts of the face, lips, nostrils/nose It seems to me done mainly for public interest
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
If one reconstructs a mummy, bog body or similar where the hair is preserved one can reconstruct the hair. Skin color, eye color and hair color can in some cases be deduced from DNA. Concerning noses one can deduce width and angle and similar depending how well preserved the details of the nasal opening is.
DNA can also help to see which modern people the dead person is most closely related to, so it can be a guidance in calculating tissue thickness and other details. But in the end there will also of course be some artistic license.
In the case of UC 101 they computed tissue thickness with the help of computer algorithms. But the algorithm must of course be based on knowledge obtained from some kind of reference material.
Here is a small description from Oscar Nilsson, who has a long experience of making facial reconstructions, of how to reconstruct a nose on a 4000 year old skull from Northern Sweden. I translated it into English from Swedish. I also post the video itself. It is a part of several videos where he describes the process of reconstructing an ancient face.
quote: How can I say anything about the nose? How it looked? It is maybe the most common question I get. But it is actually possible to say very much, and when I assess the nose I look at the shape of the nasal opening, it´s character and size. I take measurements, which can be a base of for example the width of the nose. I can also see where the nostrils were placed. I also especially look at the nose in profile: the last third of the nasal bone I look at the shape and the angle, and direction, in which it protrudes. I also look at the nasal bone protrusion (at the lower part of the nasal cavity), it will give a hint of how to place the tip of the nose based on angle and direction. I also look at the bottom, or floor of the nasal cavity, what shape it has. Based on these details I can get a perception of her nasal shape. I use to attach a profile in the cavity from which I can continue to mold the nose. So next step is to build further based on the sides of the cavity
Rekonstruktion av kvinnan från Lagmansören. Steg 8: Näsa (Reconstruction of the woman from Lagmansören. Step 8: Nose)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but I'm sure you're aware of the biases and thus errors associated with reconstructions. Without an accurate assessment of population tissue depth not to mention soft tissue parts, an artist can make a reconstruction look like whatever he desires. They made UC101 look Chinese there when we know he looks more like the Spirit Cave Man albeit with more archaic features.
Stop finding excuses you do not bring such excuses with ssa looking reconstructions. You don't know what tissue depth reference they used and soft issue is no more a problem in this field except for the tip of the nose and the ears.
Obviously you mentioned SSA because you know the currently accepted view is that all humans originated in SSA, which means that they were 'tropically adapted' and had dark skin. And this bothers you since you are so obviously interested in separating yourself from that. But don't bring that BS into this thread. Nobody was talking about skin color in general or SSA at all outside the fact that early Asians descended from OOA and how genetics reflects that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What's funny about the way he uses the term SSA to describe a certain typology is that there are some Sub-Saharan Africans who do not conform to that typology but instead are classified as "Caucasoid". Of course he would then fall back on the excuse that such Sub-Saharans have "Eurasian" admixture even though that premise was debunked long time ago by genetics. An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” but that explanation flounders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. --CL Brace, 1993
Again the boy is not only scientifically but intellectually bankrupt. Which is why Doug, that when it comes to ancient Africans especially those that date back to the Holocene or prior it makes little to no sense to divide Africans into "Sub-Saharan" or "North" when they are ALL equally African.
But getting back to my point on biases inherent on reconstructions. Here is another example from the Japanese.
The above is supposed to be a reconstruction of a man from the Neolithic Jomon Culture, yet even many Japanese experts say the reconstruction in terms of features looks too Japanese. If they were going to be more accurate they could easily find models based modern or old photos of relatively 'pristine' Ainu who are the best candidates to what the Jomon looked.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is another Jomon reconstruction, where they also used DNA to assess things like skin color and a disposition for freckles
quote: More than two decades after researchers discovered the 3,800-year-old remains of "Jomon woman" in Hokkaido, Japan, they've finally deciphered her genetic secrets.
And it turns out, from that perspective, she looks very different from modern-day inhabitants of Japan. The woman, who was elderly when she died, had a high tolerance for alcohol, unlike some modern Japanese people, a genetic analysis revealed. She also had moderately dark skin and eyes and an elevated chance of developing freckles.
Surprisingly, the ancient woman shared a gene variant with people who live in the Arctic, one that helps people digest high-fat foods. This variant is found in more than 70% of the Arctic population, but it's absent elsewhere, said study first author Hideaki Kanzawa, a curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo.
^ Yes that Jomon woman's reconstruction was posted before here. My complaints were not about skin color but certain features of eyelid shape etc. If forensic experts were to be more accurate they would not use modern Yamato Japanese but Ainu, specifically those least mixed or old photos of pristine Ainu or Emishi peoples.
Even Chinese forensic experts say that UC101 does NOT look Chinese yet that hasn't stop those who made the reconstruction from making him look Chinese.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Yes it is always interesting to compare different reconstructions. In the future maybe AI will be used more extensively to try to avoid bias. But it of course depends on what data you put into it.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
In the case of UC 101 it seems computer programs were used to create the first picture. Then an artist finished it by painting features like eyes, hair and skin tone
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Perhaps one ougth to ask same question as when one reconstructs recently deceased people, would the dead persons friends or relatives recognize him/her?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As was explained in this forum many times before, forensic reconstruction is more art than science since the bony part of the skull gives very limited data on how the subject looked, the rest is based on speculation and modeling based on what the presumed population the individual belonged and that presumption alone is prone to fallacies along the lines of race typology.
In the case of Lao-Ren (UC101), even the Chinese experts who first studied his skull say he did not look Chinese but rather like a "primitive American Indian". In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this latest reconstruction is nothing more than Chinese Communist Party propaganda.
I've heard (directly from some Chinese academics) that the CCP has been going on an ultra-nationalist rampage trying to Sinicize all territories and all peoples under their hegemony regardless of time period or ethnicity as Han Chinese. Are you aware that the CCP has even gone so far as to promote an Out-of-China origin for the human species?! LOL They even have the hypothesis that Homo Longi is the direct ancestor to Homo Sapiens! Seriously, it's like Nazi Germany 's Ahnenerbe only the Communist Chinese version!
Getting back to reality, the Upper Cave skulls are only 5,000 years younger than Tianyuan Man yet the 2020 Jomon genetic study shows Tianyuan's genome represents and very early branching of proto-East Asians.
The Upper Cave folks were NOT of modern Chinese extraction.
What's more is that we also have the Hoabinhian People of Southeast Asia who represent another early branch of proto-East Asians.
Though what's interesting is that according to craniometric study, the Hoabinhians are said to look more Australo-melanesian!
Ancient DNA is revealing the genetic landscape of people who first settled East Asia One of our sequences came from ancient DNA extracted from the leg bones of the Tianyuan Man, a 40,000-year-old individual discovered near a famous paleoanthropological site in western Beijing. One of the earliest modern humans found in East Asia, his genetic sequence marks him as an early ancestor of today’s Asians and Native Americans. That he lived where China’s current capital stands indicates that the ancestors of today’s Asians began placing roots in East Asia as early as 40,000 years ago.
Farther south, two 8,000- to 4,000-year-old Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers from Laos and Malaysia associated with the Hòabìnhian culture have DNA that, like the Tianyuan Man, shows they’re early ancestors of Asians and Native Americans. These two came from a completely different lineage than the Tianyuan Man, which suggested that many genetically distinct populations occupied Asia in the past.
But no humans today share the same genetic makeup as either Hòabìnhians or the Tianyuan Man, in both East and Southeast Asia. Why did ancestries that persisted for so long vanish from the gene pool of people alive now? Ancient farmers carry the key to that answer.
Based on plant remains found at archaeological sites, scientists know that people domesticated millet in northern China’s Yellow River region about 10,000 years ago. Around the same time, people in southern China’s Yangtze River region domesticated rice.
Unlike in Europe, plant domestication began locally and was not introduced from elsewhere. The process took thousands of years, and societies in East Asia grew increasingly complex, with the rise of the first dynasties around 4,000 years ago.
That’s also when rice cultivation appears to have spread from its origins to areas farther south, including lands that are today’s Southeast Asian countries. DNA helps tell the story. When rice farmers from southern China expanded southward, they introduced not only their farming technology but also their genetics to local populations of Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers.
The overpowering influx of their DNA ended up swamping the local gene pool. Today, little trace of hunter-gatherer ancestry remains in the genes of people who live in Southeast Asia.
Past populations were more diverse than today’s
Genetically speaking, today’s East Asians are not very different from each other. A lot of DNA is needed to start genetically distinguishing between people with different cultural histories.
What surprised Dr. Fu and me was how different the DNA of various ancient populations were in China. We and others found shared DNA across the Yellow River region, a place important to the development of Chinese civilization. This shared DNA represents a northern East Asian ancestry, distinct from a southern East Asian ancestry we found in coastal southern China.
When we analyzed the DNA of people who lived in coastal southern China 9,000-8,500 years ago, we realized that already by then much of China shared a common heritage. Because their archaeology and morphology was different from that of the Yellow River farmers, we had thought these coastal people might come from a lineage not closely related to those first agricultural East Asians. Maybe this group’s ancestry would be similar to the Tianyuan Man or Hòabìnhians.
But instead, every person we sampled was closely related to present-day East Asians. That means that by 9,000 years ago, DNA common to all present-day East Asians was widespread across China.
Today’s northern and southern Chinese populations share more in common with ancient Yellow River populations than with ancient coastal southern Chinese. Thus, early Yellow River farmers migrated both north and south, contributing to the gene pool of humans across East and Southeast Asia.
The coastal southern Chinese ancestry did not vanish, though. It persisted in small amounts and did increase in northern China’s Yellow River region over time. The influence of ancient southern East Asians is low on the mainland, but they had a huge impact elsewhere. On islands spanning from the Taiwan Strait to Polynesia live the Austronesians, best known for their seafaring. They possess the highest amount of southern East Asian ancestry today, highlighting their ancestry’s roots in coastal southern China.
Other emerging genetic patterns show connections between Tibetans and ancient individuals from Mongolia and northern China, raising questions about the peopling of the Tibetan Plateau.
Ancient DNA reveals rapid shifts in ancestry over the last 10,000 years across Asia, likely due to migration and cultural exchange. Until more ancient human DNA is retrieved, scientists can only speculate as to exactly who, genetically speaking, lived in East Asia prior to that.
New Findings Unveil a Missing Piece of Human Prehistory A joint research team led by Prof. FU Qiaomei from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences sequenced the ancient genomes of 31 individuals from southern East Asia, thus unveiling a missing piece of human prehistory.
The study was published in Cell on June 24.
Prof. FU's team used DNA capture techniques to retrieve ancient DNA from Guangxi and Fujian, two provincial-level regions in southern China. They sequenced genome-wide DNA from 31 individuals dating back 11,747 to 194 years ago. Of these, two date back to more than 10,000 years ago, making them the oldest genomes sampled from southern East Asia and Southeast Asia to date.
Previous ancient DNA studies showed that ~8,000–4,000-year-old Southeast Asian Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers possessed deeply divergent Asian ancestry, whereas the first Southeast Asian farmers beginning ~4,000 years ago show a mixture of ancestry associated with Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers and present-day southern Chinese populations. In coastal southern China, ~9,000–4,000-year-old individuals from Fujian province show ancestry not as deeply divergent as the Hòabìnhian.
In Guangxi, FU and her team's sampling showed that the ancestry present was unlike that sampled previously in Fujian and Southeast Asia. Instead, they found a unique East Asian ancestral population (represented by the 11,000-year-old Longlin individual from Guangxi). Their findings highlight that 11,000 years ago, at least three genetically distinct ancestries composed the human landscape in southern East Asia and Southeast Asia: Fujian ancestry, Hòabìnhian ancestry, and Guangxi ancestry.
In addition to sharing Longlin ancestry, the Dushan and Baojianshan individuals in Guangxi also show strong evidence for admixture in southern China ~9,000 to 6,000 years ago. Dushan and Baojianshan were a mixture of local Guangxi ancestry, southern ancestry previously sampled in Fujian, and Deep Asian ancestry related to Southeast Asian Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers.
Previously, it was shown that southern Chinese populations expanded to Southeast Asia, mixing with and eventually replacing Hòabìnhians in Southeast Asia. FU’s team showed that the dynamics were more complex, since populations carrying Hòabìnhian ancestry either co-existed with populations carrying Guangxi ancestry in southern China or gene flow upwards from Southeast Asia to southern China also occurred as early as ~8,000–6,000 years ago.
The study fills a research gap in the region connecting East and Southeast Asia, revealing a new genetic ancestry different from that found in coastal areas of southern China and in Southeast Asia.
Furthermore, it shows the impact of migration and admixture of populations at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia in the last 11,000 years, revealing a long history of intermingling between these two regions.
"While we now have a better understanding of the population history in the last 11,000 years at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia, future sampling in regions near the Yangtze River and southwest China are needed for a comprehensive understanding of the genetic history of humans in southern China," said Prof. FU.
Genetic samples from ancient humans in these regions will likely further clarify the remarkably diverse genetic prehistory of humans in southeastern Asia, and inform the genetic shifts that occurred between 6,000 and 1,500 years ago and contributed to the genetic composition observed today in southern China.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As was explained in this forum many times before, forensic reconstruction is more art than science since the bony part of the skull gives very limited data on how the subject looked, the rest is based on speculation and modeling based on what the presumed population the individual belonged and that presumption alone is prone to fallacies along the lines of race typology.
If we have DNA from the deceased we would probably be able to come closer to know things like skin color, eye color, hair color and other phenotypic traits. We could also better assess how the dead is related to any now living individuals (or other ancient individuals).
With for example UC 101 we will never have such data until maybe someone finds the original skull.
But some things we still can deduce from the skull itself as Oscar Nilsson explains in the short video I posted earlier.
And in modern forensics facial reconstructions have actually helped to identify dead people. So it is not only art.
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: I've heard (directly from some Chinese academics) that the CCP has been going on an ultra-nationalist rampage trying to Sinicize all territories and all peoples under their hegemony regardless of time period or ethnicity as Han Chinese. Are you aware that the CCP has even gone so far as to promote an Out-of-China origin for the human species?! LOL They even have the hypothesis that Homo Longi is the direct ancestor to Homo Sapiens! Seriously, it's like Nazi Germany 's Ahnenerbe only the Communist Chinese version!
Yes I am aware of that. I have been to China and talked to Chinese archaeologists, and it seems that some kind of multiregional hypothesis is favored, at least among some politicians.
Here in the west the multiregional hypothesis is mostly dead by now, but it seems that mixing is more in fashion now, that different archaic introgressions can have contributed to some human variation.
"Be friend with your inner Neanderthal (or Denisovan)"
Interesting with the ancient Asian peoples and cultures.
Also interesting that some very old Europeans (like the 46 000 years old individuals from Bacho Kiro in Bulgaria) show relatedness with later peoples in Asia (and with Native Americans).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Most people don't understand what diversity means and often cling to outdated "racial" models of human history. Asian features come from aboriginal groups largely in tropical environments. They then gradually got lighter over time and of course migrations and mixture produced what you see today. Unfortunately many of these models in Asia and in Europe posit that "asian" features came from the North along with light skin and everyone else in Asia was some kind of other before waves of Northern migrations to the South......
The reality is that Southern China and South East Asia are on the same latitude as the Sahara Desert in North Africa and Southern Indochina into Indonesia is along the same latitude as Central Africa. Obviously ancient populations in these areas would have been much darker on average.
And you see remnants of these populations in these areas even up to 100 years ago, but they look like Asians even if they are darker. Genetics in many ways still promotes these old outdated racial models by pushing all modern "Asian" features are the result of Northern migrations when the only thing the northerners brought was lighter skin.
Of course these are not Africans and if they have similar features it is due to being adapted to a tropical environment like Africans and OOA populations in Asia.
^ Dark skin Asians originated from further north so to speak. But the truly black types are aboriginals. Genetics has shown modern Southeast Asians were older to the region than previously realized.
Pleistocene Fossil DNA Suggests Native Americans’ East Asian Roots Genome sequencing of a human Late Pleistocene Fossil in southwest China dating back around 14,000 years is helping shed light on the ancestry of the very first Americans . The mystery surrounding the human fossils found in a cave has been resolved in a new study published in Current Biology , which posits that the hominin belonged to an extinct “maternal branch” of modern humans. The study additionally sheds further light on the mysteries of human origins, suggesting this particular branch of modern humans potentially contributed to the origin of Native Americans.
The lateral view of the Pleistocene skull fossil unearthed from Red Dear Cave. Source: Xueping Pleistocene Fossil - A Previously Unknown Human Species? The cranium belonged to an individual known as Mengzi Ren (MZR) and was unearthed in 1989 from Red Deer Cave, Yunnan province, along with her thigh bone. The origins of the skull have been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate within the scientific community since due to its shape which raised questions as to whether it an archaic human, like a Neanderthal or Denisovan, or a member of the modern human species. The cave also revealed more than 30 other human fossils, and animal fossils of the red deer, macaque, and black bear too.
For a while, the skull was attributed to a hybrid population of archaic and modern humans by human evolution experts due to the fact that the skull shape was closer to that of a Neanderthal, while the brain size appeared to be smaller than a modern human. There were suggestions that this could be a previously unknown and undiscovered human species that co-existed alongside our own named the Red Deer People , after the cave in which they were found. Now, however, it seems that the mystery surrounding this rare Pleistocene fossil has now been solved.
“Combined with published data, we detected a clear genetic stratification in the ancient southern populations of East Asia and Southeast Asia, and some degree of south-versus-north divergency during the Late Pleistocene,” highlighted the paper. “The MZR was identified as a southern East Asian with genetic continuity with present-day populations.” The team used ancient DNA, sequencing a fraction of the total genome – a 100 million DNA bases, which helped enough to establish the individual’s species-level identity.
Ancient DNA and the Native American Link The results of the physical anthropological research revealed that the owner of the skull was a young woman, 155 cm (5.08 ft) in height, and weighing 46 kilos (101 lbs). She was a hunter-gatherer, according to Zhang Xiaoming, the paper's first author, also a research fellow at the Kunming Institute of Zoology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. According to CNN, radiocarbon dating on the sediments of the fossils from 2008 indicated their age, which coincided with a period in human history when humans had migrated to many different parts of the world already.
“Ancient DNA technique is a really powerful tool,” says Bing Su, a researcher at the Kunming Institute of Zoology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “It tells us quite definitively that the Red Deer Cave people were modern humans instead of an archaic species, such as Neanderthals or Denisovans, despite their unusual morphological features. It was a really exciting moment. It is difficult to find ancient DNA in such a sample. After three years of trying to extract DNA from around 100 spots on the cranium, we found ancient DNA that we could sequence.”
The genome of these fossils was compared to those of people from around the world, revealing that the bones belonged to an individual with a link to the East Asian ancestry of Native Americans. This led to the hypothesis that some of these southern East Asian people must have travelled through eastern China and Japan, along the respective coastlines, reaching as far as Siberia.
From here, they crossed the Bering Strait through the Beringia land bridge , due to low ocean levels prior to the mass melting of ice that occurred roughly 11,700 years ago. They would cross over to modern day North America , becoming the first people to arrive in the New World. The surviving decedents are now found in East Asia, the Indo-China peninsula, and the Southeast Asian islands, with their ancestors possessing rich genetic and morphological diversity. Su explains that additional data will help paint a more complete picture of our migrating ancestors as the team plans to sequence more ancient human DNA from fossils. They plan to center their focus around southern East Asia and look at even older fossils than the Red Deer Cave finds. This will help in understanding human adaptability, such as variations in skin color in response to sunlight exposure. Such conclusions could help explain the visible differences in human beings today.
This is why one shouldn't judge "a book by its cover" so to speak in regards to cranial morphology. Yet this is what folks do all the time and use features of cranial morphology as race typology. The Red Deer woman was thought to be Denisovan or Neanderthal admixed due to the look of her skull cap, but she's actually not.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Dark skin Asians originated from further north so to speak. But the truly black types are aboriginals. Genetics has shown modern Southeast Asians were older to the region than previously realized.
The wording of all of that doesn't make sense given the prevailing theory of the original populations of Asia coming from a coastal Southern route. 'Northern Asians' did not magically pop up out of nowhere as a separate population distinct from the first populations in Asia as this way of thinking implies. Therefore, the first Asians were diverse and there has never been one type of Asian. And this idea that "Northern" Asians represent the "true Asian" type is exactly what I am talking about. As That "Northern Asian" type started in the South where all that diversity originated before differentiating into the modern populations you see today. But of course, racial thinking is still stuck on trying to make Northeast Asia the origin of Asian features when it isn't.
