"Altaic domination" of northern China?

Welcome to Quetzalcoatl: anthropology forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

"Altaic domination" of northern China?
Topic Started: Nov 6 2006, 01:55 PM (515 Views)
cydevil	Nov 6 2006, 01:55 PM Post #1
Member Posts: 16 Group: Members Member #72 Joined: October 30, 2005	Before delving into the topic, I would like to make it clear that I don't intend this to be flaming(this can obviously be offending to some people, I assume). I became aware of a book called "Peopling of East Asia", and in the process of searching for a site to order the book, I came across an interesting PPT file writtened by one of the editors of the book. To summarize the PPT, it's about the "Altaic domination" of northern China, that Altaic-speaking peoples dominated northern China through much of history, displacing the original Sino-Tibetan inhabitants, driving them towards southern China. The new Altaic-speaking immigrants to northern China, however, were eventually assimilated into Chinese culture to become Sino-Tibetan speakers. This is quite a radical change from theories on peopling of East Asia I've seen so far, so I have much doubt over this material. I especially have doubt over the evidence; the presentation shows that Y Chromosomes of northern Hans differ from other Altaic speakers. This should contradict the author's claim that high mortaility rate and southward migration of the original northern Hans, along with new arrivals of Altaic settlers, changed the constituents of northern Hans from Sino-Tibetans to Altaics. But honestly, I don't understand much of the genetic jargons in the presentation, so I would like to see some opinions from those who can make out what evidence the presentation is based upon, and if that evidence is used in a correct manner.



black man	Nov 6 2006, 08:06 PM Post #2
Liaison Posts: 2,462 Group: supermod Member #48 Joined: July 11, 2005	In the ppt document Sagart et al. do not mention the way they determined alleged y-chromosomal closeness between "Altaics" and Sino-Tibetans. (The ppt document can nevertheless still be updated.) But given the information generally available about the topic, it's likely that they used the results of analysis via comparison of haplogroup frequencies in a few "representative" populations. The haplogroups shared by "Altaics" and Han in the data Sagart got could have been C3 and O3 (and/or O3e), which are two hgs quite often tested in central East (e.g. Han) and NE Asian (e.g. eastern Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus) populations. But haplogroups and language families have certain ages of presence which differ concerning their appearance in different regions. In order to get traceable conclusions, one needs to refer to local age estimates e.g. via STR data and to distinct historical events which can be clearly associated with certain languages and populations. Sagart primarily refers to the distribution of autosomal genetic markers and Manchu-Tungus/Mongolic "domination". ----------- Sino-Tibetans are not homogeneous but the Tibetic subgroup shares mostly hg O3e but hardly any other y-hg with mainstream Sinitic-speakers. (Exceptions can usually be associated with contacts to/assimilation of non-Sino-Tibetan neighbours, particularly in Yunnan.) That makes O3e a good candidate for one y-hg common to hypothetic ancestors of both Sinitic and Tibetic populations before a split into these two branches of Sino-Tibetan. The existence of O3e carriers among earliest "Altaic"-speakers would mean that a higher resolution and/or STR ht analysis could be necessary to distinguish between "Altaic" and non-"Altaic" O3e. It would be difficult to determine the genetic compostion of unidentified "Altaic"-speaking invaders. Most Turkic populations have high frequencies of hg R1a1 y-chromosomes. The frequencies of hgs except for R1a1 in Turkic populations vary to a higher degree from population to population. The main Mongolic populations have high frequencies of C3, including among Oirat descendants and Khalkhs lots of C3c. Manchu-Tungus often carry the markers of C3Š and, further, O3e as well as the relatively rare para-hgs of O2(xO2a). Hgs not mentioned above were either not sufficiently tested regarding sublineage frequencies (N, Q), regionally restricted (D in peripheral regions, O3cd mainly in coastal East Asia, O1 and O2a mainly in SE Asia) or prone to have experienced local founder events (O1 in Amdo[?]). Estimation of Mongol admixture seems to be quite easy: it is a medieval ethnic group, of which one medieval haplotype starcluster (belonging to paragroup C3[xC3c]) was so far not found among Han. C3c is, AFAIK, absent from Han. There has nevertheless been no widely known analysis of relationship between O3e carriers in Manchu-Tungus, Khalkhas and Han. However, the therefore necessary data might be already available. Xue et al. tested 17 STR markers as well as the binary markers for O3e in Han, eastern Mongols and Manchus. (But I don't know whether that will be sufficient.)