But I get your point, there are multiple competing hypothesis about how humans settled Asia which are still being debated.
quote: Presently, clear evidence of modern human occupation eastward of the Arabian Peninsula during the early Late Pleistocene is lacking. Occupation of Australia is documented by the human paleontological record at ∼50 ka and in continental Southeast Asia at a maximum date of ∼63 ka (8, 35). Specimens before this time period are fragmentary and taxonomically ambiguous but have, in some cases, been claimed to represent anatomically modern humans (6, 7, 35–37). The MDI-MP model tested here suggests that whereas Southeast Asia may have been populated by modern humans, replacement of these descendants from subsequent migrants may obscure a southern route biological signal in extant populations of that region (6). Our dataset conforms to this hypothesis in that neither the genetic nor the cranial phenotype dataset from our sampled populations separate the Indo-European and Dravidian speakers from India, as might be expected if the latter where relic descendants of the southern route dispersal (Supporting Information, The “Negrito” Hypothesis). Instead, both Indian samples exhibit closer genetic and phenotypic affinity to the hypothetical second dispersal descendants (the Japanese, Aeta/Agta, and Central Asian populations). Sampling of other isolated, relic populations will serve to further support this hypothesis (8, 18).
The point I am making is all of these populations going back 30,000 years were still black and not just the negritoes.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point I am making is all of these populations going back 30,000 years were still black and not just the negritoes.
I do believe that, prior to a certain point, the ancestors of modern East Asians would have been black. I picture Tianyuan Man and his generation as black people, for example.
Right now, they seem to be dating the development of light skin in eastern Eurasia to sometime after 30 kya:
quote:Now a new study by Adhikari and his colleagues offers a reason for the mismatch. The skin color data and the DNA sequences led the researchers to identify a genetic variant for lighter skin that arose in Asia 20- to 30-thousand years ago. That event appears to be independent of the evolution of lighter skin in Europe.
What’s it all mean? Well, light skin color in Latin Americans could still reflect European ancestry. But it could also indicate Native American ancestry—by way of the original Asian immigrants carrying the trait who crossed the temporary Beringia land bridge into what’s now Alaska and became the first Americans.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point I am making is all of these populations going back 30,000 years were still black and not just the negritoes.
I do believe that, prior to a certain point, the ancestors of modern East Asians would have been black. I picture Tianyuan Man and his generation as black people, for example.
Right now, they seem to be dating the development of light skin in eastern Eurasia to sometime after 30 kya:
quote:Now a new study by Adhikari and his colleagues offers a reason for the mismatch. The skin color data and the DNA sequences led the researchers to identify a genetic variant for lighter skin that arose in Asia 20- to 30-thousand years ago. That event appears to be independent of the evolution of lighter skin in Europe.
What’s it all mean? Well, light skin color in Latin Americans could still reflect European ancestry. But it could also indicate Native American ancestry—by way of the original Asian immigrants carrying the trait who crossed the temporary Beringia land bridge into what’s now Alaska and became the first Americans.
Most of it just comes from the legacy of old European racial models of anthropology that still linger. And in that model, certain sets of features go together as an "ancestral archetype" unique to a single "racial" group. Hence, Mongoloid is basically the archetype of all Asians based on a theoretical origin in central Asia and the steppe. Unfortunately human diversity does not work like that and the fact that most Asians are very diverse is what makes these models unsustainable. Yet they still persist even in today's era of genetic anthropology.
As such, the idea of a "proto malay" is a perfect example of such a relic in modern anthropology. Implying that SEA was populated by a "Malay Race" that was distinct from "negritoes" which is pseudo scientific. Because most authors claiming this also point out that the aborigines in SEA are very diverse to begin with and aren't all short kinky haired Negritoes, but such racial models are hard to change.
quote: The Negrito divergence time is consistent with archeological findings regarding the advent of Hoabinhian culture in Mainland SEA (Bellwood 2007). The genetic evidence supports the view that Malaysian Negritos are descendants of Hoabinhian hunter-gatherers who occupied northern parts of Peninsular Malaysia during late Pleistocene. These hunter-gatherers later interacted with Senoi agriculturists during early Holocene era. It may have been these agriculturists who may have introduced AA-based Aslian languages to Negritos. This time frame also coincides with the Early Train migrations from north to south approximately 10–30 KYA (Jinam et al. 2012). However, our time estimation on LD decay can be affected by any bottleneck experienced by these groups. It has been shown that bottlenecks may result in overestimations of LD in populations which consequently result in underestimation of Ne and divergence time. Nevertheless, there are some challenges associated with our investigation. The ascertainment bias that may be present may affect LD estimation. The considerable difference between Negrito/Senoi and Negrito/Proto-Malay admixture date may suggest that the migration of Senoi ancestors to the Malaysian peninsular occurred earlier than those of Proto-Malays. The latter are believed to be a part of Out-of-Taiwan Austronesian expansion. However, our admixture time estimation seems to be much earlier than archeological reports. In the absence of better analytical methods, our analysis relied on rolloff which may reflect only the most recent admixture event, rather than anything earlier.
And the biggest red flag to me in all of this is that none of these papers tell us what the "aboriginal" populations of Northern Asia, Southern China and Taiwan looked like 30,000 years ago. Were they all negritoes before that? Of course not. Meaning there were already populations that were tall and straight haired and with various features present in Northern and Central Asia before this and that didn't just pop up on the scene all at one time.
It is like they are implying a large single explosion of light skin and straight hair in Northern Asia that then moved South and mixed somewhere after 30,000 years ago. And it just sounds promoting outdated racial theories than anything else. Not saying that Northern Asians haven't migrated into SEA, but that the diversity in Asia does not simply originate from that in terms of overall features. But I am saying these models sound more like another way of promoting the mongoloid race vs ancient Asian diversity in features extending back to the diversity of various aboriginal populations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point I am making is all of these populations going back 30,000 years were still black and not just the negritoes.
I do believe that, prior to a certain point, the ancestors of modern East Asians would have been black. I picture Tianyuan Man and his generation as black people, for example.
Right now, they seem to be dating the development of light skin in eastern Eurasia to sometime after 30 kya:
quote:Now a new study by Adhikari and his colleagues offers a reason for the mismatch. The skin color data and the DNA sequences led the researchers to identify a genetic variant for lighter skin that arose in Asia 20- to 30-thousand years ago. That event appears to be independent of the evolution of lighter skin in Europe.
What’s it all mean? Well, light skin color in Latin Americans could still reflect European ancestry. But it could also indicate Native American ancestry—by way of the original Asian immigrants carrying the trait who crossed the temporary Beringia land bridge into what’s now Alaska and became the first Americans.
Yes, we all know light skin is a relatively recent development, and we know that since Anatomically Modern Humans originated in Africa they were originally black. But this goes to the issue of complexion range because skin doesn't just go from black to light all of a sudden. There had to have been a range of complexions already in Eurasia if not Africa. Thus when we are talking about dark-skinned Asians, just how dark are we talking?
My point to Doug is that the aboriginals of the Philippines who are so-called 'Negritos' are not the same as the relatively lighter East Asia types who arrived later as Doug has shown in his posts. I say relatively lighter because they themselves were still dark and not fair-skinned.
There was a theory that the Hoabinhians were Australo-Melanesians based on metric features but actual genetic material from them show that they are actually an early wave of East Asians.
^ Notice in the craniometric NNS map above, that Nicobarese fall into the 'Australoid' cluster along with the Jomon, whereas the Aeta Negritos of the Philippines fall into the Austronesian cluster which makes one wonder how many of those in the Australoid cluster including pre-Neolithic southern Chinese actually match that phenotype!
According to the 2021 Tagore et al. study here. According to the findings, the closest relatives of the Hoabinhians living today from highest degree to least are the Semai people, Temuan people, and Jah Hut people on the Malay Peninsula as well as the isolated Nicobarese people, followed by the Khmer people. This is in stark contrast to the 2018 McColl et al. paper suggesting that the closest living relatives are the Andamanese followed by other Negritos.
The Mengzi Ren skull cap looks Denisovan but she's actually pure AMH. This is why it's right to question metric affinities which don't align to genetic relations. I've noticed the farther back in time you go especially to the Pleistocene AMH populations were really diverse.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
^ That I agree with. I think the predecessors of Austronesians and other lighter brown Southeast Asians originated in the general area of (south?)eastern China before some of them migrated further south (and then across the Pacific). I used to think this would have happened during the Neolithic, but I believe you pointed out to me an aDNA paper showing that people related to modern Austroasiatic people were already in Southeast Asia even before then.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, that's in the 2021 Tagore et al paper I cited. Though I am curious about this latest cladistic model you cited below.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You fail to understand that not all Asians descend from the southern aborigines, in fact the vast majority of East Asians including those in Southeast Asia do NOT. They descend from another branch of more northern Eurasians that separated from the ancestors of Europeans, Northern Indians, and North Eurasians.
I dunno, I think they now consider Australasians and Negritos to be part of the same East Eurasian clade as East and Southeast Asians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Doug is implying a more direct descent. But that cladistic chart is interesting. By "Negritos" which ones? Because according to that chart the Andamanese Negritos are closer related to East Asians than the Aeta Negritos of the Philippines! Also what about Population Y?
I suspect "Negrito" is simply a catchall label for darker-skinned peoples of South and Southeast Asia that don't necessarily constitute a monophyletic group. However, this paper suggests the various "Negrito" populations are basal to other East Eurasians. They do position the Andamanese differently from the other cladogram I shared earlier though.
As for Population Y, all that I really know about it is that it's a ghost population that contributed ancestry to both Australasian and Native South American peoples, hence explaining the apparent Australasian signal in the latter's genomes. I have yet to hear of this ancestry appearing in Northeast Asian or Native North American genomes, but they could have lived potentially anywhere in eastern Eurasia.
I do remember you suggesting that Population Y is really "Basal East Asian". IIRC, the Red Deer Cave genome from southwestern China was something similar to that, though I have never read of any particular genetic link between that population and Australasians that would identify them as Population Y.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, that's in the 2021 Tagore et al paper I cited. Though I am curious about this latest cladistic model you cited below.
As I mentioned elsewhere much of this issue comes from the history of European racial models in history, where South East Asia was home to a "brown race" called the "Malay Race". And even today, they still are carrying around that obsolete model within their genetics research. This model posits that sometime in the past SEA was inhabited by a single type of aboriginal population with a single set of features according to racial models of typology. That would be the so-called "negrito" race. And then, separately from these populations, a new "race" arose in Northern Asia called the "Malay" or "brown" race, that swept down and replaced or mixed with these Negritoes to produce the populations we see today. The problem with this is that SEA is part of the Asian mainland, it is not an island and has always been populated. So the idea that somehow these areas were inhabited by a single "type" of ancient population is the first problem. The second problem is that it also implies that somehow this northern branch evolved separately and did not also descend from southerners. All of which is entirely suspect.
And again, South East Asia is on the same latitude as the horn of Africa, while Southern China is on the same latitude as Northern Africa. Obviously there has been a clinal gradient that evolved between the more tropically adapted populations in the South and those in the North, but they all came from basically the same aboriginal stock which was itself very diverse.
Anyway, these ideas about the "Malay Races" came about in the 19th and early 20th century and can be seen in the work below:
quote: The method pursued by the authors, and the peculiarly heterogeneous nature of the materials at their disposal, have made it impossible to present to the reader an invariably harmonious and ordered narrative in a uniform and attractive style. Instead of this, he will, however, have within the compass of a pair of volumes the whole substance of what has been written about the Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula by dozens of explorers and observers in scores of more or less inaccessible or obsolete books and periodical publications, supplemented by and critically collated with a great mass of the most recent original material collected on the subject. He will find in this book many facts, but few hypotheses : at the present stage of our study of these races the collection of definite data seems to be the most immediate duty, and such theories as are here put forward are intended to suggest lines of research for future explorers and students.
.....
With this end in view, the several parts of the book dealing with their racial and cultural characteristics, which had originally been arranged under the headings of the various subjects dealt with, were entirely rewritten upon a phylogenetic system, so as to throw into relief the differences which separate one race from another ; and in the part dealing with language, the several distinct elements of which their dialects are made up have been analysed in considerable detail. One great difficulty which besets a student of this subject is how to reconcile the sometimes apparently conflicting testimonies of anthropology and philology : while not assuming to have found the explanation, the authors of the present work claim that in laying bare some seeming contradictions in the evidence, they are clearing the ground for the reconstruction on a sound basis of the early history and ethnology of an important part of South-Eastern Asia.
It is not, therefore, solely as a monograph on the particular tribes specially dealt with that the present work claims to be regarded, but also as a necessary preliminary to a general scientific survey of the races of Southern Indo- China and the Malay Peninsula. Resident as they have been for untold centuries in the Peninsula, these pagan tribes nevertheless have much affinity with some of the wild races of IndoChina, and thus form a link between these two regions. Moreover, the Malay population of the Peninsula presents characteristics which vary very distinctly in different districts, and in some parts it contains a strong strain of aboriginal blood, so that an investigation into the wild races is an essential preparation towards a scientific study of the Malays themselves. The authors hope that the material they have collected will serve as a basis upon which may be reared a more systematic and accurate study of all the races of the Malay Peninsula. There is great need of a thorough survey of the Peninsula as a whole, from the point of view both of geographical and ethnological science and of industrial and economic development.
On top of these older European race models, the other problem is a lack of complete skeletons from any substantial time depth. Most of the remains that have been found in SEA are only fragments of skeletons. Then to muddy the water even further, you have had multiple waves of migration from Southern China and the Steppe into SEA over the last 5,000 years such as the Moongol expansion and the population boom in China from a few thousand years ago.
So when they do find these remains in SEA, especially those that are older than expected, it causes confusion. Because most of their models today are based on DNA, but they have very little DNA coverage in SEA among all the various populations there.
quote: ur ancient relatives may have reached southeast Asia over 10,000 years earlier than thought.
While it’s not yet known what happened to these early humans, their presence adds to an increasingly complex picture of early migration.
New ancient human fossils are shedding light on the first modern humans in southeast Asia.
While it’s generally agreed that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, the timing of its migration across the world is open for debate. Fossils seem to show our species having left Africa over 100,000 years ago, while genetic evidence points to a migration around 40,000 years later.
Newly described fossils from Tam Pà Ling cave in Laos have now added more pieces to the puzzle. A fragment of a human leg bone was found in sediments believed to be as much as 86,000 years old. In combination with other fossils from the cave, it suggests Homo sapiens lived there for as long as 56,000 years.
^ Which is why I never subscribed to the "Brown Malay Race" and found it as erroneous as "Brown Mediterranean Race" or "Hamitic Race". When I use the word 'Malay' I use it in its original accurate meaning of Malayan speaking ethnic groups! I already posted an MNS graph based on craniometrics showing how assumptions made on metric traits like robusticity and gracility do not match with the genetic findings which again debunks racial typologies. The point is Malays are a sub-branch of Southeast Asians who are in turn a branch of East Asians in general. We did not get our dark skins from 'Negritos' who were aboriginal to the area anymore than North Indians of ANI ancestry got their dark skins from South Indian aborigines of ASI ancestry. Southeast Asia was populated in a series of wave-- some older some more recent. However a genetic distinction exists between Black Aborigines and non-black Southeast Asians though admixture has occurred in some instances.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
After recently coming back from Thailand I am MUCH MORE interested in Southeast Asian bio-anthropology history. I seen some Thai people that looked straight up "Black" possibly Negrito like ancestry.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
While we're on the topic, I spent around six years of my childhood as an expat in Singapore. I wonder if a Negrito population (like the Malaysian Semang for example) ever lived on that island. There's no group like them in Singapore today, as most of the island has been paved over and the areas of rainforest that remain aren't large enough to sustain a significant hunter-gatherer population. But there must have been people living there in the late Pleistocene to early Holocene before the Malays and other ethnic groups that dominate the country's demographics today arrived.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Which is why I never subscribed to the "Brown Malay Race" and found it as erroneous as "Brown Mediterranean Race" or "Hamitic Race". When I use the word 'Malay' I use it in its original accurate meaning of Malayan speaking ethnic groups! I already posted an MNS graph based on craniometrics showing how assumptions made on metric traits like robusticity and gracility do not match with the genetic findings which again debunks racial typologies. The point is Malays are a sub-branch of Southeast Asians who are in turn a branch of East Asians in general. We did not get our dark skins from 'Negritos' who were aboriginal to the area anymore than North Indians of ANI ancestry got their dark skins from South Indian aborigines of ASI ancestry. Southeast Asia was populated in a series of wave-- some older some more recent. However a genetic distinction exists between Black Aborigines and non-black Southeast Asians though admixture has occurred in some instances.
Again you keep claiming one thing and then turning right around and saying something else.
You literally just said:
quote: The point is Malays are a sub-branch of Southeast Asians who are in turn a branch of East Asians in general. We did not get our dark skins from 'Negritos' who were aboriginal to the area anymore than North Indians of ANI ancestry got their dark skins from South Indian aborigines of ASI ancestry.
Which is precisely what the "Malay Race" originally represented as a separate line of ancestry for populations separate from "Negritoes". I just literally posted a book from the early 1900s explicitly saying this and here you are saying the exact same thing.
My point is that South East Asia was not ONLY populated by "Negrito" aborigines. That is what I have been saying multiple times over and over again and this is what I mean by "racial thinking". There is no proof of this and most of these ideas of "mixture" are purely based on racial thinking that "negritoes" were the exclusive inhabitants of SEA going back 40,000 years and only came in one "type", which is absolutely false. This is not just about "Malays" because again most of Sundaland is underwater and there aren't many skulls from that time period. Aboriginal populations in SEA were diverse and all of them were not short and kinky haired like Negritoes. ALL Asians get their diversity from aboriginal populations, which does NOT mean Negritoes. It is this effort to characterize ALL aboriginal populations of SEA as "Negritoes" that I am calling pseudoscience. Black straight haired Asians have always existed in Asia as an aboriginal type.
You then turn around and say there were multiple waves of populations, but we aren't talking about recent migrations from Southern China which are all well documented. I am talking about aboriginal populations and the diversity of aboriginal populations going back over 30,000 years. Those aboriginal populations are the basis of all Asians and there is no separation if you agree with OOA.
And really the big problem here is the term "Negrito" itself, because it conjures something that is not supported by evidence. That itself is part of the legacy of these racial models proposed in the past that they have refused to remove from the semantics around the history of SEA. Just call them aborigines. Same as "Malays" still conjures the old baggage of "Malay" race and really serves the same purpose.
From a recent paper showing how these old racial paradigms continue to persist in current studies of SEA and are constantly being contradicted by facts:
quote: Population structure and admixture
High-coverage whole-genome data generated by the GenomeAsia 100 K consortium29 for 763 individuals were derived from 59 ethnic groups that are native to Southeast and South Asia with European populations as reference groups (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Fig. 1, and Supplementary Table 2). The genome data were analysed for their population structure and admixture using principal component analysis (PCA)34 (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 2) and ADMIXTURE35 (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Fig. 3). Based on the results, the genomes included in our analysis are categorised into 11 population groups (Fig. 2a–c, Supplementary Table 2). For Southeast Asia, we identify five population groups, Andamanese (Jarwa and Onge), Malaysian Negritos (Kensiu and Kintak), Philippine Negritos (Aeta), Austronesians (Igorot, Temuan, Senoi, and indigenous people from Mentawai and Nias) and Mainland Southeast Asians (Dai and Kinh). We further show that the Andamanese and both Negrito groups, except the Ati, display minimum admixture and high homozygosity, suggesting spatial isolation from one another for an extended time (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4). For South Asians, we consider four population groups in South Asia: The Indo-European, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic groups. ...
Lastly, we estimated the timing of admixture events based on the migration rate inferred by MSMC-IM44. Increasing migration rates observed after the population split of the Kensiu (Malaysian Negritos) and the Birhor (South Asian Austroasiatic) groups indicate admixture between them ~12,000–9000 years ago (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Fig. 7). Similarly, an increase in migration rate between the Kensiu and Dai (Mainland Southeast Asians) groups indicates admixture ~12,000–8000 years ago (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Fig. 7). In contrast, the increase in migration rate was not observed between Birhor and any other Southeast Asian populations—the Dai, Igorot (Austronesians), or Aeta (Philippine Negritos). Therefore, the origin of the admixture found in South Asian Austroasiatic groups is the Malaysian Negritos, rather than Mainland Southeast Asians that contained the Malaysian Negrito ancestry. The admixture between the South Asian Austroasiatic and Malaysian Negrito groups could only have occurred after the split of the Austronesians and Mainland Southeast Asians, ~11,000–10,000 years ago (Supplementary Fig. 6a), since there is no admixture signal between the Kensiu and Igorot. Thus, the timing of the admixture is predicted to be ~10,000–8000 years ago. This estimated time range matches the admixture between Malaysian Negritos and Mainland Southeast Asians. The MSMC-IM results with the Dai are replicable using the Kinh (KHV) population (Supplementary Fig. 7 and Supplementary Table 3).
This entire paper is based on flawed premises about population groups, based precisely on modern populations and no ancient DNA or remains from over 10,000 years ago. And it uses "Negritoes" as the only 'aboriginal' populations of SEA, but never lists the "aboriginal" populations of mainland SEA prior to 10,000 years ago. In other words it is reusing the same modern population groups associated with the old racial models listed in the book I posted from the early 1900s. And then it uses that set of modern populations to explain a limited population history of SEA that only goes back to 15,000 years ago assuming that Negritoes represent all aboriginal populations in SEA/South Asia. All based on assumptions that make absolutely no sense given that ALL coastlines around SEA, including South Asia were also affected by sea level rise. And the main issue it promotes this idea that "mainland SEA" were a separate type, not tied to any aboriginal population of any time depth greater than 20,000 years. This is what I am calling out as "racial thinking" using genetics. Because that doesn't make any sense at all. Not to mention this paper leaves out many historic populations that were once widespread such as the Mon, Khmer, Cham, Moi, Montagnards and other groups, along with the populations of Bali, Sumatra, Sulawesi and other Islands all of which are ancient. And even more than that, given that it is talking about Sundaland, it also leaves out Papuans, Melanesians and AUstralian aborigines who had to pass through Sundaland. So it is mostly nonsense.
And here is a picture literally showing this nonsense:
They show the entirety of SEA and Sundaland as blue going back 20,000 years but never say what that "blue" represents. Again, they have no remains or DNA from this time frame so they are just throwing around supposition as opposed to solid facts. But then they use blue to indicate "island South East Asian" ancestry after sea level rise but never distinguish that from the blue used before sea level rise. Weird. Then they associate this same blue with "Negritoes" exclusively. So by extension you could argue that all the blue 20,000 years ago reprsents Negritoes, which makes zero sense. And then magically the formerly blue regions of SEA 20,000 years ago are replaced by Green, with no serious explanation on how that works.
quote: We hypothesised population migration and splits on the map along with the sea-level changes. The geographic regions inhabited by the ancestral populations are suggested based on the current locations of their descendants and represented as coloured shading in the map. The base maps were retrieved from the public dataset83 with open access. The changes in inhabitancies over time are reconstructed based on our demographic history estimates. a 20 thousand years ago (KYA), the ancestral population of Southeast Asians likely inhabited Sundaland. The ancestors of the Austroasiatic speakers in South Asia might have occupied the Indian subcontinent. b 13 KYA after MWP1A, the ancestral Southeast Asians split into three populations. c 9 KYA after MWP1B, a population split occurred between Mainland Southeast Asians and Austronesians. The blue arrows represent the admixture of the Malaysian Negritos with South Asians and Mainland Southeast Asians and do not represent the migration route. South Asians split into two or three populations around this time.
All of which just sounds like they are using modern populations as proxies for a very complex and diverse history with limited actual remains and no ancient DNA.
Keep in mind because of the fact of the flooding of the coasts of South and South East Asia, plus the moist tropical environment, there aren't many human remains going back over 10,000 years ago. And this is why most of these models of human settlement are based mostly on present populations and relatively recent migrations from within the last 5,000 years which cannot reveal much without actual ancient data. That is why the Hoabinhian is primarily based on stone tools that have been preserved and not on any actual human remains.
Also, they use Dai as a proxy for mainland SEA populations knowing full well those people came into Thailand relatively recently and the region was populated by Cham and Khmer groups. Note that Dai is another way of saying Thai. And this is why ancient Thailand was called "Siam" not "Thailand".
quote: Northern Thailand consists of many plains and mountains, usually stretching in a north-south direction. Most of this wide area is covered by forests and fertile land that was occupied by large numbers of people since prehistoric times [1].
Today, the Tai speaking peoples represent the major linguistic group in Northern Thailand, but archaeological evidence reveals that this area was occupied by Mon-Khmer speaking groups such as Mlabri, H'tin, Lawa, and Mon since the prehistoric period [1]. The first kingdom-level development was the Mon of Haripunchai (750 A.D.-1300 A.D.), and the earliest datable stone inscriptions (from 1218 to 1219 A.D.) mentioned Lawa as another local population [2]. The decline of the Mon kingdom occurred in the thirteenth century when a Tai group migrated from south and south-east China. They conquered the native populations on their southern route until they reached the northern part of what is now Thailand. Some Mon groups fled south to central Thailand, but many remained in this area under the Tai rulers [1]. These people were later assimilated and acculturated by Tai migrants [3]. The Mon ethnic group is cited in many historical records of the civilizations of northern Thailand, suggesting that this specific Mon-Khmer speaking population played an important role during the Tai immigration and for the establishment of the present day populations in northern Thailand. In general, archaeological and historical evidence suggests a close relationship between modern Mon-Khmer and Tai speaking groups in this area, but their biological affinity has not yet been established.
As I have mentioned before, there have been multiple waves of movements from Southern China, especially over the last 5,000 years and especially much more recently in the last 500 years and during the colonial era (Singapore for example). And these kinds of studies just gloss over all of that. Meaning it is a very complex history and these models are very simplistic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
No I did not contradict myself because Malays are an ethno-linguistic grouping like Austro-asiatics. That does not change the fact that both ethno-linguistic groups are derived from the same ancestral branch as other East Asian i.e. "Mongoloid" peoples!
The reason why Malays were not classified as "Mongloid" and put into a separate category was because of certain phenotypic features that made us differ from the typical "mongoloid" the same way indigenous North Africans and Horn Africans differed from typical "Negroid" look. In fact there were anthropologists who said Malays were reminiscent of "Mediterraneans" which is why we were actually called the "Brown Mediterranean race of Asia" or "Oriental Mediterranean race". Don't believe me look it up.
Meanwhile, even C. L. Brace in his metric studies show that even Mongolians, Siberians, and other North Asians show distinct cranial features from East Asians of China, Korea, and Japan, to which he exclaimed and I paraphrase 'Ironically the Mongolian people from whose name the racial label derives are outliers of that very racial group'!
So-called Negritoes belong to an older branch of Eurasians that inhabited the region prior to the ancestors of East Asian so-called Mongoloid/Malay types arrived.
Admin edit: That particular poster is NOT in this thread. Lets NOT bait him and cause more nonsense.
[ 28. June 2023, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: Askia_The_Great ]
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
DJ, none of what you said makes any sense and is contradictory. Filipinos are not "Malays" because they don't speak Malay languages. And basically all you are doing is regurtitating this idea that they are a separate "brown race", even though you claim you are not. Yet you literally keep sitting here saying it over and over again.
As I said, ALL populations in Asia derive from the diversity of aboriginal populations. Which means ALL populations in Asia descend from a black aboriginal population. There are no exceptions to this if you believe in OOA. And the flaw with the idea of Malays is that they do not descent from a black aboriginal population. THAT is the core of the idea of the "Malay Race" which is pure pseudoscience. Because you keep using this line of logic that the only aborigines of Asia are Negritos which is pure nonsense and something I have said multiple times is false. This means there was never a single type of aborigine in South East or East Asia going back 30,000 years. All of these models are purely hypothetical based on folklore and hearsay along with modern racial concepts and not any actual ancient remains. And many populations in Asia and much current scholarship in the area still follows this line of thinking.
quote: In Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and Indonesia, being Malay usually means being a practitioner of Islam and a speaker of standard Bahasa. However, such understandings no longer comprehend other members of the so-called brown-skinned race who were once united with the Malay aggrupation: numerous Filipinos (and East Timorese), who inhabit the same broad geopolitical region. Challenging the recent narrowly defined conceptions of who is, or was Malay, this study recalls an inclusive borderless understanding acquired in antiquity by the Filipino nation, whose peoples were considered by Spanish and American colonisers and educated by their government to consider themselves as part of a pre-modern “Malay” world. Geohistorical evidence shows how such auto-consciousness evolved and preceded the entry of the term into the nearby British colonisers’ lexicon, before its social-reconstruction for the perpetuation of post-colonial polities as well. The author interweaves his textual survey with the problematisation of the location of ethnicity, and points out the seemingly neglected corpus of Iberian works that demonstrate how the knowledge of Malayness could only have been approached by Europeans from a geographic periphery, of which the Philippine archipelago was very much a part, especially the Mindanao area. The author builds on and constructively critiques work by one scholar who had initiated the claims of the Filipino to Malayness. It is shown how sociocultural and geopolitical priorities can help or hinder the relaxation of definitions of who is Malay and where Malays are properly situated, if only because these counter perceptual rigidities, and allow the creation of hybrid third spaces that admit new possibilities of coexistence.
quote: Given the early development of the discourses on Filipino Malayness, the elision of the case of the Philippines in academic discussions on Malayness is rather curious, even anomalous. Early Spanish chroniclers, for instance, such as Antonio de Morga, Colin, Pedro Chirino, Gaspar de San Agustin and Joaquin M. de Zuniga, among many others, had long noted the "racial" affinity of the indios to their neighbors in the South and had called them Malayos. Rizal and other propagandists had regarded themselves as Malay at least as early as the 1880s. In 1897, Blumentritt, an Austrian scholar, wrote that "[n]ot only is Rizal the most prominent man of his own people but the greatest man the Malayan race has produced" (emphasis added). It was a declaration that, a hundred years later, would be explicitly concurred with by Malaysians such as Anwar Ibrahim who initiated an international conference held in Kuala Lumpur in 1995. In this conference, participants recognized Rizal as a pahlawan Melayu. Interestingly, in the opening address Anwar Ibrahim delivered in the said conference, he called Rizal not just the first Filipino but also the "first Malayan." Moreover, since the early 1900s, Filipinos read in their history textbooks that they descended from a series of "waves of migrants" the latest being Malays who were regarded as bringers of advanced civilization.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: DJ, none of what you said makes any sense and is contradictory. Filipinos are not "Malays" because they don't speak Malay languages.
I think by "Malay" he means "Malayo-Polynesian", which is one of the major branches of the Austronesian language phylum to which Filipino languages do belong.
quote:As I said, ALL populations in Asia derive from the diversity of aboriginal populations. Which means ALL populations in Asia descend from a black aboriginal population. There are no exceptions to this if you believe in OOA. And the flaw with the idea of Malays is that they do not descent from a black aboriginal population. THAT is the core of the idea of the "Malay Race" which is pure pseudoscience. Because you keep using this line of logic that the only aborigines of Asia are Negritos which is pure nonsense and something I have said multiple times is false. This means there was never a single type of aborigine in South East or East Asia going back 30,000 years. All of these models are purely hypothetical based on folklore and hearsay along with modern racial concepts and not any actual ancient remains. And many populations in Asia and much current scholarship in the area still follows this line of thinking.
I believe what happened is that the segment of East Eurasians that became modern "Mongoloid" peoples moved north from Southeast Asia, adapted to the higher latitude and cooler climate, and then some of them (the ancestors of modern "Brown" SE Asians) back-migrated to Southeast Asia, absorbing some of the "Negrito" East Eurasians that had stayed behind in the region. Or are you suggesting that the "Brown" SE Asians evolved in situ in the region from "Negrito" ancestors?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: DJ, none of what you said makes any sense and is contradictory. Filipinos are not "Malays" because they don't speak Malay languages.
I think by "Malay" he means "Malayo-Polynesian", which is one of the major branches of the Austronesian language phylum to which Filipino languages do belong.
quote:As I said, ALL populations in Asia derive from the diversity of aboriginal populations. Which means ALL populations in Asia descend from a black aboriginal population. There are no exceptions to this if you believe in OOA. And the flaw with the idea of Malays is that they do not descent from a black aboriginal population. THAT is the core of the idea of the "Malay Race" which is pure pseudoscience. Because you keep using this line of logic that the only aborigines of Asia are Negritos which is pure nonsense and something I have said multiple times is false. This means there was never a single type of aborigine in South East or East Asia going back 30,000 years. All of these models are purely hypothetical based on folklore and hearsay along with modern racial concepts and not any actual ancient remains. And many populations in Asia and much current scholarship in the area still follows this line of thinking.
I believe what happened is that the segment of East Eurasians that became modern "Mongoloid" peoples moved north from Southeast Asia, adapted to the higher latitude and cooler climate, and then some of them (the ancestors of modern "Brown" SE Asians) back-migrated to Southeast Asia, absorbing some of the "Negrito" East Eurasians that had stayed behind in the region. Or are you suggesting that the "Brown" SE Asians evolved in situ in the region from "Negrito" ancestors?
I believe the whole concept of 'Negritoes' is problematic, because all Negritoes are not short and kinky haired. But be that as it may, they simply represent one highly isolated group of aborigines who are only a subset of the original diversity of aboriginal populations. It is their isolation that has allowed them to retain their distinct features into the present day, but that does not mean that ALL South East Asians prior to the rise in sea levels were Negritoes. That is foolish. Case in point, most Aboriginal populations in Asia, such as the Papuans, Australians and Andamese are also relics of that ancient diversity because of their isolation, but they are not Negritoes either. And again, the problem is there are few remains from the region going back even to the neolithic. Most remains that are found are only fragmentary and therefore, most of what you see in these models is speculation. Not to mention many of the areas inhabited in ancient times going back to OOA are also underwater. I think people use so-called Negritoes as a catch all for all aborigines because of their isolation, but that is simply a misleading process that ignores those other aboriginal populations who didn't stay isolated.
I would simply say that the aboriginal populations of Asia were diverse and modern Asians reflect that diversity. Meaning that the only difference between North East Asians and other aboriginal Asian groups (which have not been identified as aboriginal in most discussions) is skin color with one population being tropically adapted and the other being adapted to low UV environments. And you still see this today in populations in various parts of the pacific and South East Asia. It is just that these waves of migration from the north have in many cases affected some of those populations and caused some of this confusion.
quote:Using the new population measurement method, which utilises human skeletal remains, they have been able to prove a significant rapid increase in growth across populations in Thailand, China and Vietnam during the Neolithic Period, and a second subsequent rise in the Iron Age.
None of this has anything to do with "Malays" or "Austronesians" as these are language groups. And there is not much actual data from ancient remains to even begin to say what characteristics were found in these various regions associated with the rise of these languages. Much of these identifications of populations clusters and characteristics is therefore speculation at best. Which is why it hasn't moved much from the old racial discourse of the 1900s.
And this lack of data is why you see so many papers revising or revisiting these models every few years in SEA and most of that is due to lack of actual data.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: DJ, none of what you said makes any sense and is contradictory. Filipinos are not "Malays" because they don't speak Malay languages. And basically all you are doing is regurgitating this idea that they are a separate "brown race", even though you claim you are not. Yet you literally keep sitting here saying it over and over again.
Filipinos DO speak Malayo-Polynesian languages that are part of the Austronesian phylum. So instead of "Malay", would it help if I used the term 'Austronesian' then? You obviously failed to comprehend what I wrote because I never said they were a "separate brown race" but very much part of the East Asian family!! Dude, seriously...
quote:As I said, ALL populations in Asia derive from the diversity of aboriginal populations. Which means ALL populations in Asia descend from a black aboriginal population. There are no exceptions to this if you believe in OOA. And the flaw with the idea of Malays is that they do not descent from a black aboriginal population. THAT is the core of the idea of the "Malay Race" which is pure pseudoscience. Because you keep using this line of logic that the only aborigines of Asia are Negritos which is pure nonsense and something I have said multiple times is false. This means there was never a single type of aborigine in South East or East Asia going back 30,000 years. All of these models are purely hypothetical based on folklore and hearsay along with modern racial concepts and not any actual ancient remains. And many populations in Asia and much current scholarship in the area still follows this line of thinking.
You make absolutely no sense! ALL peoples descend from black aboriginal populations including Europeans and Siberians. The question is which population and where. There is nothing "hypothetical" about it. Malays/Austronesian like our Austro-asiatic cousins do NOT descend from Negritos or any Australo-Melanesians populations but other populations elsewhere and arrived in Southeast Asia during the Mesolithic!
I find it strange that you a non-Asian is arguing me, an Asian about my own heritage! I would at least give you credit if you know what your are talking about but apparently you don't.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I think by "Malay" he means "Malayo-Polynesian", which is one of the major branches of the Austronesian language phylum to which Filipino languages do belong.
Correct! I use Malay in its accurate context not some "brown race" b.s., yet Doug is the one who seems to be hung up on the racial label not me!
quote:I believe what happened is that the segment of East Eurasians that became modern "Mongoloid" peoples moved north from Southeast Asia, adapted to the higher latitude and cooler climate, and then some of them (the ancestors of modern "Brown" SE Asians) back-migrated to Southeast Asia, absorbing some of the "Negrito" East Eurasians that had stayed behind in the region. Or are you suggesting that the "Brown" SE Asians evolved in situ in the region from "Negrito" ancestors?
According to genetics findings the ancestors of "Mongloids" i.e. East Asians descend from another branch of Eurasians than Australo-Melanesians.
By the way, just to show how ancient they are, even so-called "Negritos" are genetically heterogeneous.
^ The purple region shows Philippine 'Negritos' who already show Austronesian admixture.
Here is a really good summary of the 2021 Larena et al. paper by a Japanese researcher:
These should be a good reads for you Brandon, and I hope Doug can digest its meaning.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: DJ, none of what you said makes any sense and is contradictory. Filipinos are not "Malays" because they don't speak Malay languages. And basically all you are doing is regurgitating this idea that they are a separate "brown race", even though you claim you are not. Yet you literally keep sitting here saying it over and over again.
Filipinos DO speak Malayo-Polynesian languages that are part of the Austronesian phylum. So instead of "Malay", would it help if I used the term 'Austronesian' then? You obviously failed to comprehend what I wrote because I never said they were a "separate brown race" but very much part of the East Asian family!! Dude, seriously...
quote:As I said, ALL populations in Asia derive from the diversity of aboriginal populations. Which means ALL populations in Asia descend from a black aboriginal population. There are no exceptions to this if you believe in OOA. And the flaw with the idea of Malays is that they do not descent from a black aboriginal population. THAT is the core of the idea of the "Malay Race" which is pure pseudoscience. Because you keep using this line of logic that the only aborigines of Asia are Negritos which is pure nonsense and something I have said multiple times is false. This means there was never a single type of aborigine in South East or East Asia going back 30,000 years. All of these models are purely hypothetical based on folklore and hearsay along with modern racial concepts and not any actual ancient remains. And many populations in Asia and much current scholarship in the area still follows this line of thinking.
You make absolutely no sense! ALL peoples descend from black aboriginal populations including Europeans and Siberians. The question is which population and where. There is nothing "hypothetical" about it. Malays/Austronesian like our Austro-asiatic cousins do NOT descend from Negritos or any Australo-Melanesians populations but other populations elsewhere and arrived in Southeast Asia during the Mesolithic!
I find it strange that you a non-Asian is arguing me, an Asian about my own heritage! I would at least give you credit if you know what your are talking about but apparently you don't.
Again, you keep tap dancing around the point. You keep saying that these so-called 'malays' got their features from North East Asia. That has absolutely nothing to do with language. That is why I am calling it a "racial" term because it is absolutely being used in a "racial" way. And you yourself keep using terms like mongoloid yourself.
When I say that all Asians get their features from aboriginal groups, what I am saying is that there were black aboriginal ancestors of the populations you call "malays" that were not "negritoes". I keep saying this and you keep dancing around this, because nowhere in anything you keep saying do you identify who the ancestors were of these groups other than "north Asians". As if to say, North Asians have no aboriginal origins for their diversity. That is what I am talking about. It is a racial model because it proposes that "North Asians", "mongoloids", "Malays" or whatever you want to call it, emerged "as a race" or "set of phenotypes" (which is equivalent to what I am calling race) separate from black aborigines. That is my point and that is what I am saying is BS and based on the idea that "superior northerners" brought civilization to Asia and that is where Asian culture came from. Not from any evolution among "black aborigines", with the negritoes being used as the stereotypical example of "wild savages" of ancient South East Asia.
Whether you like it or not, that is where all this comes from. And yes, it is absolutely no different than the pseudo-science of a "North African", "Mediterranean" or "Hamitic" race that is separate from "black African". And you yourself are claiming that this is what you mean and all of that is pseudo-scientific racial garbage.
Don't be confused, I am not saying there werent multiple waves of migration from SOuthern China towards the South. What I am saying is Northern Asians got their features going back 20,000 years from black aboriginal populations. But the reason this relationship to aborigines is being debated is again because of the myth that ALL aborigines in Asia were negritoes, which is absolutely and positively FALSE.
There was no "negrito" migration from Africa to Asia, just like there was no Australoid migration from Africa to Asia either or a Papuan migration from Africa to Asia. Meaning, those features among those different groups are the result of isolation and evolution that took place AFTER OOA and that does not mean that they always looked like that. Not to mention all the theories of mixture with other hominids that supposedly took place in Asia also have to be factored in. The point being that the history of Asian diversity is not simply "magical Asian features show up in the North" vs "negritoes in the south". That is literally nonsense.
Yet everywhere you look in the papers on the history of SEA, this is literally what you see:
quote: A central paradox in discussing the Philippine past is that the Philippines did not exist as such in the tenth century, or even in the sixteenth century when the archipelago received this name from colonizing Spaniards’ (Abinales and Amoroso, 2005: 19). Yet, today the Philippines is a sovereign nation with its own culture. The Philippines is an archipelago which consists of over 7,100 islands and islets with Luzon and Mindanao being the largest (Guillermo and Win, 2005).
Because of the climate and the apparent life-styles of individuals who lived in island Southeast Asia, there is little archeological evidence to give clues about what life was like in prehistoric times. It would seem there were few large settlements and the population in what was to become the Philippines was quite small (Bellwood, 1992).
Archeological evidence suggests the first humans to arrive in the area that is now the Philippines were from Asia and were Aetas or pygmies, yet these are not considered to be the ancestors of modern Filipinos. Later there was an influx of ‘Malays’ who are considered to be the ancestors of the modern Filipinos (Guillermo and Win, 2005: 2). There does appear to be linguistic links between languages of the Philippines such as Tagalog and Visayan with languages of the peoples who were living in what is now southern China of 4,000 years ago, which provides evidence of the probable ancestral mainland home of the people of the Philippines (Abinales and Amoroso, 2005: 20).
And nowhere do they provide any evidence that all ancient prehistoric populations of SEA or the Philippines were Negritoes. They just state it and thats it.
And when people cite sources for these theories, almost all of them go back to European race science of the early 1900s.
For example:
quote: There are several human populations scattered throughout SEA that are thought to be descendants of the “First Sundaland People.” They are collectively known as Negritos and are currently found in the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula and several islands in the Philippines. They have been traditionally associated with a hunter-gathering lifestyle, and also exhibit physical features that are distinct from their non-Negrito neighbors, namely short stature, frizzy hair, and dark skin (Barrows 1910; Radcliffe-Brown 1922; Evans 1937). These observations led to the idea that the Negritos might be closely related to African Pygmies who also exhibit similar phenotypes (Howells 1973). Alternatively, the similar phenotypes may have arisen due to adaptation to relatively similar environmental conditions in Africa and Southeast Asia (Coon 1965), namely convergent evolution.
Which is what I said and I can support that, based on all these current papers still referencing those old works. And the irony here is that almost all of these works make it clear that many of these populations claimed as separate, have obvious affinity with so-called "Negritoes" and aren't really "separate populations". Meaning they are all related and not simply a "separate race" that magically popped up out of nowhere.
And these are the works reference in this quote: The Negrito and Allied Types in the Phillippines by DP Brown 1910
quote: NiNE years of residence and travel in the Philippines have produced the conviction that in discussions of the ethnology of Malaysia, and particularly of the Philippines, the Negrito element has been slighted. Much has been made of the "Indonesian theory and far too much of pre-Spanish Chinese influence, but th result to the physical types found in the Philippines of the constan absorption of the Negrito race into the Malayan and the wide prevalence of Negrito blood in all classes of islanders has been generally overlooked.
The object of this paper is to present some physical measure- ments of the Negrito and then of several other pagan peoples of the islands whose types, as determined by measurement and obser vation, reveal the presence of Negrito blood.
....
Meyer's Distribution of the Negritos in the Philippines and Elsewhere is a very valuable sifting of the evidence, but it is not final, as was quickly apparent eight years ago when we came to locate Negritos on the ground. There are none for instance in Cebu, where Meyer was led to place them, and it is certain that they live in Guimaras and on Palawan. Those of the last island are a very curious people, locally called "Batak." They were first described in a brief note with photographs by Lieutenant E. Y. Miller published by the Philippine Ethnological Survey in volume II of its Publications. Doubt has been cast on the Negrito character these people, some supposing them to be predominantly Malay but there is no doubt about their being Negrito, although in places they have perhaps received Malayan blood.
As you can see above, these "races" are defined by phenotype and that is unscientific and not based on anything other than that. And that is where these ideas come from and even they cannot segregate so-called "Negritoes" from indigenous populations because they are all Asians and come from the same common ancestry. And this is what I am calling "racial models" of history.
Again using phenotype to define races implying that "pygmies" are an ancient race of Asia. As if all OOA populations at some time were pygmies, which is absolutely false.
Here is another recent work stating the same thing I am saying.
quote: The Maniq of southern Thailand is one of the last remaining practicing hunter-gatherer communities in the world. However, our knowledge on their genetic origins and demographic history is still largely limited. We present here the genotype data covering ∼2.3 million single nucleotide polymorphisms of 11 unrelated Maniq individuals. Our analyses reveal the Maniq to be closely related to the Semang populations of Malaysia (Malay Negritos), who altogether carry an Andamanese-related ancestry linked to the ancient Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers of Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA). Moreover, the Maniq possess ∼35% East Asian-related ancestry, likely brought about by recent admixture with surrounding agriculturist communities in the region. In addition, the Maniq exhibit one of the highest levels of genetic differentiation found among living human populations, indicative of their small population size and historical practice of endogamy. Similar to other hunter-gatherer populations of MSEA, we also find the Maniq to possess low levels of Neanderthal ancestry and undetectable levels of Denisovan ancestry. Altogether, we reveal the Maniq to be a Semang group that experienced intense genetic drift and exhibits signs of ancient Hòabìnhian ancestry.
...
The Maniq (also known as Kensiu) are a society of ∼250 hunter-gatherers (Eberhard et al. 2019) who reside in the remaining arboreous hills of southern Thailand (Kricheff and Lukas 2015). They are culturally classified as one of the “Semang” groups of Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA), which include the Orang Semang indigenous cultural communities of Peninsular Malaysia, such as the Batek (“Bateq”), Jehai (“Jahai”), Kintaq, and Mendriq. The Semang are loosely labeled together as the “Negritos,” grouped with the other indigenous cultural communities of the region including the Andamanese (e.g., Onge or Jarawa) and the Philippine Negritos (e.g., Ayta, Agta, or Mamanwa) (Barrows 1910; Radcliffe-Brown 2013). This classification is mainly based on the early anthropological descriptions of the characteristic Negrito phenotype of these populations: on average short stature, frizzier hair, and darker skin color (Barrows 1910; Evans 1968; Radcliffe-Brown 2013).
...
We present in this study the first comprehensive investigation on the genetic origins and ancestry of the Maniq of Thailand, who are considered as one of the last remaining primary hunter-gatherers in the region (Kelly 2013). Our genome-wide analyses reveal that the Maniq population form a clade with the Semang groups of MSEA, who altogether carry high levels of Andamanese-related genetic ancestry. Among the Semang, the Maniq cluster more closely to the Bateq and the Kintaq, than to Jehai and Mendriq (fig. 6 and supplementary fig. 12, Supplementary Material online). This is in line with the earlier anthropological descriptions of the Maniq (Brandt 1961), where they were regarded to share common cultural features with the Semang groups of Peninsular Malaysia, indicating a shared history and origins. Both the Maniq and the Malay Semang do trade their goods with other non-Semang groups of MSEA. In addition, they also speak a language that is altogether classified under the Aslian branch of the Austroasiatic language family. In contrast to the Malay Semang, the Maniq do not subsist on agriculture or practice any animal husbandry, they solely rely on hunting and gathering as their mode of subsistence (Lukas 2004). Of course, this is only true for those Maniq that still live according to their traditional lifestyle and did not transition to a sedentary way of life.
The foraging form of subsistence can be traced back to the earliest “first layer” migrants of MSEA, the ancient Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers. Hence, like the Malay Semang, we find the Maniq to possess strong genetic affiliation with the 8,000-year-old Lao Hòabìnhian individual. Historically, populations with high levels of Hòabìnhian-related genetic ancestry were more widespread in East Asia; aside from Laos, they are also found in southern China (Wang et al. 2021) and as far as the Japanese archipelago (McColl et al. 2018). Due to the recent expansion of East Asian-related groups, the Hòabìnhian-related cultural communities were either displaced, replaced, or absorbed into the larger population of farmer migrants. Though this is not the case with the Maniq, who were remained to be largely isolated and retained to be hunter gatherers, making them one of the few groups in mainland Asia carrying high levels of Hòabìnhian-related ancestry
Note the last part, where again Hoabinhian ancestry is separated from ancestral "East Asian" populations, which again makes no sense.
And to see further how convoluted this history of Asia is, with Asians seemingly "magically" coming of nowhere 10,000 years ago and then spreading across Asia, you can just look at the following:
quote: Analyzing ancient genomes
In 2016, I joined Dr. Qiaomei Fu’s Molecular Paleontology Lab at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. Our challenge: Resolve the history of humans in East Asia, with the help of collaborators who were long dead – ancient humans who lived up to tens of thousands of years ago in the region.
Members of the lab extracted and sequenced ancient DNA using human remains from archaeological sites. Then Dr. Fu and I used computational genomic tools to assess how their DNA related to that of previously sequenced ancient and present-day humans.
One of our sequences came from ancient DNA extracted from the leg bones of the Tianyuan Man, a 40,000-year-old individual discovered near a famous paleoanthropological site in western Beijing. One of the earliest modern humans found in East Asia, his genetic sequence marks him as an early ancestor of today’s Asians and Native Americans. That he lived where China’s current capital stands indicates that the ancestors of today’s Asians began placing roots in East Asia as early as 40,000 years ago.
Farther south, two 8,000- to 4,000-year-old Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers from Laos and Malaysia associated with the Hòabìnhian culture have DNA that, like the Tianyuan Man, shows they’re early ancestors of Asians and Native Americans. These two came from a completely different lineage than the Tianyuan Man, which suggested that many genetically distinct populations occupied Asia in the past.
But no humans today share the same genetic makeup as either Hòabìnhians or the Tianyuan Man, in both East and Southeast Asia. Why did ancestries that persisted for so long vanish from the gene pool of people alive now? Ancient farmers carry the key to that answer.
Based on plant remains found at archaeological sites, scientists know that people domesticated millet in northern China’s Yellow River region about 10,000 years ago. Around the same time, people in southern China’s Yangtze River region domesticated rice.
Unlike in Europe, plant domestication began locally and was not introduced from elsewhere. The process took thousands of years, and societies in East Asia grew increasingly complex, with the rise of the first dynasties around 4,000 years ago.
That’s also when rice cultivation appears to have spread from its origins to areas farther south, including lands that are today’s Southeast Asian countries. DNA helps tell the story. When rice farmers from southern China expanded southward, they introduced not only their farming technology but also their genetics to local populations of Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers.
The overpowering influx of their DNA ended up swamping the local gene pool. Today, little trace of hunter-gatherer ancestry remains in the genes of people who live in Southeast Asia.
And there in black and white, they are claiming that "East Asians" magically popped up out of Nowhere and swept across Asia with no genetic relationship to the aboriginal populations that existed before then.
That is the nonsense I am talking about. And most of that nonsense is based on missing data and old racial models not any data because obviously East Asians 10,000 years ago didn't just magically pop up out of nowhere. So there were no "asians" in Asia before that as the aborigines up to that point were all Africoid pymies with nappy hair. Asian features only came along after North East Asians began domesticating rice 10,000 years ago and bringing civilization to Asia. Therefore, if any "Negritoes" have Asian features it is because of mixture with these Northern Asians from after the Neolithic. Asian features did not evolve from the aboriginal populations of Asia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you keep tap dancing around the point. You keep saying that these so-called 'Malays' got their features from North East Asia. That has absolutely nothing to do with language. That is why I am calling it a "racial" term because it is absolutely being used in a "racial" way. And you yourself keep using terms like mongoloid yourself.
You have the same affliction as our recent troll and reading things I never wrote! I never said we "got our features from Northeast Asians" I said we share common ancestry as them! Language is part of ethnic heritage which is related to population, and while there is a relation between language and population the two are not synonymous. For example, Negritos of the Philippines are technically Austronesian speakers also but they obviously adopted their languages from original Austronesian speakers who are genetically different. The same way the aboriginal Munda of central-eastern India are Austro-Asian speakers but are genetically different from primary Austro-Asian populations. The same way indigenous Sinhalese of southern India are genetically no different from Dravidian speaking south Indians but genetically distinct from Indo-European speakers further north much less Europe. I'm speaking of the original populations from which those languages arose versus the languages themselves. primay Austronesians like primary Austroasiatics stem from the same common ancestry as other modern East Asians who were called "Mongoloid".
quote:When I say that all Asians get their features from aboriginal groups, what I am saying is that there were black aboriginal ancestors of the populations you call "malays" that were not "negritoes". I keep saying this and you keep dancing around this, because nowhere in anything you keep saying do you identify who the ancestors were of these groups other than "north Asians". As if to say, North Asians have no aboriginal origins for their diversity. That is what I am talking about. It is a racial model because it proposes that "North Asians", "mongoloids", "Malays" or whatever you want to call it, emerged "as a race" or "set of phenotypes" (which is equivalent to what I am calling race) separate from black aborigines. That is my point and that is what I am saying is BS and based on the idea that "superior northerners" brought civilization to Asia and that is where Asian culture came from. Not from any evolution among "black aborigines", with the negritoes being used as the stereotypical example of "wild savages" of ancient South East Asia.
You are making a straw doll. ALL peoples descend from black aboriginals including Europeans, so what are you complaining about? I'm merely saying the ancestors of Austronesians are not Austro-Melanesians and are more recent to Southeast Asia.
quote:Whether you like it or not, that is where all this comes from. And yes, it is absolutely no different than the pseudo-science of a "North African", "Mediterranean" or "Hamitic" race that is separate from "black African". And you yourself are claiming that this is what you mean and all of that is pseudo-scientific racial garbage.
Again I'm not subscribing to any race theories. I am referring population genetics. So your complaints are for nothing!
quote:Don't be confused, I am not saying there werent multiple waves of migration from SOuthern China towards the South. What I am saying is Northern Asians got their features going back 20,000 years from black aboriginal populations. But the reason this relationship to aborigines is being debated is again because of the myth that ALL aborigines in Asia were negritoes, which is absolutely and positively FALSE.
The only one confused here is YOU. Again I never said all black aborigines of Asia were Negritos! You are arguing against figments of your own imagination like that other troll but in your case it's worse!
quote:There was no "negrito" migration from Africa to Asia, just like there was no Australoid migration from Africa to Asia either or a Papuan migration from Africa to Asia. Meaning, those features among those different groups are the result of isolation and evolution that took place AFTER OOA and that does not mean that they always looked like that. Not to mention all the theories of mixture with other hominids that supposedly took place in Asia also have to be factored in. The point being that the history of Asian diversity is not simply "magical Asian features show up in the North" vs "negritoes in the south". That is literally nonsense.
Yet everywhere you look in the papers on the history of SEA, this is literally what you see:
quote: A central paradox in discussing the Philippine past is that the Philippines did not exist as such in the tenth century, or even in the sixteenth century when the archipelago received this name from colonizing Spaniards’ (Abinales and Amoroso, 2005: 19). Yet, today the Philippines is a sovereign nation with its own culture. The Philippines is an archipelago which consists of over 7,100 islands and islets with Luzon and Mindanao being the largest (Guillermo and Win, 2005).
Because of the climate and the apparent life-styles of individuals who lived in island Southeast Asia, there is little archeological evidence to give clues about what life was like in prehistoric times. It would seem there were few large settlements and the population in what was to become the Philippines was quite small (Bellwood, 1992).
Archeological evidence suggests the first humans to arrive in the area that is now the Philippines were from Asia and were Aetas or pygmies, yet these are not considered to be the ancestors of modern Filipinos. Later there was an influx of ‘Malays’ who are considered to be the ancestors of the modern Filipinos (Guillermo and Win, 2005: 2). There does appear to be linguistic links between languages of the Philippines such as Tagalog and Visayan with languages of the peoples who were living in what is now southern China of 4,000 years ago, which provides evidence of the probable ancestral mainland home of the people of the Philippines (Abinales and Amoroso, 2005: 20).
And nowhere do they provide any evidence that all ancient prehistoric populations of SEA or the Philippines were Negritoes. They just state it and thats it.
And when people cite sources for these theories, almost all of them go back to European race science of the early 1900s.
For example:
quote: There are several human populations scattered throughout SEA that are thought to be descendants of the “First Sundaland People.” They are collectively known as Negritos and are currently found in the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula and several islands in the Philippines. They have been traditionally associated with a hunter-gathering lifestyle, and also exhibit physical features that are distinct from their non-Negrito neighbors, namely short stature, frizzy hair, and dark skin (Barrows 1910; Radcliffe-Brown 1922; Evans 1937). These observations led to the idea that the Negritos might be closely related to African Pygmies who also exhibit similar phenotypes (Howells 1973). Alternatively, the similar phenotypes may have arisen due to adaptation to relatively similar environmental conditions in Africa and Southeast Asia (Coon 1965), namely convergent evolution.
Which is what I said and I can support that, based on all these current papers still referencing those old works. And the irony here is that almost all of these works make it clear that many of these populations claimed as separate, have obvious affinity with so-called "Negritoes" and aren't really "separate populations". Meaning they are all related and not simply a "separate race" that magically popped up out of nowhere.
And these are the works reference in this quote: The Negrito and Allied Types in the Phillippines
quote: NiNE years of residence and travel in the Philippines have produced the conviction that in discussions of the ethnology of Malaysia, and particularly of the Philippines, the Negrito element has been slighted. Much has been made of the "Indonesian theory and far too much of pre-Spanish Chinese influence, but th result to the physical types found in the Philippines of the constan absorption of the Negrito race into the Malayan and the wide prevalence of Negrito blood in all classes of islanders has been generally overlooked.
The object of this paper is to present some physical measure- ments of the Negrito and then of several other pagan peoples of the islands whose types, as determined by measurement and obser vation, reveal the presence of Negrito blood.
....
Meyer's Distribution of the Negritos in the Philippines and Elsewhere is a very valuable sifting of the evidence, but it is not final, as was quickly apparent eight years ago when we came to locate Negritos on the ground. There are none for instance in Cebu, where Meyer was led to place them, and it is certain that they live in Guimaras and on Palawan. Those of the last island are a very curious people, locally called "Batak." They were first described in a brief note with photographs by Lieutenant E. Y. Miller published by the Philippine Ethnological Survey in volume II of its Publications. Doubt has been cast on the Negrito character these people, some supposing them to be predominantly Malay but there is no doubt about their being Negrito, although in places they have perhaps received Malayan blood.
As you can see above, these "races" are defined by phenotype and that is unscientific and not based on anything other than that. And that is where these ideas come from and even they cannot segregate so-called "Negritoes" from indigenous populations because they are all Asians and come from the same common ancestry. And this is what I am calling "racial models" of history.
Again using phenotype to define races implying that "pygmies" are an ancient race of Asia. As if all OOA populations at some time were pygmies, which is absolutely false.
Here is another recent work stating the same thing I am saying.
quote: The Maniq of southern Thailand is one of the last remaining practicing hunter-gatherer communities in the world. However, our knowledge on their genetic origins and demographic history is still largely limited. We present here the genotype data covering ∼2.3 million single nucleotide polymorphisms of 11 unrelated Maniq individuals. Our analyses reveal the Maniq to be closely related to the Semang populations of Malaysia (Malay Negritos), who altogether carry an Andamanese-related ancestry linked to the ancient Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers of Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA). Moreover, the Maniq possess ∼35% East Asian-related ancestry, likely brought about by recent admixture with surrounding agriculturist communities in the region. In addition, the Maniq exhibit one of the highest levels of genetic differentiation found among living human populations, indicative of their small population size and historical practice of endogamy. Similar to other hunter-gatherer populations of MSEA, we also find the Maniq to possess low levels of Neanderthal ancestry and undetectable levels of Denisovan ancestry. Altogether, we reveal the Maniq to be a Semang group that experienced intense genetic drift and exhibits signs of ancient Hòabìnhian ancestry.
...
The Maniq (also known as Kensiu) are a society of ∼250 hunter-gatherers (Eberhard et al. 2019) who reside in the remaining arboreous hills of southern Thailand (Kricheff and Lukas 2015). They are culturally classified as one of the “Semang” groups of Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA), which include the Orang Semang indigenous cultural communities of Peninsular Malaysia, such as the Batek (“Bateq”), Jehai (“Jahai”), Kintaq, and Mendriq. The Semang are loosely labeled together as the “Negritos,” grouped with the other indigenous cultural communities of the region including the Andamanese (e.g., Onge or Jarawa) and the Philippine Negritos (e.g., Ayta, Agta, or Mamanwa) (Barrows 1910; Radcliffe-Brown 2013). This classification is mainly based on the early anthropological descriptions of the characteristic Negrito phenotype of these populations: on average short stature, frizzier hair, and darker skin color (Barrows 1910; Evans 1968; Radcliffe-Brown 2013).
...
We present in this study the first comprehensive investigation on the genetic origins and ancestry of the Maniq of Thailand, who are considered as one of the last remaining primary hunter-gatherers in the region (Kelly 2013). Our genome-wide analyses reveal that the Maniq population form a clade with the Semang groups of MSEA, who altogether carry high levels of Andamanese-related genetic ancestry. Among the Semang, the Maniq cluster more closely to the Bateq and the Kintaq, than to Jehai and Mendriq (fig. 6 and supplementary fig. 12, Supplementary Material online). This is in line with the earlier anthropological descriptions of the Maniq (Brandt 1961), where they were regarded to share common cultural features with the Semang groups of Peninsular Malaysia, indicating a shared history and origins. Both the Maniq and the Malay Semang do trade their goods with other non-Semang groups of MSEA. In addition, they also speak a language that is altogether classified under the Aslian branch of the Austroasiatic language family. In contrast to the Malay Semang, the Maniq do not subsist on agriculture or practice any animal husbandry, they solely rely on hunting and gathering as their mode of subsistence (Lukas 2004). Of course, this is only true for those Maniq that still live according to their traditional lifestyle and did not transition to a sedentary way of life.
The foraging form of subsistence can be traced back to the earliest “first layer” migrants of MSEA, the ancient Hòabìnhian hunter-gatherers. Hence, like the Malay Semang, we find the Maniq to possess strong genetic affiliation with the 8,000-year-old Lao Hòabìnhian individual. Historically, populations with high levels of Hòabìnhian-related genetic ancestry were more widespread in East Asia; aside from Laos, they are also found in southern China (Wang et al. 2021) and as far as the Japanese archipelago (McColl et al. 2018). Due to the recent expansion of East Asian-related groups, the Hòabìnhian-related cultural communities were either displaced, replaced, or absorbed into the larger population of farmer migrants. Though this is not the case with the Maniq, who were remained to be largely isolated and retained to be hunter gatherers, making them one of the few groups in mainland Asia carrying high levels of Hòabìnhian-related ancestry
Note the last part, where again Hoabinhian ancestry is separated from ancestral "East Asian" populations, which again makes no sense.
And to see further how convoluted this history of Asia is, with Asians seemingly "magically" coming of nowhere 10,000 years ago and then spreading across Asia, you can just look at the following:
quote: Analyzing ancient genomes
In 2016, I joined Dr. Qiaomei Fu’s Molecular Paleontology Lab at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. Our challenge: Resolve the history of humans in East Asia, with the help of collaborators who were long dead – ancient humans who lived up to tens of thousands of years ago in the region.
Members of the lab extracted and sequenced ancient DNA using human remains from archaeological sites. Then Dr. Fu and I used computational genomic tools to assess how their DNA related to that of previously sequenced ancient and present-day humans.
One of our sequences came from ancient DNA extracted from the leg bones of the Tianyuan Man, a 40,000-year-old individual discovered near a famous paleoanthropological site in western Beijing. One of the earliest modern humans found in East Asia, his genetic sequence marks him as an early ancestor of today’s Asians and Native Americans. That he lived where China’s current capital stands indicates that the ancestors of today’s Asians began placing roots in East Asia as early as 40,000 years ago.
Farther south, two 8,000- to 4,000-year-old Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers from Laos and Malaysia associated with the Hòabìnhian culture have DNA that, like the Tianyuan Man, shows they’re early ancestors of Asians and Native Americans. These two came from a completely different lineage than the Tianyuan Man, which suggested that many genetically distinct populations occupied Asia in the past.
But no humans today share the same genetic makeup as either Hòabìnhians or the Tianyuan Man, in both East and Southeast Asia. Why did ancestries that persisted for so long vanish from the gene pool of people alive now? Ancient farmers carry the key to that answer.
Based on plant remains found at archaeological sites, scientists know that people domesticated millet in northern China’s Yellow River region about 10,000 years ago. Around the same time, people in southern China’s Yangtze River region domesticated rice.
Unlike in Europe, plant domestication began locally and was not introduced from elsewhere. The process took thousands of years, and societies in East Asia grew increasingly complex, with the rise of the first dynasties around 4,000 years ago.
That’s also when rice cultivation appears to have spread from its origins to areas farther south, including lands that are today’s Southeast Asian countries. DNA helps tell the story. When rice farmers from southern China expanded southward, they introduced not only their farming technology but also their genetics to local populations of Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers.
The overpowering influx of their DNA ended up swamping the local gene pool. Today, little trace of hunter-gatherer ancestry remains in the genes of people who live in Southeast Asia.
And there in black and white, they are claiming that "East Asians" magically popped up out of Nowhere and swept across Asia with no genetic relationship to the aboriginal populations that existed before then.
That is the nonsense I am talking about. And most of that nonsense is based on missing data and old racial models not any data because obviously East Asians 10,000 years ago didn't just magically pop up out of nowhere. So there were no "asians" in Asia before that as the aborigines up to that point were all Africoid pymies with nappy hair. Asian features only came along after North East Asians began domesticating rice 10,000 years ago and bringing civilization to Asia. Therefore, if any "Negritoes" have Asian features it is because of mixture with these Northern Asians from after the Neolithic. Asian features did not evolve from the aboriginal populations of Asia.
Dude, I never said "Negritos" were the only aboriginal blacks or that all black aborigines had to all looked a certain way. My reference was to the aborigines of the Philippines alone, and my point is that ethnic Filipinos or rather Austronesians do no descend from them.
You waste your time and energy typing these long winded responses based on straw dolls. You did not refute anything I said about Filipino or Southeast Asian genetic ancestry. How come you did not address the findings of the Larena et al. article?
I'm starting to believe you too are in need of mental help yourself.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: According to genetics findings the ancestors of "Mongloids" i.e. East Asians descend from another branch of Eurasians than Australo-Melanesians.
By the way, just to show how ancient they are, even so-called "Negritos" are genetically heterogeneous.
^ The purple region shows Philippine 'Negritos' who already show Austronesian admixture.
Here is a really good summary of the 2021 Larena et al. paper by a Japanese researcher:
These should be a good reads for you Brandon, and I hope Doug can digest its meaning.
I remember what you were claiming earlier is that East Asians share common ancestry with West Eurasians to the exclusion of Australasians. I'm not seeing that from the phylogenetic trees in the genetic research so far. It looks more to me like East Asians and Australasians are sibling groups descended from a common "Ancient East Eurasian" population that had already split from West Eurasians. Even what you link to supports that scenario.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The only one confused here is YOU. Again I never said all black aborigines of Asia were Negritos! You are arguing against figments of your own imagination like that other troll but in your case it's worse!
But you literally keep saying that the Austronesians and Malays do not descend from black aborigines. So where do they descend from? You literally keep saying that as if East Asians have no aboriginal ancestry at all. Who do the East Asians descend from? And we are only going back 15,000 years here according to the idea that these expansions happened after 10,000 years ago. You cannot compare an aboriginal group who has lineages going back to 40 or 50 thousand years to a group that only goes back 10,000 years. The point is to compare apples and apples. So if there was a separate aboriginal group that migrated into East Asia as the common ancestor of al east Asians then that aboriginal group has to also have some relationship to these other aboriginal populations like the Andamanese, Australians and Papuans. That is an apples to apples comparison. Everything you keep saying skips over that and just focuses on "Negritoes" as the only aboriginal population in Asia. And I know this is because of their isolation and survival into the modern day. But you cannot model ancient population history based only on that kind of relic population which is an outlier. And I mean "you" in an general sense referring to much of the scholarship on the subject which uses the same kind of models.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Dude, I never said "Negritos" were the only aboriginal blacks or that all black aborigines had to all looked a certain way. My reference was to the aborigines of the Philippines alone, and my point is that ethnic Filipinos or rather Austronesians do no descend from them.
You waste your time and energy typing these long winded responses based on straw dolls. You did not refute anything I said about Filipino or Southeast Asian genetic ancestry. How come you did not address the findings of the Larena et al. article?
I'm starting to believe you too are in need of mental help yourself.
Dude. Calm down. Again, this isn't about you per se. I keep saying that most of this comes from scholarship on SEA and I gave you the references showing that modern population studies STILL TO THIS DAY reference early European works from the 1900s which were overtly race oriented. And beyond that, I gave you the literal sources for this. Not to mention sources showing how they push the idea that East Asians are the basis for all Asian diversity starting from the Neolithic. I literally gave you the sources for this and this is the underlying model of both the Malay and Austronesian spread into SEA Asia and the Pacific.
The point I am making is that at no time is the aboriginal population of East Asians being identified. So fine, if it is not the Aeta, then it has to be some other aboriginal population. These farmers in East Asia did not pop up out of nowhere. There had to be an aboriginal ancestor of the East Asians and that aboriginal ancestor did not have to be "negrito". But either way, if all these papers are using Negritos as proxies for ancient prehistoric Asian aboriginal populations, then where did all the other non negrito features come from? Either they came after the development of agriculture in East Asia (which is very similar to the Mongoloid racial theory) or they came from some other aboriginal population that these papers have not identified. Not to mention these aborinal negrito populations are tiny and in no way represents all the aboriginal populations present in ancient Asia.
While you may not be talking about race, all these models are still based on old European theories that were based on race. It cannot be avoided if they are being used as a reference by so many current papers.
And from the source you cited it says:
quote: All modern and ancient East-Eurasians, descend from an Basal-East Asian source population in Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA).
Which agrees with what I said, that all aboriginal puplations in Asia were not "negritoes". "Negritoes" are simply one relic population that has maintained its distinct lineage due to isolation. So the fact that they are isolated makes them a BAD PROXY for ancient aboriginal ancestors of East Asians. Which is what I keep saying but somehow you refuse to understand that. And the fact that this ancient ancestral population existed in SEA means they were tropically adapted, ie. black, which means it is impossible that so-called "brown Malays" descend from something other than an ancient ancestral black aboriginal population, even if it wasn't "the negritoes". The main problem is that while this source says that East Asians descend from an ancient SEA population, most models of population history in SEA use "negritoes" as proxies for all ancient SEA populations before the sinking of Sundaland. Which makes no sense and is contradictory. I have said this multiple times.
Maybe if I say it this way it will make more sense: Lets switch Negritoes with Australian Aborigines. If someone was to say that East Asians (or Malays and certain Filipinos) are not descended from Australian Aborigines, I would not be upset or shocked. Why? Because aborigines have been isolated in Australia for 50,000 years. So they could not be the direct ancestors of modern East Asians. Same thing with the "negritoes". The point is there was ANOTHER aboriginal population that coexisted at the same time as the Australian Aborigines and later Negritoes who are ancestors of modern East/South East Asians. That is ALL I am saying.
Here is an image of this from the source you posted:
The only problem I have with this is it keeps pushing these ethnic cleansing scenarios as if populations kept being erased by later expansions from East Asia. I surely would like to see actual remains and DNA samples from these different time periods to confirm this. Because it just sounds very over simplistic.
Not to mention this same source claims that East Asians looked like this 32,000 years ago. So it is about "race" (as in phenotype features unique to one population):
And he actually addresses this in the page:
quote: Here we see a ancient reconstruction from China. It is based on forensic reconstructions, but the skin colour may have been darker. Race and anthropologic characteristic are not dependent on skin colour. Skin colour is the least relevant thing regarding race. Skull structure and genetics are probably the only scientific was to differentiate human populations.
But again, like I keep saying, there aren't many actual remains being used in most of these studies because they don't exist or are very rare.
So at the end of the day, the phenotypic diversity of Asian features has always existed and the genetic evolution and migrations is not the basis of that phenotype diversity even though it has had an impact obviously over time. And the old models of European race anthropology are basically models based on the history and origin of phenotype more than anything else. Unfortunately because of the history of SEA studies being based on these old European models, race still plays a factor on some level even when discussing DNA.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
By the way, there is possible skeletal evidence for Negrito-like populations inhabiting the island of Taiwan prior to the arrival of later proto-Austronesian people during the Neolithic.
quote:Taiwan is known as the homeland of the Austronesian-speaking groups, yet other populations already had lived here since the Pleistocene. Conventional notions have postulated that the Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers were replaced or absorbed into the Neolithic Austronesian farming communities. Yet, some evidence has indicated that sparse numbers of non-Austronesian individuals continued to live in the remote mountains as late as the 1800s. The cranial morphometric study of human skeletal remains unearthed from the Xiaoma Caves in eastern Taiwan, for the first time, validates the prior existence of small stature hunter-gatherers 6000 years ago in the preceramic phase. This female individual shared remarkable cranial affinities and small stature characteristics with the Indigenous Southeast Asians, particularly the Negritos in northern Luzon. This study solves the several-hundred-years-old mysteries of ‘little black people’ legends in Formosan Austronesian tribes and brings insights into the broader prehistory of Southeast Asia.
This makes me wonder about the region of Hong Kong, where I went to high school. In the early historic era, a people called the Baiyue would have dominated the area of southern China, and they seem to have been related to modern Southeast Asians, especially the Vietnamese. But I wonder if there were Negrito-like peoples in the Chinese subtropics in earlier periods as well. Those Taiwanese Negritos had to come from somewhere.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: By the way, there is possible skeletal evidence for Negrito-like populations inhabiting the island of Taiwan prior to the arrival of later proto-Austronesian people during the Neolithic.
quote:Taiwan is known as the homeland of the Austronesian-speaking groups, yet other populations already had lived here since the Pleistocene. Conventional notions have postulated that the Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers were replaced or absorbed into the Neolithic Austronesian farming communities. Yet, some evidence has indicated that sparse numbers of non-Austronesian individuals continued to live in the remote mountains as late as the 1800s. The cranial morphometric study of human skeletal remains unearthed from the Xiaoma Caves in eastern Taiwan, for the first time, validates the prior existence of small stature hunter-gatherers 6000 years ago in the preceramic phase. This female individual shared remarkable cranial affinities and small stature characteristics with the Indigenous Southeast Asians, particularly the Negritos in northern Luzon. This study solves the several-hundred-years-old mysteries of ‘little black people’ legends in Formosan Austronesian tribes and brings insights into the broader prehistory of Southeast Asia.
This makes me wonder about the region of Hong Kong, where I went to high school. In the early historic era, a people called the Baiyue would have dominated the area of southern China, and they seem to have been related to modern Southeast Asians, especially the Vietnamese. But I wonder if there were Negrito-like peoples in the Chinese subtropics in earlier periods as well. Those Taiwanese Negritos had to come from somewhere.
The issue with the "Negrito" theory is that there is no way to explain where modern Asian diversity came from if all the original aborigines were short negritoes. Where did the tall Mongolians come from then? That is why there are so many theories of waves of OOA that settled Asia. And also, we know there was no wave of "negritoes" that left Africa in OOA and no wave of "Australoids" meaning these features evolved later, but many scholars have tried to use this diversity in living aboriginal populations to propose these ideas of "waves" of OOA in Asia. That doesn't mean that there WERENT waves of settlement in Asia after OOA, just that the physical features of surviving aboriginal groups are not 'proof' of it necessarily. Meaning they evolved these features after OOA. This is part of the problem with looking at isolates like modern "negritoes" because they are unique, with their own unique evolutionary characteristics that come from evolution in isolation. Most human evolution did not take place like that. Therefore "negritoes" are no more representative physically of what OOA populations looked like than Australian Aborigines are. And both of them are simply subsets of the original diversity of OOA populations.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The issue with the "Negrito" theory is that there is no way to explain where modern Asian diversity came from if all the original aborigines were short negritoes. Where did the tall Mongolians come from then? That is why there are so many theories of waves of OOA that settled Asia. And also, we know there was no wave of "negritoes" that left Africa in OOA and no wave of "Australoids" meaning these features evolved later, but many scholars have tried to use this diversity in living aboriginal populations to propose these ideas of "waves" of OOA in Asia. That doesn't mean that there WERENT waves of settlement in Asia after OOA, just that the physical features of surviving aboriginal groups are not 'proof' of it necessarily. Meaning they evolved these features after OOA. This is part of the problem with looking at isolates like modern "negritoes" because they are unique, with their own unique evolutionary characteristics that come from evolution in isolation. Most human evolution did not take place like that. Therefore "negritoes" are no more representative physically of what OOA populations looked like than Australian Aborigines are. And both of them are simply subsets of the original diversity of OOA populations.
I believe they concluded the prehistoric Taiwanese woman was Negrito-like in phenotype based on her cranial features as well as the dimensions of her skeletal remains. It's not just unfounded speculation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The issue with the "Negrito" theory is that there is no way to explain where modern Asian diversity came from if all the original aborigines were short negritoes. Where did the tall Mongolians come from then? That is why there are so many theories of waves of OOA that settled Asia. And also, we know there was no wave of "negritoes" that left Africa in OOA and no wave of "Australoids" meaning these features evolved later, but many scholars have tried to use this diversity in living aboriginal populations to propose these ideas of "waves" of OOA in Asia. That doesn't mean that there WERENT waves of settlement in Asia after OOA, just that the physical features of surviving aboriginal groups are not 'proof' of it necessarily. Meaning they evolved these features after OOA. This is part of the problem with looking at isolates like modern "negritoes" because they are unique, with their own unique evolutionary characteristics that come from evolution in isolation. Most human evolution did not take place like that. Therefore "negritoes" are no more representative physically of what OOA populations looked like than Australian Aborigines are. And both of them are simply subsets of the original diversity of OOA populations.
I believe they concluded the prehistoric Taiwanese woman was Negrito-like in phenotype based on her cranial features as well as the dimensions of her skeletal remains. It's not just unfounded speculation.
Again, you are talking about something totally different. The existence of negritoes in remote and isolated areas does not prove that all ancient populations in Taiwan or any other part of Asia were Negritoes. It totally ignores the fact that the reason they survived is due to their isolation and therefore does not prove that all ancient aboriginal populations were Negritoes. That is just flawed logic. To prove that they would need more human remains from ancient times. And basically all they have right now is speculation. The ancestors of the Australian aborigines and Papuans migrated through Sundaland and they aren't "Negritoes" so obviously the original OOA aboriginal population of Asia weren't "Negritoes". Because if that was true, then that would also mean the OOA populations that left Africa were also Negritoes and we also know that isn't true. All I am saying is that the populations of Asia have always been diverse, some tall, some short, some with straight hair, some with curly hair, some with robust features, others with more narrow features, but that has always been there since OOA. It isn't something new that just came about recently and is part of the evolution of populations in Asia.
quote: Yet, some evidence has indicated that sparse numbers of non-Austronesian individuals continued to live in the remote mountains as late as the 1800s.
By the nature of their remoteness and isolation it means the Negritoes generally would not have had an impact genetically on the general populations of these areas over time as a direct ancestor. That is the whole point. I don't see how people cannot grasp that simple idea. They weren't the only aborigines in South East Asia and Sundaland. It was the other aboriginal groups who didn't stay isolated and moved around in different directions that are the common ancestor of modern Asians.
These are tiny populations who stayed in far remote areas and do not represent all aboriginal populations at any point of time in SEA. This is the simplistic nonsense I am arguing against. And the facts of how these aborigines stayed isolated is something well known but people ignore the implications of it. Keep in mind that the Andamanese are well known for resisting modern human contact. So you cannot expect that they were more sociable and open in ancient times and also maintained their unique genetic signature. That is a total and complete misunderstanding of what they represent.
And the reason for that misunderstanding is because they have few remains from the paleolithic and prior in SEA. Most remains come from the Neolithic. That skull on Taiwan is the only paleolithic skull that has been found on the island.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Bro, I'm not going to argue with your straw doll points. I will just clarify the graphs you posted.
Southeast Asia populated in multiple waves. Here are the waves that occurred AFTER Sahulese (Austalo-Melanesian ancestors):
^ Perhaps what's confusing is the use of modern specific ethnic names for the genetic ancestries being described.
But here is another simplistic model.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember what you were claiming earlier is that East Asians share common ancestry with West Eurasians to the exclusion of Australasians. I'm not seeing that from the phylogenetic trees in the genetic research so far. It looks more to me like East Asians and Australasians are sibling groups descended from a common "Ancient East Eurasian" population that had already split from West Eurasians. Even what you link to supports that scenario.
I need to clarify. Proto-East Asians descend from a different branch of Eastern Eurasians than Australo-Melanesians who descend from Sahulese ancestors, both descend from 'Western Eurasians' but from different branches so to speak.
Here's one PCA graph.
^ Note how long in distance the African samples are with 'North Africans' of course being closest spatially to 'West Eurasians' and the group at the other end labeled simply as 'Africans' should actually be labeled 'South Africans'. The areas with richest samples are West Eurasians and East Asians due to bias in sampling via labs in Europe and the Middle East vs. labs in China, Japan etc. Note also the gaps in between. the population groups. South Asians are positioned in between East Eurasians and Australo-Melanesians but note that aboriginal group closest to East Asians is the Onge/Andamanese!
Here is another PCA but without South Asians:
^ Here you can see that Philippine Negritos are relatively closest to Australo-Melanesians but not identical to them. Meanwhile of all Negrito groups, the Andamanese Onge are closest to East Asians with Hoabinians being intermediate between the two.
Here another graph from the 2020 Jomon genetics paper showing the presumed genetic branching.
^ The red line represents the ancestry of the Jomon sample. But you can clearly see the relationship between Onge with 'Basal East Eurasians'. By the way, I agree with Razib Khan that the term 'Basal East Eurasian' is rather specious especially since the archaeo-genetics of East Eurasian is relatively more recent and not as extensive as West Eurasia, not to mention that there still gaps in the genetic history not to mention the ghost populations that we don't know much of. Take Population Y for instance which I like to call 'Basal East Asian'. If they were included in that graph I believe they would be somewhere between the Jomon and Onge. Also the small twig labeled La368 is the Laotian Hoabinhian sample.
So yes there is a relationship between modern 'mongoloid' Southeast Asians and Australo-Melanesians, and that is through the Philippine Negritos some of whom mixed with basal or ancestral East Asians. The latter are perhaps best represented by the Andamanese Negritos who if anything best represents those black ancestors of basal East Asians who remained in the tropics!
Here's another:
^ The vague red lines represent admixture between populations. The Philippine Negritos received admixture from East Asians than the other way around.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Bro, I'm not going to argue with your straw doll points. I will just clarify the graphs you posted.
Southeast Asia populated in multiple waves. Here are the waves that occurred AFTER Sahulese (Austalo-Melanesian ancestors):
^ Perhaps what's confusing is the use of modern specific ethnic names for the genetic ancestries being described.
But here is another simplistic model.
There is no straw man and nothing is confusing on my part. I have made myself clear multiple times, there there was no single "type" of aborigine in ancient South East Asia. Period. That's all I am saying.
Because otherwise, the simplistic silly explanation of Asian diversity boils down to:
Step 1: "Negritoes" (short, kinky haired populations) migrated into South East Asia.
My problems with this are: Where is the proof that all the first OOA settlers in Sundaland/South East Asia were Negritoes? Any 50,000 year old Negrito skeletons? Where did these "negrito" features come from? Did directly come out of Africa? Did it evolve on the way to SEA? No explanation is given. And the bottom line point is that this proposes that there was no diversity in features among the original OOA settlers of SEA, they were all one type and thats it. Which then becomes a "racial archetype" for all ancient aborigines in Asia.
Step 2: In North East Asia, a distinct population arose separate from the little negroes, evolved all the diversity and features of modern Asians and those populations introduced Asian features into SEA starting 10-20Kya via waves of migration.
OK fine lets say that this is true. According to this model, sometime long after Negritoes settled South East Asia, the diversity of Asian features evolved in North East Asia, while "negritoes" stayed the same over thousands of years. Full stop. That's where I smell racial theories and pseudo science. Because it is a flawed model. And the biggest problem with it is the idea that the original populations of SEA were all little negroes who only had one type of features and stayed the same as a fixed population over thousands of years. But somehow in North East Asia there was all this evolution of features and diversity SEPARATE from the little negroes. As if evolution and diversity was not already present among the original OOA populations of Asia.
I am not disagreeing with waves of populations moving around in Asia and evolving over thousands of years. What I am disagreeing with is the idea of Asian diversity originating SOLELY with "basal Eurasians" as some kind of proxy for a "racial archetype" for all Asian features SEPARATE from the aborigine of Asia. And this is the part I am saying that is derived from old European racial models of the early 1900s and yes, all of that is based on specious theories on the evolution and migration of culture and language. Because LITERALLY those models proposed that SEA originally was settled by wild, savage and uncivilized little negroes and it wasn't until superior light skinned North East Asians evolved that culture and civilization arrived in Asia. In fact, at one time the term Orang-utan was supposed to be a reference to some of these little negro groups as in "forest man".
I have provided the sources for this. Like I said, this isn't about you perse but the semantics around this discussion are consistently the same across all these papers. Which points out that these talking point and way of framing the narrative all come from that same European source and therefore continue to be the basis of these models into the current day.
My point is Asians were always diverse. There was never a single "type" of aborigine in Asia and all Asian diversity extends from the diversity in Asian features that existed since OOA. And of course evolution and migration on top of that results in Asian features and distribution you see today. But that is not a simple model at all like the one most often proposed and with which you seem to agree.
From the paper Brandon posted:
quote: Negritos in Southeast Asia have been described as the ‘First Sundaland People,’ implying that their direct ancestors had inhabited Southeast Asia ever since the Pleistocene, much earlier than the non-Negrito farmers who arrived here during the late Holocene (e.g. Bellwood Citation2017; Jinam et al. Citation2017). The Negrito Hypothesis proposes that the shared phenotype among various hunter-gatherer groups in Southeast Asia is due to common descent from a pre-Neolithic substrate of humanity, and the alternative view is that their distinctive phenotype results from convergent evolution (Endicott Citation2013). For instance, a half-century ago, Howells (Citation1973) suggested that the Negritos might be related to African Pygmies of similar phenotypes, and Coon (Citation1965) proposed a convergent evolution model in the natural environments of Africa and Southeast Asia. Today, the issue of the Negrito Hypothesis is still of great interest to many disciplines, which is related directly to human evolution, ecological adaption, the Out-of-Africa migration, and admixture with Denisovans, East Asian-related or other ancestries (Endicott Citation2013).
....
In a previous study of the dispersal process of AMH (anatomically modern humans) in eastern Eurasia, we proposed a two-layer model based on cranial datasets of male specimens (Matsumura et al. Citation2019). We emphasised that the initial human colonists (first layer) of southern China and Southeast Asia – akin to current indigenous Australo-Melanesians – were encountered later by migrants (second layer) possessing the morphological characteristics adapted to a cold climate probably in the northern Eurasia. The dispersal of this second layer in vast quantities involved the large-scale demic expansion of agriculturists from the Neolithic period onward. This two-layer model of population expansion has been supported strongly by genome-wide ancient DNA analyses in East/Southeast Asia (e.g. Lipson et al. Citation2018; McColl et al. Citation2018; Wang et al. Citation2021; Choin et al. Citation2021). These genomic studies further suggest that the first layer, consisting of Hoabinhian in Mainland Southeast Asia, shared common genetic resources with the ancient Jomon people in Japan (McColl et al. Citation2018), given the corresponding cranial morphometric affinities between these populations.
Now to show how all of that narrative is totally based on pseudo-science, you only have to look at the actual history of South East Asia. The first Empires of South East Asia were those speaking AustroAsiatic languages, such as the Mon and Khmer empires. And these empires were associated with Indo Dravidians from South Asia. That includes the Khmer empire in Cambodia and the Dvaravati Kingdom in Thailand. And obviously these populations were not little negroes yet they also spoke languages from the same family as some "negrito" populations. Obviously the Khmer were a population derived from ancient South East Asians who were not Negritoes. Some of them are in the photos I posted on this thread.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I never said there was a "single type" of Aborigine and I proved that with all the autosomal graphs I've shown. I also never said "Asian features evolved in Northeast Asia". Where is Northeast Asia in the map I showed??! I suggest you actually read what I posted instead of imagining what I posted!!
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So yes there is a relationship between modern 'mongoloid' Southeast Asians and Australo-Melanesians, and that is through the Philippine Negritos some of whom mixed with basal or ancestral East Asians. The latter are perhaps best represented by the Andamanese Negritos who if anything best represents those black ancestors of basal East Asians who remained in the tropics
Makes sense. All these populations must have undergone their own trajectories of evolution since diverging (e.g. the whole thing about Negritos having short stature might be an adaptation to the rainforest environments that would have expanded in Southeast Asia after the LGM), but I can see Andamanese peoples like the Onge somewhat resembling the immediate ancestors of East Asians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I never said there was a "single type" of Aborigine and I proved that with all the autosomal graphs I've shown. I also never said "Asian features evolved in Northeast Asia". Where is Northeast Asia in the map I showed??! I suggest you actually read what I posted instead of imagining what I posted!!
I wasn't talking about you. Like I said, most of these papers and articles are saying this. Somehow you just don't want to see it.
I posted numerous examples of this from multiple sources.
And ultimately I argue that this is due to lack of data, which most of these papers readily admit. But that still does not stop them from making sweeping claims based on limited data.
Hence:
quote: Regarding the initial appearance of AMH in east Eurasia, the large-scale cross-regional evidence so far suggests two major groupings, in southern and northern areas, although ultimately they may have derived from a shared ancestry prior to 65–50 kya. On the southern side of east Eurasia, the initial AMH occupants migrated simultaneously into Southeast Asia (SEA) and the ancient Pleistocene continent of Sahul8,12,13. On the northern side, the AMH who reached Northeast Asia (NEA) further dispersed into the American continents through the strait of Beringia during the last glacial age14,15,16,17. These scenarios could be consistent with interpretations of the Single Wave Model or Multiple Waves Model. The picture likely was complicated, granted the growing evidence of numerous localized variations and intermixtures when AMH populations met with Neanderthals and Denisovans18,19.
Major influences in population histories can be attributed to the origins and developments of farming societies, involving a number of movements over the course of some thousands of years. Dating at least 9 kya, archaeological investigations have shown how rice and millet farming had emerged first in the Yellow and Yangtze River areas of China, eventually leading to variable outcomes throughout east Eurasia and into Island SEA after 4 kya20,21,22. In parallel with the archaeological evidence, linguistic studies refer to the movements of Austronesian and Austroasiatic language families, linked with contexts of ancient rice and millet farming societies.
...
If the original AMH populations across eastern Eurasia during the Pleistocene possessed mostly Australo-Papuan affinities, then how and when did these groups diminish while distinct East Asian affinities became widespread more recently? In order to address this issue, we examined a series of human skeletal remains from archaeological sites in China, Japan, Russia, and Southeast Asia that derive from multiple pre-farming, early farming, and later contexts of the Late Pleistocene through AD 300.
Human skeletal remains and fossils sites of the last major ice age (Pleistocene) were crucial in this research. A range of Late Pleistocene crania from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian (northern China), as well as from sites at Liujiang (southern China), Minatogawa and Shiraho-Saonetabaru (Japan), Tam Pa Ling (Laos), Moh Khiew (Thailand), Tabon (Philippines), Niah (Malaysia), Wajak (Indonesia) and others, have been dated within the range of 47 kya to 16 kya3,20. Preservation of measurable characteristics was a major concern, yet in total these specimens supplied multiple confident cranio-morphometric measurements.
The Phoenix map reveals close cranial affinities between the archaeological samples from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian and those from the Liujiang and Wajak sites, as well as with the larger Australo-Papuan and Veddha-Andaman groupings. This result suggests that the Late Pleistocene people who lived at these sites shared genetic ancestry with AMH settlers across much of eastern Eurasia, including as far to the east as modern-day Australia and New Guinea. Dispersal of AMH at this time coincided with Pleistocene glacial conditions when significantly lower global sea levels had created vast land masses and shorter water crossings from East Asia through Mainland and Island SEA and as far as Australia and New Guinea.
We documented a continuation of the “first layer” AMH in southern China on the basis of hunter-gatherer sites that were dated between ca. 14 kya and 5 kya (Fig. 2). These study sites included Dalongtan, Zengpiyan, Huiyaotian, and Liyupo in Guangxi Province, Gaomiao in Hunan Province, Qihedong in Fujian Province, and Liangdao in the Taiwan Strait. Although some site contexts within this group chronologically coincided with the earliest known rice and millet farming in Yellow and Yangtze River regions, hunter-gatherer groups still had occupied southern areas. From those hunter-gatherer sites, diagnostic features of skeletal remains included the presence of dolichocephalic calvaria, large zygomatic bones, remarkably prominent glabellae and superciliary arches, concave nasal roots, and low and wide faces1,29,30,31,32,33,34,35. Notably, ancient Japanese Jomon hunter-gatherers belonged to this same grouping.
In addition to the samples from China, pre-Neolithic SEA hunter-gatherer groups were represented in this analysis mostly by archaeological samples from cave sites that contained pebble-tool complex of “Hoabinhian” associations36,37,38. Our Phoenix map (Fig. 2) reveals that all of the analyzed Hoabinhian remains from Vietnam and Malaysia shared cranial characteristics with Australo-Papuans. These traits were retained into later post-Hoabinhian hunter-gatherer contexts, including the shell midden site of Con Co Ngua (Vietnam), dated around 6.5 kya39. Likewise, the remains of hunter-gatherers recovered from the ca. 5 kya Gua Harimau site (Sumatra, Indonesia) share close affinities with Australo-Papuans40.
The “second layer” population identified in this study is associated with present-day NEA people, including all Siberian ethnic groups. The tight clustering of cranial morphologies reflects strong inter-group homogeneity that can be explained most parsimoniously via the single shared origin of a flat and long face and comparatively short head. These definitive characteristics may have originated among people who lived in cold conditions and adapted by reducing their total body surface.
The early hunter-gatherer communities gave way to populations with northern morphometric affinities, seen at Neolithic and Bronze-Iron Age population samples in eastern Eurasia. The prevailing hypothesis for the origin of the “second layer” and the spread of its descendants across much of East Asia and SEA implies a key role for rice and millet agriculture in China in promoting population growth and expansion. Such farming traditions now are traced confidently to 9 kya within the Yellow and Yangtze River area21,22,23. Between 7 kya and 5 kya, rice and millet agriculture supported a number of large settlements encompassing an expanding geographical range across China, and several of the resident groups developed complex social, political, economic, and religious systems22,23.
The early Chinese farming groups represented here from the archaeological sites of Jiahu, Baligan, Xipo (Henan Province), Hemudu, Weidun (Zhejiang Province), Xitou, and Tanshishan (Fujian Province) all exhibit close affinities with their NEA Siberian counterparts (Fig. 2). With these results, we infer that the “second layer” of population was associated with the earliest occurrences of farming in this region. Moreover, we interpret that the “second layer” of population had been affected by NEA-associated gene flow from the north, demonstrably differentiated from pre-existing Australo-Papuan traits seen in our older Chinese and SEA samples.
Previous research utilizing archaeological evidence and language history has demonstrated that a remarkable cultural transition took place in SEA between 4.5 and 4 kya24,25,26,27. This conclusion now is reinforced by the “second layer” identified here on the basis of skeletal remains, specifically from the sites of Man Bac and An Son (Vietnam), Tam Hang (Laos), and Ban Chiang, Khok Phanom Di, Ban Non Wat, and Non Nok Tha (Thailand) (Fig. 2). This cross-regional archaeological signature reflects the geographic expansion of a “Neolithic” horizon of advanced pottery and stone tool traditions, farming economies, and residential settlement structures that can be traced ultimately to the Yangtze River Valley (e.g. Hemudu in Zhejiang Province in Fig. 2) before it had spread through southern China, Mainland and Island SEA, Taiwan, and eventually into Pacific Oceania.
The cranio-morphological datasets in this study consistently confirm affinities with NEA-derived “second layer” populations at “Neolithic” sites dated between 5 kya and 4 kya in southern China and SEA and slightly later in Oceania. This relationship is corroborated by the fact that burial traditions at these locations involved extended-position interment, in contrast to the older flexed-position formats39,41. The findings are most striking in China and SEA, where archaeological records reveal “first layer” affinities for thousands of years in duration that suddenly were replaced across large geographic scales by groups of the “second layer”.
The interface between different populations appears to have been more complex in some regions of SEA where the “first layer” occupants were well established and somewhat diversified for long periods of time before the notably late arrivals of the “second layer” after 2.4 kya. Such late transitions during Bronze or Iron Ages occurred at Hoa Diem (Vietnam) and in the upper layer at Gua Harimau (Sumatra, Indonesia) (Fig. 2). Those close cranial affinities with Bunun (Taiwan), Sumatra, and the Moluccas, Philippines, and Celebes Islanders suggest vigorous human movements, trade networks, and other exchanges crossing through South China. Besides, their clustering with the Neolithic Xitou (Fujian Province) in southern China, later arrival Liangdao 2 (Matzu Island in the Taiwan Strait) implies their remote homeland somewhere in southern China. In Liangdao and Gua Harimau (see: Liangdao 1, Gua Harimau 1 in Fig. 2), provide an extensive evidence for a replacement between local indigenous populations with extremely deep prehistorical roots from Pleistocene, and secondary movements of migrants from the north across Southern China Sea. Linguistic evidence28 equates these ancient expansions with the Austronesian language family in Taiwan, parts of Mainland SEA, most of Island SEA, and into Oceania, as well as with the Austroasiatic language family in Mainland SEA.
The overall heterogeneity seen in this sub-cluster suggests regional variations in the degrees of genetic admixture between first and second layer populations, although the NEA features are very dominant. The clustering with Non-Austronesian groups (Fig. 2, Thai, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos) can be explained by the results of variable intermixture ratios between the descendants of early indigenous groups and later immigrants. Such a patterning cannot be reconciled with a single origin or regional continuity model of all populations in total. Aeta and Semang Negritos, despite possesing phenotypically different features from surrounding people (small body size and dark skin color), in particular appear to have interbred with the surrounding populations. Given the greater heterogeneity among SEA samples, in contrast to the homogeneity of NEA samples, the most probable scenario had involved a strongly homogeneous genetic input from NEA population flows into the diverse SEA region.
Our data reveal a clear dichotomy between first and second population layers that remains consistent across large geographic scales and implies a shared genetic origin for the emergence of the second layer as well as its spread across eastern Eurasia. This degree of cross-regional consistency points to a strongly unified “second layer” of population, rather than the much less likely coincidental convergence of the same outcome at multiple sites due to the effects of climate, diet, nutrition, or other localized factors that might have influenced cranial morphology.
These findings from cranial measurements find extra support from non-metric dental morphology42, generally believed under strong genetic control and free of environmental influence, pointing to the same two layers of populations. One grouping is apparent in Australo-Papuan and early SEA teeth, consistent with the “first layer”. Another grouping is apparent in NEA and American natives, consistent with the “second layer.” Future research may consider the deeper relation between NEA and American populations, likely involving a shared ancestry through Siberia during the Pleistocene.
How many times do I have to cite papers claiming that "Asian" features originated in North East Asia after the Neolithic. And these North East Asians are responsible for the diversity of features in later populations such as Austronesians which therefore means "Malays" of the Philippines as you call them. That is literally what is being said in almost all of these papers. Not sure what part of this you think I am making up as a "straw man". I literally cited above them saying that these "Asian" features could not have evolved among various populations in Asia over time, it had to come directly from North East Asians since the Neolithic. Which literally means that Asian diversity does not descend from aboriginal groups, as opposed to recent migrations of North East Asians since the Neolithic. This is the part I am calling a vast oversimplification from limited data, but at the least you can address these specific points if you feel I am missing something.
According to these people, all the features of populations across the South Western Pacific and South East Asia all originate in North East Asia since the Neolithic. And that this North East Asian population was a unique evolutionary population that was vastly distinct from its ancestral aboriginal ancestors.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: How many times do I have to cite papers claiming that "Asian" features originated in North East Asia after the Neolithic. And these North East Asians are responsible for the diversity of features in later populations such as Austronesians which therefore means "Malays" of the Philippines as you call them. That is literally what is being said in almost all of these papers. Not sure what part of this you think I am making up as a "straw man". I literally cited above them saying that these "Asian" features could not have evolved among various populations in Asia over time, it had to come directly from North East Asians since the Neolithic. Which literally means that Asian diversity does not descend from aboriginal groups, as opposed to recent migrations of North East Asians since the Neolithic. This is the part I am calling a vast oversimplification from limited data, but at the least you can address these specific points if you feel I am missing something.
According to these people, all the features of populations across the South Western Pacific and South East Asia all originate in North East Asia since the Neolithic. And that this North East Asian population was a unique evolutionary population that was vastly distinct from its ancestral aboriginal ancestors.
So is it your position that lighter-skinned Southeast Asians evolved their physical traits in situ rather than coming from further north in the continent? Honestly, I have a hard time believing that. You might as well argue that lighter-skinned people in North Africa today are entirely the product of in situ evolution rather than descending from later migrations from Europe and Asia (a scenario I don't see you arguing for anytime soon).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: How many times do I have to cite papers claiming that "Asian" features originated in North East Asia after the Neolithic. And these North East Asians are responsible for the diversity of features in later populations such as Austronesians which therefore means "Malays" of the Philippines as you call them. That is literally what is being said in almost all of these papers. Not sure what part of this you think I am making up as a "straw man". I literally cited above them saying that these "Asian" features could not have evolved among various populations in Asia over time, it had to come directly from North East Asians since the Neolithic. Which literally means that Asian diversity does not descend from aboriginal groups, as opposed to recent migrations of North East Asians since the Neolithic. This is the part I am calling a vast oversimplification from limited data, but at the least you can address these specific points if you feel I am missing something.
According to these people, all the features of populations across the South Western Pacific and South East Asia all originate in North East Asia since the Neolithic. And that this North East Asian population was a unique evolutionary population that was vastly distinct from its ancestral aboriginal ancestors.
So is it your position that lighter-skinned Southeast Asians evolved their physical traits in situ rather than coming from further north in the continent? Honestly, I have a hard time believing that. You might as well argue that lighter-skinned people in North Africa today are entirely the product of in situ evolution rather than descending from later migrations from Europe and Asia (a scenario I don't see you arguing for anytime soon).
Not what I said. Can you actually address what I wrote and the specific quotes I cited?
I am talking about the general evolution of "Asian" features, not just skin color. And many of these papers claim that "Asian" features only evolved in Northern Asia since the Neolithic. Can you actually address that? So the people before that didn't have "Asian" features? And what specific features are these people indicating as "Asian"? Because many of these features existed long before the Neolithic, meaning they evolved over time as part of the natural diversity of these populations. Selection pressure in certain groups would have actually lessened that diversity in reinforcing certain traits, but that "basal diversity" was already there. So I am not saying Northern Asians did not evolve to become Northern adapted and therefore somewhat distinct. Not saying that at all. What I am saying is that "Asian" features in general existed long before that. But then again, it depends on what features these papers would define as "Asian" and uniquely associated with these Northern groups aside from skin color. What I am saying is there is no "one type" of Asian features, even among light skinned Asians.
Again, "racial thinking" implies certain features are unique to certain populations. And this is the part I am addressing specifically. So to me this is nothing more than a rehashing old concepts from the 1900s.
The full context here being the idea floating around that before the migrations of these Northern "Basal East Asians" all South East Asians were "little Negroes" with no features in common with later Asians from the North.
Maybe this is not what they mean, but the wording of all these papers surely reinforces that opinion.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Makes sense. All these populations must have undergone their own trajectories of evolution since diverging (e.g. the whole thing about Negritos having short stature might be an adaptation to the rainforest environments that would have expanded in Southeast Asia after the LGM), but I can see Andamanese peoples like the Onge somewhat resembling the immediate ancestors of East Asians.
The term 'Negrito' is a racialized catchphrase for small statured blacks of the Asian region in general. It's just like the term 'Pygmies' of Africa. Yet genetics has shown that just as African Pygmies were actually genetically heterogeneous populations of different origins, so too were the 'Negritos' as proven by the 2017 Jinam et al. paper.
Ironically the Andamanese are genetically closest to the ancestors of 'Mongoloids' or modern East Asians than all other 'Negrito' populations though Andamanese are also highest in ASI whereas East Asians show more affinity to ANI. So there are still gaps in our autosomal knowledge as shown in the map.
By the way, Larena at al. 2021 paper shows Philippine Ayta possess the highest level of Denisovan ancestry in the world. Before this discovery, the highest Denisovan ancestry known was in Papuans followed by Australian Aborigines so there was clearly a north-south gradient in Denisovan ancestry.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The term 'Negrito' is a racialized catchphrase for small statured blacks of the Asian region in general. It's just like the term 'Pygmies' of Africa. Yet genetics has shown that just as African Pygmies were actually genetically heterogeneous populations of different origins, so too were the 'Negritos' as proven by the 2017 Jinam et al. paper.
Understood. I admit, the term "Negrito" doesn't make me 100% comfortable (same with "Pygmy"), but there aren't a lot of better terms out there for these disparate populations.
By the way, I am a bit confused as to where you and Doug disagree. It reads to me like he's disputing the scenario that "Mongoloid" Asian traits (e.g. lighter skin, thick straight hair, epicanthic eyefolds, etc.) evolved further north and spread to Southeast Asia later by migrants who almost replaced the aboriginal populations, but he just told me he doesn't actually argue that. So what are you two arguing about?
That being said, I can see some so-called "Mongoloid" traits evolving in ancestral East Eurasians prior to lighter skin and cold-climate adaptations. I have read that some "Negrito" populations have a Sundadont dental pattern similar to most lighter-skinned Southeast Asians, for example.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The problem I have with "Negrito" is what I said, all of the aboriginal populations of Asia were not short with kinky hair. Again, the Papuans aren't short but they do have kinky hair. While the Australian Aborigines are not short but they have straight hair. All these populations are directly tied to the original OOA migrations due to isolation, but they all look physically different. And all of them had to pass through Sundaland, so that means the original OOA populations passing through this area could not have all been little short people with kinky hair. You also see this across the Pacific in recent history as many of those populations were also dark skinned with straight hair while others had curly or kinky hair while others were lighter skinned with similar features.
I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Some were tall, some were short, some had round eyes, some had almond eyes, some had big noses, some had narrow noses, some had big lips, some had thin lips, some had straight hair, some had culry hair and some had kinky hair. That is what I mean by these populations were already diverse and over time under genetic selection pressure, these features evolved into those distributed across Asia today. The only thing these isolated populations tell us across the board is that all of those OOA groups were diverse.
Now, you see the same thing regarding Northern Asians in cases like the Ainu of Japan. This is what I mean by skin color not being relevant to my point. At some point in time there were Northern Asians with round eyes, alongside those with almond eyes, just like there were some with generalized Euarasian features (western/central Eurasian) and others with more pronounced "Mongoloid" features. But over time under selection pressure those so-called "Mongoloid" features won out over the others among light skinned Northern Asians.
Meaning that the original dispersed smaller clusters of populations in Asia would have been more diverse than they are today. And the diversity decreased due to bottlenecks, environmental and sexual selection. It is the same process that affected all of these groups whether the isolated aboriginal tribes or those "basal East Asians", except what happened in North Asia happened on a larger scale due to the population boom during the neolithic. That doesn't mean those so-called "mongoloid" features weren't present prior to that, but just that they were part of a much more diverse set of features across Asia and the "Negritoes" are subsets of that diversity not representative of all those groups.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I've already shown how the 'Negrito' label is a catchphrase and has no actual ethnic much less genetic basis. Technically the word 'Negrito' simply means 'little black' and says nothing about hair texture. Short stature is an adaptation to islands with low protein sources and has nothing to do with skin color or hair. In regards to Australo-Melanesians you raise an interesting point (and one which I intend to discuss elsewhere) in that Australians and Melanesians despite being closest related to each other have different hair textures. Yet some people try to use difference in hair texture as evidence of distant genetic relation. Anyway, so-called 'Negrito' hair texture is not just kinky type but ranges to curly as well. There are aboriginal groups in Indonesia with loose wavy hair similar to those of the Veddah aboriginals of Sri-Lanka who are also short in stature. But then the Andamanese not only have tightly coiled hair but theirs is even of the same spiral tuft form as South African Khoisan which is the tightest coiled!
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Understood. I admit, the term "Negrito" doesn't make me 100% comfortable (same with "Pygmy"), but there aren't a lot of better terms out there for these disparate populations.
By the way, I am a bit confused as to where you and Doug disagree. It reads to me like he's disputing the scenario that "Mongoloid" Asian traits (e.g. lighter skin, thick straight hair, epicanthic eyefolds, etc.) evolved further north and spread to Southeast Asia later by migrants who almost replaced the aboriginal populations, but he just told me he doesn't actually argue that. So what are you two arguing about?
That being said, I can see some so-called "Mongoloid" traits evolving in ancestral East Eurasians prior to lighter skin and cold-climate adaptations. I have read that some "Negrito" populations have a Sundadont dental pattern similar to most lighter-skinned Southeast Asians, for example.
The question is how far north? Doug misunderstands when he keeps saying "northeast Asia". The graph I posted shows the range of basal or ancestral East Asian being in southern China just north of Sunda.
The one thing that all East Asians have in common is EDAR mutation which gives the course straight hair, small teeth, smaller breasts, reduced sweat glands etc. The mutation is expressed in the alleles at different degrees. For example, northeast Asians have greater epicanthic folding than Southeast Asians etc. Northeast Asians have fairer skin but that is due to another mutation for skin color which Southeast Asians also have but not expressed as greatly due to the obvious lower latitude. It's all about epigenetics.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Interestingly enough some Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers from Motala in Sweden also had the derived EDAR gene. Seems the mutation found its way from Asia to Sweden sometime after the last Ice age.
quote:According to Mathieson, et al. (2015), 50% of Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers from Motala carried the derived variant of EDAR-V370A. This variant is typical of modern East Asian populations, and is known to affect dental morphology[15] and hair texture, and also chin protrusion and ear morphology,[16] as well as other facial features.[17] The authors did not detect East Asian ancestry in the Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers, and speculated that this gene might not have originated in East Asia, as is commonly believed.[18] However, more recent research incorporating ancient Northeast Asian samples has confirmed that EDAR-V370A originated in Northeast Asia, and spread to West Eurasian populations such as Motala in the Holocene period.[19]
Mathieson, et al 2015 Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature. Nature Research 528 (7583): 499–503. Link to article
Günther et al 2018: Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. PLOS Biology 16 Link to article Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I've already shown how the 'Negrito' label is a catchphrase and has no actual ethnic much less genetic basis.
As I mentioned from the very beginning of this thread, the term Negrito comes from European racial anthropology in the 1900s. And I literally posted some of these works as in this thread. I also said that modern papers still reference those works when using the term and examples with those references were also posted a while back....
I think the confusion here is between my critique of these papers and their usage of these terms and what you may be thinking I am debating you about which, as I said before, isn't really about you personally.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Doug misunderstands when he keeps saying "northeast Asia". The graph I posted shows the range of basal or ancestral East Asian being in southern China just north of Sunda.
No. I literally posted a couple recent papers saying this a page ago.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Interestingly enough some Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers from Motala in Sweden also had the derived EDAR gene. Seems the mutation found its way from Asia to Sweden sometime after the last Ice age.
quote:According to Mathieson, et al. (2015), 50% of Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers from Motala carried the derived variant of EDAR-V370A. This variant is typical of modern East Asian populations, and is known to affect dental morphology[15] and hair texture, and also chin protrusion and ear morphology,[16] as well as other facial features.[17] The authors did not detect East Asian ancestry in the Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers, and speculated that this gene might not have originated in East Asia, as is commonly believed.[18] However, more recent research incorporating ancient Northeast Asian samples has confirmed that EDAR-V370A originated in Northeast Asia, and spread to West Eurasian populations such as Motala in the Holocene period.[19]
Mathieson, et al 2015 Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature. Nature Research 528 (7583): 499–503. Link to article
Günther et al 2018: Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. PLOS Biology 16 Link to article
Not to mention the fact that Y-haplogroup N also occurs in that region.
Hg N is has its highest frequency in Siberian populations of North Asia and is sibling to the East Asian hg O. Admixture with with eastern people likely explains the 'Eastern' features that occurs among some Scandinavians especially in Finland.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
^ You think it could have come from Ancient North Eurasians?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Especially Finlanders and Samis have an eastern component both genetically, linguistically and also when concerns traditions and folklore. The traditional Sami culture (as we know it now) for example took form during the bronze age, influenced by eastern cultures.
The 8000 years old Scandinavian hunter gatherers from Motala had the paternal haplogroup I2 and the maternal haplogroups U5a1 and U4a2
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
One can mention that questions about the ethnogenesis of the Sami people, their cultural origin, who was first in Northern Scandinavia and similar questions have been rather controversial and politicized here in Scandinavia. Samis have been subject to colonialism and race biological studies. Also there are several disputes over land rights with members of the majority population.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: ^ You think it could have come from Ancient North Eurasians?
I don't know. From what I've read of ANE, there was no mention of EDAR mutation and the only Y lineages associated with them are of the QR clade. Hence both hg R in Europe and hg Q in the Americas are associated with ANE.
The population history of the European subcontinent is similar to that of the Indian subcontinent being comprised of multiple waves of immigration from inner Asia. Take for example the 30,000 year old Sungir folk of western Russia. Their paternal lineage was C1.
So the presence of both EDAR mutation and Y-hg N1 in Finno-Ugric folk indicates a relatively more recent immigration from Siberia, probably from Neolithic times.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
BTW, is it just me, or are East Asians another group of people who are widely uncomfortable with the idea of ultimately being descended from Black people? I had a guy on Twitter accuse me of "erasing non-Black POC" because I depicted certain prehistoric people from Asia (e.g. Tianyuan Man) as Black since they would have lived before East Asian features as we know them had evolved. He then messaged me this on Instagram:
Later in the exchange, he told me that he hoped a "disgusting negro" would kill me.
I know we give racist North Africans a hard time on these forums, but racist East Asians are not any nicer if he's typical of them.
It goes to show you... Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One can mention that questions about the ethnogenesis of the Sami people, their cultural origin, who was first in Northern Scandinavia and similar questions have been rather controversial and politicized here in Scandinavia. Samis have been subject to colonialism and race biological studies. Also there are several disputes over land rights with members of the majority population.
Speaking of finland i was watching some eastern and northern european dna test results recently and before.
quote: @JaKommenterar quote- @lifeleaves1268 Interestingly some ancestry may not show up in these tests for groups originating in mixed regions like Middle Eastern - for example, most southern Europeans, Jews, Arabs and Iranians will have between 2-10% Black African ancestry on average (some more some less) but it often won’t show up unless its a detailed genetic research. Harvard Medical School published on this, you may find it interesting.
@lifeleaves1268 quote- @JaKommenterar you are absolutely right. To be totally honest with you my brother from the same parents had super shocking results compare to me. I am the last guy in the video by the way. He was more than 27 percent Jewish and less than 40 percent Iranian but also about 10 percent scottish. To me these tests are just where science meets the fun and entertainment. I personally believe we only know so much from the original DNA’s of our ancestors and it is not enough to be exact results.
@blackcoffeebeans6100 quote- Sami ppl is a different race and has a culture of their own. From all the Nordic countries Finland has The smallest number of them. Norway has 40 000 Samis. Sweden 15 000 -25 000. Finland 10 000.
@JaKommenterar quote- @diamondsarenotforever8542 Yes that’s what I’m saying, it isn’t ”eskimo” ancestry but they share genes with the Sami so the data confused the two. Many in Finland have Sami ancestry, more than Sweden and Norway, they have less of them because they got assimilated. Plus Fin’s language is close to Sami.
@blackcoffeebeans6100 quote- @JaKommenterar Not true. Sami ppl mostly have dark complexion and eyes. Also they are quite short. Finns are opposite. Sami ppl always wanted not to be mixed. They very rarely married ppl from different race. Of course swedish ppl think finns are mongolians. This is not true. Finland has got more blondies than Sweden.
@JaKommenterar quote- @blackcoffeebeans6100 What you are saying is entirely nonsensical, having a little bit of Sami ancestry will not make you dark, and genes do not lie. I know it makes you uncomfortable that Finns are not fully white. And yes Sweden has more immigrants than Finland so it therefore has fewer blonds. By the way, many Sami people are mixed race as you can tell by their appearance. Non-european blood is common amongst Europeans, southern Europeans are ca 2% Black. Nothing wrong with Sami blood.
Some updated info about east asian dna in europe.
Genetic history of Europe
quote: East Asian ancestry is found at low frequency among some Europeans. According to one study, Germans, French people and Britons carry anywhere from 1% to 3.8%. Russians and Finns were found to have significantly higher East Asian admixture, around 13%. East Asian ancestry was acquired around 1800 years ago in Finns (2nd century AD), while the admixture in Russians is traced back to around 1300 years ago (8th century AD). The Lipka Tatars, a Turkic minority in Belarus carry around ~30% East Eurasian ancestry. Source Wikipedia
More about the earliest Europeans and their relatives
In a cave in Bulgaria human remains have been DNA sequenced. Their DNA links them to East Asia and even America
quote: An international research team has sequenced the genomes of the oldest securely dated modern humans in Europe who lived around 45,000 years ago in Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. By comparing their genomes to the genomes of people who lived later in Europe and in Asia the researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, show that this early human group in Europe contributed genes to later people, particularly present-day East Asians. The researchers also identified large stretches of Neandertal DNA in the genomes of the Bacho Kiro Cave people, showing that they had Neandertal ancestors about five to seven generations back in their family histories. This suggests that mixture with Neandertals was the rule rather than the exception when the first modern humans arrived in Europe.
quote: It was previously thought that bearers of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic died out without contributing genetically to modern humans arriving later. However, the researchers now show that the oldest Bacho Kiro Cave individuals, or groups closely related to them, contributed genes to present-day people. Surprisingly, this contribution is found particularly in East Asia and the Americas rather than in Europe where the Bacho Kiro Cave people lived. These genetic links to Asia mirror the links seen between the Initial Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and personal ornaments found in Bacho Kiro Cave and tools and ancient jewelry found across Eurasia to Mongolia.
Genomes of the earliest Europeans Ancient genomes shed new light on the earliest Europeans and their relationships with Neandertals Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2021
quote: Abstract Modern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania and Siberia who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry Nature 2021
The oldest European Homo sapiens, can be the one whose remains are found in Grotte Mandrin, in Southern France.
quote: Our direct ancestors, Homo sapiens, may have ventured into Neanderthal territory in Europe much earlier than previously thought, according to an archaeological study published this week. Researchers also believe that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens may have alternately shared territory in southeastern France. - The latest research, by a team of archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists led by Ludovic Slimak of Toulouse University, pushes the arrival time of Homo sapiens in western Europe to around 54,000 years ago.
Tooth from the Mandrin cave assessed to be from modern Homo sapiens
quote: We determined that layer E, which contains the modern human fossil, dates to 56.8 ka to 51.7 ka cal. B.P. (95.4% prob.; see Materials and Methods; figs. S15 to S20 and tables S1 to S10), suggesting that this individual is substantially earlier than any previously documented modern human remains or potential transitional archeological assemblages in Europe, and penecontemporaneous with, if not older than, the Manot 1 calvaria from Israel (6).
Slimak, S et al, 2022: Modern human incursion into Neanderthal territories 54,000 years ago at Mandrin, France Science Advances Vol 8, No 6 Link to article Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About Samis, the most common Y-DNA haplogroups among them seems to be N1c, I1, R1a. The most common MtDNA groups are V, U5b, H, Z and D5.
Culturally they have similarities with more eastern reindeer herding peoples like the Nenets and many others living in what is today northern Russia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: BTW, is it just me, or are East Asians another group of people who are widely uncomfortable with the idea of ultimately being descended from Black people? I had a guy on Twitter accuse me of "erasing non-Black POC" because I depicted certain prehistoric people from Asia (e.g. Tianyuan Man) as Black since they would have lived before East Asian features as we know them had evolved. He then messaged me this on Instagram:
Later in the exchange, he told me that he hoped a "disgusting negro" would kill me.
I know we give racist North Africans a hard time on these forums, but racist East Asians are not any nicer if he's typical of them.
It goes to show you...
Yeah, unfortunately some Asians can be just as racist as some Europeans. The worst in my opinion are the Japanese though Chinese aren't far behind. Racialism in Asia by the way, was in large part inspired by Europeans and particular the Nazis.
Tianyuan Man is the East Asian equivalent to European Cro-Magnon yet we know AM Humans at that time even if ancestral to the populations living there today don't look like them.
Cro-Magnon
We know that Cro-Magnon in features resembles Australian-Aborigines or more closely aboriginal populations of India than today's Europeans and had darker skin.
We only have Tianyuan Man's jaw but from that it appears that in terms of features he more closely resembles Jomon type people than anything like contemporary Chinese.
But then you have the 10,000 years younger skull of UP 101 a.k.a. Lao-Ren whom the Chinese made this reconstruction.
Even though his features make him a more robust form of Paleo-Indian or at best a more robust Polynesian.
This is why forensic reconstruction is as much art as science and thus prone to bias.
Brandon, as for your reconstruction, though I doubt that's how Tianyuan man looked his ancestors on the other hand probably did look that way since we have Andamanese as being a branch of that ancestry.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Cro-Magnon
We know that Cro-Magnon in features resembles Australian-Aborigines or more closely aboriginal populations of India than today's Europeans and had darker skin.
Here are two facial reconstructions of the original Cromagnon skull. The one to the left is made by Oscar Nilsson and the one to the right by the people of Ancestral whispers.
And as a comparison the original Cromagnon 1 skull
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Brandon, as for your reconstruction, though I doubt that's how Tianyuan man looked his ancestors on the other hand probably did look that way since we have Andamanese as being a branch of that ancestry.
Do you think Tianyuan Man would have been significantly lighter-skinned? He seems to have lived a bit too early IMO to have undergone significant depigmentation.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
If skin color is difficult to assess for these ancient people, then hair type must be equally difficult or more difficult, especially if we not have any DNA left. The cromagnon man for example is mostly depicted with straight hair, and maybe that also have support in ancient art, if this portrait is real, something that is discussed here.
Ivory head from Dolni Vestonice
Ivory head from Dolni Vestonice Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The difference between TianYan and CroMagnon is fragments of a skull vs a full skull. And this is true across the board between Europe and Asia where they have many more ancient full skulls or skeletons whereas Asia has mostly fragments.
As for skin color, there were plenty of areas in Asia even up to 100 years ago with dark skinned "black" Asians, so the idea that light skin swept the entire area thousands of years before that is a myth, even in Northern Asia. Again, South China is on the same latitude as Northern Africa. So there is no reason there wouldn't have been darker skinned people there even in more recent times.
Unfortunately the racism of Asia comes from this belief spread by Europeans that Asian civilization originates in North East Asia from superior light skinned people. However the facts on the ground are just the opposite. Much of the culture in Asia originates from the South as in the spread of IndoBuddhist culture across South East Asia. And the ancient cultural traditions of tied to ancient Sundaland such as various styles of huts and stilt houses and other cultural traits extending into the Pacific. There are also ancient styles of martial arts that also existed in South and South East Asia before China and even the Chinese themselves say they got Kung Fu from India.
Anyway, on the topic of ancient Asian remains, here is another recent set of remains found that may be the oldest found yet.
quote: What connects a fossil found in a cave in northern Laos with stone tools made in north Australia? The answer is, we do. When our early Homo sapiens ancestors first arrived in Southeast Asia on their way from Africa to Australia, they left evidence of their presence in the form of human fossils that accumulated over thousands of years deep in a cave.
The latest evidence from Tam Pà Ling cave in northern Laos, uncovered by a team of Laotian, French, American and Australian researchers and published in Nature Communications, demonstrates beyond doubt that modern humans spread from Africa through Arabia and to Asia much earlier than previously thought.
It also confirms that our ancestors didn’t just follow coastlines and islands. They travelled through forested regions, most likely along river valleys, too. Some then moved on through Southeast Asia to become Australia’s First People.
“Tam Pà Ling plays a key role in the story of modern human migration through Asia but its significance and value is only just being recognised,” says University of Copenhagen palaeoanthropologist Assistant Professor Fabrice Demeter, one of the paper’s lead authors.
...
From 2010 to 2023, annual excavations (delayed by three years of lockdowns) revealed increasingly more evidence that Homo sapiens had passed through en route to Australia. Seven pieces of human skeleton were found at intervals through 4.5 metres of sediment, pushing the potential timeline far back into the realms of the earliest Homo sapiens migrations to this region.
In this study*, the team overcame these issues by creatively applying strategic dating techniques where possible, such as the uranium-series dating of a stalactite tip that had been buried in sediment, and the use of uranium-series dating coupled with electron-spin-resonance dating techniques to two rare but complete bovid teeth, unearthed at 6.5 metres.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Brandon, as for your reconstruction, though I doubt that's how Tianyuan man looked his ancestors on the other hand probably did look that way since we have Andamanese as being a branch of that ancestry.
Do you think Tianyuan Man would have been significantly lighter-skinned? He seems to have lived a bit too early IMO to have undergone significant depigmentation.
No. I never said he was light skinned only that I don't think he was necessarily that dark. I believe that both Cro-Magnon and Tianyuan after moving into higher latitudes did become relatively lighter but that doesn't mean fair-skin. They may be more "brown" in complexion or at least as black as say coastal North Africans (before European admixture).
By the way, one thing I forgot to mention is that while Lao-Ren's odontic morphology is scored as sinodonty, Tianyuan's partial dentition suggests sundadonty which is not surprising considering the jaw configuration.
Considering the autosomal data that I previously cited in regards to populations of Southeast Asia, note that Australo-Melanesians form their own 'australodonty' complex as the late Dr. Turner called it or 'sahuldonty' as I like to call it. Meanwhile 'Negritos' of the Philippines and other black aborignals of Southeast Asia (except Andamanese) are all sundadonts, while the Andamanese themselves are actually part of the 'indodonty' complex.
Bulbeck made some interesting hypothetical claims in regards to the divergence and evolution of traits of East Eurasian populations in regards to hair form and skin color but this was based on the autosomal data of that time and before all these latest updates shown here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: If skin color is difficult to assess for these ancient people, then hair type must be equally difficult or more difficult, especially if we not have any DNA left. The cromagnon man for example is mostly depicted with straight hair, and maybe that also have support in ancient art, if this portrait is real, something that is discussed here.
Ivory head from Dolni Vestonice
Ivory head from Dolni Vestonice
It should be noted that one characteristic of Paleolithic Europeans was their prominent brow ridges comparable to that of Australo-Melanesians. Even today, Europeans have brow ridges second in prominence to Australo-Melansians.
But to get back to the Saami. I believe Saami represent Paleolithic Europeans with Neolithic Asian admixture which is seen in both their genetics as well as features. I suspect the dark features seen in some Saami to represent the Asian admixture. Not to mention the ANE ancestry which peaks today in Yeneseian speakers of North Asia.
This is not to say Y-hg N carrying Yeneseians represent the original ANE population but rather they seemed to have absorbed that population as high frequencies of ANE are also associated with Proto-Indo-European speakers why carry Y-hg R.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Culturally Saami has been rather close to many other reindeer herding peoples in northern Eurasia. All Saamis were not reindeer herders though, from the beginning they were mostly hunter gatherers, and some groups are still mainly living of hunting, gathering and fishing.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: No. I never said he was light skinned only that I don't think he was necessarily that dark. I believe that both Cro-Magnon and Tianyuan after moving into higher latitudes did become relatively lighter but that doesn't mean fair-skin. They may be more "brown" in complexion or at least as black as say coastal North Africans (before European admixture).
What makes brown more of a better term than black when both include many ranges of brown? I don't understand why you keep making a distinction here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I'm pointing out that in terms of adaptation, I doubt a population at higher latitudes away from the equator would have the same complexion as equatorial populations is all. Note that I said, if the early population in China was 'black' it would be of the coastal North African kind and not say Sudanese.
This is why terms like 'black' and 'white' are always relative.
Khoisan are very light-skinned to the point where one really can argue that they are not black, but what are we to make of say a dark-skinned Mexican or Meso-American? Usually they are not labeled as black either but many approach skin tones of Africans who still are called 'black'.
So I don't have a problem with it at all. YOU on the other hand are someone who seems to be hung up on labels.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Honestly, DJ, your use of "black" sometimes confuses me. I understand you're using it in reference to skin color rather than race or ethnicity, but it's sometimes unclear to me where you draw the lines marking your categorization of skin tones.
Maybe using more specific terms would help in this case? Like, would you say Tianyuan Man could have been caramel, coppery, or maybe mahogany-skinned instead of ebony? Maybe pick a tone from this image that best represents how you picture his people?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
You literally used both terms in the same sentence is what I am referring to as if that somehow really is a semantic distinction.
quote:may be more "brown" in complexion or at least as black
Meaning the populations in ancient China would have had a range of brown complexions, not a single complexion and therefore could absolutely be called either black or brown in reference to that same range of complexions. Hence why I asked why you are making the distinction as if any group of tropically adapted people anywhere on the planet all have the same exact complexion when they don't.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Lastly, the time series aDNA data can be used to track the emergence and spreading pattern of adaptive sequence variants. By utilizing the published aDNA data, we reconstructed the spatial-temporal distribution of an East Asian-specific variant (OCA2-His615Arg) that contributes to skin lightening due to local Darwinian positive selection (Figure 5, left panel). It turned out that all the Late Pleistocene individuals (e.g., MZR, Tianyuan, Amur-33K, Amur-19K, and UKY) lack the derived allele (OCA2-615Arg). The first presence of the adaptive allele (OCA2-615Arg) was in Liangdao 2–7.5 kya from coastal southern China and it quickly elevated to medium frequency (25.67%), mainly in coastal East Asia, and then spread to northern East Asia 3,500 years ago, and finally became dominant (60.00%) in current East Asians (Figure 5, left panel; Data S1N). This pattern suggests that the selective event in East Asians likely occurred in the Late Holocene epoch, coinciding the proposed quasi-exponential population growth during that time.
This would indicate that the Red Deer Cave people and other Pleistocene East Asians were significantly darker than modern populations in the region, as indicated by the absence of a derived allele causing lighter skin. This may not necessarily mean they were all dark brown, as "red" Native Americans also have the ancestral allele for the gene tested. Still, it seems likely to me that the Red Deer Cave people were at least coppery-colored if not darker.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, it's the same for UP Europeans like Cromagnon. So obviously they were dark-skinned. I'm just questioning how dark.
Were they as dark as this Andamanese boy?
What about the reconstruction of Cheddar Man of England? Do you think him to be as dark as the reconstruction below?
Or this Indian?
My point is that there is whole range of complexions that are dark skinned.
Here are people typically called "brown" today (from Amazon, SE Asia, North Asia).
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
If we're still talking about Tianyuan Man, he lived around 40,000 years ago, not long after ancestral East Asians had colonized the northern latitudes from further south. So it would make sense to me if he was in the darker brown range like the people in the first three photos you posted, since his people were still relatively new arrivals in the region. The Red Deer Cave people, on the other hand, could potentially have been lighter brown like those Native Amazonians and Southeast Asians since they had more time to evolve a lighter complexion (although they still lived rather far south in China IIRC).
It would be interesting to find out just how long it takes for a population to lose skin pigmentation. Some recent research seems to indicate that, in West Eurasia at least, lighter skin tones became more common after 30 kya (although blue eyes evolved earlier, around 42 kya). Though, of course, there's the problem of not all skin color genes potentially having been identified yet.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The only one who is literally black (more or less) on the pictures above is the Jarawa boy. All the others are different shades of brown. But out of historical and political reasons many brown skinned people are also called black. Maybe most important is what people call themselves, if they at all identify with a color.
The Cheddar reconstruction looks a bit off, but it is of course hard to know exactly how he looked like. His skin tone has been discussed Was Cheddar man white after all?
Here is another image made by artist Tom Björklund of a WHG girl from Denmark. Her skin tone is based on DNA found in a Birch tar "chewing gum".
She is reconstructed lighter than the Cheddar man but still darker than todays Danish people
Native Americans can vary a lot in skin color from dark brown, to nearly white, depending on environment. Seems that they somewhat have adapted their skin color to rather different environments. We do not really know how varied their colors where when they first came to America, but probably there has been some selection also going on since then.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems like the matter of which genes that govern skin color is a bit complicated. Another gene that also affects skin color is MFSD12 and East Asians and Native Americans have a special allele of it. I do not know how old it is though, or in what ancient skeletons it is found. But it is supposed to have arrived in America with the first ancient migrants from Asia.
quote: Strongest association with skin pigmentation at 19p13 was observed for an Y182H missense variant (common only in East Asians and Native Americans) in MFSD12, a gene recently associated with skin pigmentation in Africans. We show that the frequency of the derived allele at Y182H is significantly correlated with lower solar radiation intensity in East Asia and infer that MFSD12 was under selection in East Asians, probably after their split from Europeans.
Adhikari, K. et al, 2019: A GWAS in Latin Americans highlights the convergent evolution of lighter skin pigmentation in Eurasia
quote: This study identifies five new associated regions involving skin, eye and hair colour. Genes affecting skin colour in Europeans have been extensively studied, but here researchers identified an important variation in the gene MFSD12 seen uniquely in East Asians and Native Americans.
They show it was under natural selection in East Asians after they split from Europeans around 40,000 years ago, and was then carried over to America by ancient migrations of Native Americans. It is the first time this gene has been linked to skin colour in Native Americans and East Asians.
Dr Kaustubh Adhikari (UCL Genetics Institute), said: "Our work demonstrates that lighter skin colour evolved independently in Europe and East Asia. We also show that this gene was under strong natural selection in East Asia, possibly as adaptation to changes in sunlight levels and ultraviolet radiation."
Genetic study provides novel insights into the evolution of skin color Science Daily 2019
Look, I don't want to dwell on the issue of skin color. I'm just pointing out the fact that "dark" covers a range of complexions, and that before the rise of SLC24A5 or OCA2-615Arg mutations human skin color of populations living in temperate latitudes need not necessarily be ebony dark in color is all.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, it's the same for UP Europeans like Cromagnon. So obviously they were dark-skinned. I'm just questioning how dark.
Were they as dark as this Andamanese boy?
What about the reconstruction of Cheddar Man of England? Do you think him to be as dark as the reconstruction below?
Or this Indian?
My point is that there is whole range of complexions that are dark skinned.
Here are people typically called "brown" today (from Amazon, SE Asia, North Asia).
The only thing I am pointing out is the idea that outside Africa, the only "black" people are those with jet black skin. When in fact most "black" Africans don't have jet black skin and are still included in the dictionary definition of black. And yes, some of that or a lot of it goes back to European semantics about race in the 19th and 20th century. For example the idea of a "brown race", which is based on trying to separate populations by variations phenotype and is totally unscientific. Unfortunately a lot of that still has a large role in the study of ancient Asian population history.
Not to mention the word "brown" when it comes to ethnicity or skin color often refers to the most lightest skinned people out of a population with mixture. Latinos, Coloreds in South Africa, certain Mediterranean populations and so forth would be an example. Which goes back to my point that using brown is no more precise than using the word black and often is used to refer to the lighter ranges of brown skin. Therefore, using the term black is much more precise when you are referring to people who are not very light skinned and in the medium to darker ranges of complexion. And yes, people like to play games with this and it is unfortunate, especially when you are trying to nail down specifics.
As far as I am concerned these ancient populations were tropically adapted, meaning having a range of complexions that would be seen among various tropically adapted populations today. I deliberately use tropically adapted to avoid this nonsensical semantic sticking point around what "black" means vs what "brown" means when they literally refer to the same thing. And on this forum it is funny that image of the Kazakh or Uzbek man gets posted whenever someone talks about black Asians normally by trolls trying to cause confusion because nobody is using that person as being relevant to what black means in Asia and is not tropically adapted.
If I had to guess, I would argue that the Tianyan man would have been more similar to the Canela woman or Indian woman in complexion.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Look, I don't want to dwell on the issue of skin color. I'm just pointing out the fact that "dark" covers a range of complexions, and that before the rise of SLC24A5 or OCA2-615Arg mutations human skin color of populations living in temperate latitudes need not necessarily be ebony dark in color is all.
In the interest of fairness, I do think it is possible that initial OOA populations varied a bit in skin tone even before those depigmentation events. I have read that people with the very darkest skin tones (what you call "ebony dark") carry mutations on a couple of genes (MFSD12 and DDB1) that, while predating AMH, may not have necessarily been universal among them.
quote:The most dramatic discovery concerned a gene known as MFSD12. Two mutations that decrease expression of this gene were found in high frequencies in people with the darkest skin. These variants arose about a half-million years ago, suggesting that human ancestors before that time may have had moderately dark skin, rather than the deep black hue created today by these mutations.
These same two variants are found in Melanesians, Australian Aborigines, and some Indians. These people may have inherited the variants from ancient migrants from Africa who followed a “southern route” out of East Africa, along the southern coast of India to Melanesia and Australia, Tishkoff says. That idea, however, counters three genetic studies that concluded last year that Australians, Melanesians, and Eurasians all descend from a single migration out of Africa. Alternatively, this great migration may have included people carrying variants for both light and dark skin, but the dark variants later were lost in Eurasians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
We know for a fact that Tianyan man was related to the populations of the Americas. And we know that some of them maintained their dark pigment into the current day. And of course that is mostly in tropical areas. Across the various Native American populations you see the variation in features also found in Asia.
Unfortunately as for the mainland, since historic migrations from China well into the modern era have impacted many parts of South East Asia, a lot of this discussion gets bogged down in modern ideas of what constitutes "Asian" features. When there is absolutely no guarantee that the people of many parts of China today looked the same as they did 5,000 years ago. And I am not saying they were all dark skinned either.
Be that as it may, without more ancient DNA from across the continent and more actual full skeletons or skulls, this will remain an open question in terms of the diversity and evolution of populations in ancient Asia over time.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A video by Razib Khan about the ancient genetic roots of the Chinese
quote: On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib explores the history of China through the lens of genetics and ancient DNA. This podcast is a companion to the recent two pieces, Genetic history with Chinese characteristics and Venerable Ancestors: untangling the Chinese people's hybrid Pleistocene origins. Today 92% of the citizens of the People’s Republic of China are ethnic Han, accounting for 16% of humanity. With China’s new prominence in genomics over the last decade, the genetic structure and relatedness of the Han and other ethnic groups in modern China have been extensively mapped. While India is fractured into thousands of endogamous groups, the Han Chinese are surprisingly homogeneous, with most variation dividing the North Chinese from the South Chinese.
Though the Chinese claim “5,000 years of history,” Razib probes deeper, back to the arrival of modern humans to East Asia more than 40,000 years ago, perhaps as early as 50,000 years ago. The monologue recounts the discovery and implications of the first modern human genome from East Asia, Tianyun Man, and how he relates to the region's peoples today and their Pleistocene diversification and Holocene homogenization. Finally, Razib reflects on how science differs from the narrative the modern Chinese tell about their origins and how they relate to their neighboring nations.
While looking for information on a possible Negrito presence in the Khmer Empire, I found this from an old book titled The Ancient Khmer Empire. I know Djehuti has mentioned Chinese records of a woman with Negrito traits ruling the Funanese, but the Chinese describing Funanese in general as being dark-skinned with curly hair was a surprise. I knew there had to be Negrito people living in the region's jungles by that date, but I would have thought they had already become the minority, with the majority looking more like modern Khmer Cambodians.
Anyone know if there are records of Negritos persisting in Cambodia by the time of the Khmer Empire? I don't buy the claims of some Afrocentrics that the medieval Khmers were all Negrito, but a Negrito minority persisting in the kingdom's boondocks seems plausible to me. I haven't found any information on there being Negritos in the country today though.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The black aboriginal people of Cambodia are known as Maa or Moi.
Unfortunately, they are a very small population and many of them have already mixed with older Austroasian groups other than Khmer so many of them have lost their original look other than black skin. Contrast this with the Indian ancestry found in elite Khmer remains as discussed before.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The black aboriginal people of Cambodia are known as Maa or Moi.
There is a chapter about the Moi in Roy Pinney´s old book Vanishing tribes
quote: THE MOI In the mountains of central Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia live a number of primitive tribes whose total population is perhaps 50Q,000. They are called collectively by the Vietnamese word Moi a generic term that means simply "savage." The Laotians call them the Kha and the Cambodians Pnong. They live in the inaccessible jungle areas of the Indochina peninsula but their isolation from the complex civilisation that have developed around them is also due also due in part to their suspicion of outsiders Their more civilized neighbors have always regarded them as dangerous, savage people and have spread stories of their cannibalism but these stories have not been verified.
The Moi live in a big-game hunter's paradise, although non hunters might find it a bit harrowing. The elephant is an economic staple for them, and the tiger is their most feared and venerated enemy. A Moi village is often abandoned and a new site found merely to avoid the ravages of a man-eating tiger who has been preying on the villagers. Comparatively little has been learned about the customs and beliefs of these peoples, some of whom live within one hundred miles of Saigon.
In many older books the authors often stated that a people was vanishing, but they did not often try to raise public opinion to save the people in question (through guaranteed land rights, protection from violence, drugs, trafficking and other degrading factors). Hopefully the attitude has changed nowadays among anthropologists and maybe one day among authorities in different countries too.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The black aboriginal people of Cambodia are known as Maa or Moi.
Unfortunately, they are a very small population and many of them have already mixed with older Austroasian groups other than Khmer so many of them have lost their original look other than black skin. Contrast this with the Indian ancestry found in elite Khmer remains as discussed before.
"Moi" is a term often used by the French in the colonial era to refer to various "primitive" groups in Vietnam. It was never used as a reference to "Aborigines" as opposed to "indigenous" or "tribal" populations outside the cities. At that time, this was part of French Indochina and Vietnam was referred to as Annam. And most of those populations in those photographs from 80 to 100 years ago are mostly straight haired. More recently these various groups have also been labelled as Montagnards, especially in Vietnam.
Generally Cambodia has a wide range of indigenous types and that diversity is quite ancient even if there arent many "negritoes". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6LqeEf9d7s
"Aboriginal" in this context when it comes to populations in Asia refers to those groups who maintained an ancient DNA profile associated with the first settlers of Asia. The only reason "negritoes" are identified with being "aborigines" is because of this, but technically only certain Negrito populations have this distinction. It is simply assumed that because of their looks they have unique OOA related DNA lineages but all of them don't. Australian Aborigines have this distinction because of geographic isolation, but they aren't short or kinky haired. The Andaman Islanders have it also because of geography and isolation but also because of fierce rejection of foreign intrusion. Other "negrito" populations do not have such ancient DNA lineages, including the Aeta, despite them being relatively isolated from other populations and maintaining a relatively distinct phenotype. That said, they are identified as "aboriginal" to the Philippines, but not necessarily having lineages as ancient as Australians or Andamese. And technically all aboriginal Filipinos weren't kinky haired either.
quote: We first investigated the relationship between individuals by PCA. Figure 1A shows that the first two principal components (PCs) separates the Andamanese, Malaysian Negritos and Philippine Negritos into distinct clusters. If Papuans and Melanesians were included (supplementary fig. S4A, Supplementary Material online), the Philippine Negritos were located between the Papuans and Malaysian Negritos along PC2. When the Andamanese individuals were omitted, PC1 separates the Aeta, Agta, and Batak from the other populations whereas PC2 separates the Mamanwa and Jehai from other groups (fig. 1B). The Agta, Aeta, and Batak individuals form a comet-like pattern along PC1, which may indicate admixture events. Similarly, the Mamanwa also showed the comet-like pattern along PC2. The PCA plot without Agta and Aeta (supplementary fig. S4B, Supplementary Material online) places the Batak close to the non-Negrito Philippine groups, suggesting a high proportion of admixture. The Manobo and Mamanwa, both living in northern Mindanao, have a high affinity as several Manobo individuals clustered with the Mamanwa (fig. 1B and supplementary fig. S4B, Supplementary Material online).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