Maju	Nov 6 2006, 11:31 PM Post #3
sorgina Posts: 1,468 Group: Members Member #85 Joined: January 1, 2006	I was fo some time under the same impression of cydevil. I somehow believed that the Shang were invaders (possibly of Altaic stock) but as I've read some history of China, it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact China was (apparently) never invaded before the Mongols, what explains its extremely long ethnic and cultural continuity. China instead did expand at the expense mostly of its southern neighbours, closer to SE Asians than to Chinese. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
	Chaos never died, the Empire was never founded.


black man	Nov 7 2006, 11:17 PM Post #4
Liaison Posts: 2,462 Group: supermod Member #48 Joined: July 11, 2005	Quote: In fact China was (apparently) never invaded before the Mongols, what explains its extremely long ethnic and cultural continuity. China instead did expand at the expense mostly of its southern neighbours, closer to SE Asians than to Chinese. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). There was a withdrawal of Han to the south before the Mongol domination due to which Cantonese today still(?) call themselves "tangren". But in any case, people are not unlikely to adopt others' names. E.g. Pathans call themselves descendants of sometimes "Greeks", sometimes "Jews", sometimes "Arabs" though only small percentages of them might have the y-chromosomes of such ancestors.



Don	Nov 11 2006, 05:19 PM Post #5
Member Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #104 Joined: June 4, 2006	Shouldn't this topic be in the East Eurasia and Americas Section?



black man	Nov 11 2006, 08:56 PM Post #6
Liaison Posts: 2,462 Group: supermod Member #48 Joined: July 11, 2005	Don Nov 11 2006, 05:19 PM Shouldn't this topic be in the East Eurasia and Americas Section? ren's topic description for the "East Eurasia and the Americas" subforum is "Concentrating on osteologically "Siberic" ("Mongoloid") peoples". '"Altaic domination" of northern China?' thematically belongs to (inter-)regional history and is therefore in the subforum "Regions in focus".



ren	Nov 12 2006, 01:22 AM Post #7
Yoda Posts: 2,710 Group: Custodian Member #1 Joined: January 2, 2005	black man Nov 11 2006, 08:56 PM Don Nov 11 2006, 05:19 PM Shouldn't this topic be in the East Eurasia and Americas Section? ren's topic description for the "East Eurasia and the Americas" subforum is "Concentrating on osteologically "Siberic" ("Mongoloid") peoples". '"Altaic domination" of northern China?' thematically belongs to (inter-)regional history and is therefore in the subforum "Regions in focus". I actually had broader areas in mind for inter-regional issues, such as interactions between W. Eurasia and E. Eurasia, otherwise too many things would be inter-regional (N. Chinese movement into the south for example), although E. Asian mtDNA profile, as an example, makes East Asia/SE Asia as distinct a region from Siberian mtDNA (with Altaic peoples partaking in that phenomenon) as the Americas is a distinct cluster. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to topic, from the historical perspective, Altaic contributions to northern Chinese could be around 50%. During the rein of the Jurchens in the Jin kingdom which covered basically all of north China, the "Altaic" population increased by 10% as a result of 3 million Jurchens and other northern peoples moving into a northern China of 30 million. That's an increase of 10% added to the already mixed picture of northern China ruled by the previous Khitans, and before that so on and so on of dozens of ethnic groups settling or ruling northern China.
	It has already begun.


black man	Nov 12 2006, 05:11 AM Post #8
Liaison Posts: 2,462 Group: supermod Member #48 Joined: July 11, 2005	ren Nov 12 2006, 01:22 AM I actually had broader areas in mind for inter-regional issues, such as interactions between W. Eurasia and E. Eurasia, otherwise too many things would be inter-regional (N. Chinese movement into the south for example), although E. Asian mtDNA profile, as an example, makes East Asia/SE Asia as distinct a region from Siberian mtDNA (with Altaic peoples partaking in that phenomenon) as the Americas is a distinct cluster. Sorry, my fault. I moved it from "Altaic" to "interregional" keeping in mind that "Altaic" is also spoken in West Eurasia. However, the according ppt from Sagart only refers to East Eurasia. You're right.



ren	Nov 12 2006, 05:58 AM Post #9
Yoda Posts: 2,710 Group: Custodian Member #1 Joined: January 2, 2005	No need to say "sorry" really.
	It has already begun.


Maju	Nov 12 2006, 12:11 PM Post #10
sorgina Posts: 1,468 Group: Members Member #85 Joined: January 1, 2006	ren Nov 12 2006, 03:22 AM Back to topic, from the historical perspective, Altaic contributions to northern Chinese could be around 50%. During the rein of the Jurchens in the Jin kingdom which covered basically all of north China, the "Altaic" population increased by 10% as a result of 3 million Jurchens and other northern peoples moving into a northern China of 30 million. That's an increase of 10% added to the already mixed picture of northern China ruled by the previous Khitans, and before that so on and so on of dozens of ethnic groups settling or ruling northern China. I wonder where you got these figures from. In principle I find quite unlikely that nomadic invaders could bring 3 million people out of nowhere. I've seen simmilar "exaggerated" approaches in the context of Europe, where the proportion of invaders-migrants was systematically inflated. Modern genetics contradict such ideas in most cases. Also, if such a mass migration would have happened, it's likely that Chinese would have vanished in benefit of the invaders' language. Instead these were assimilated into Chinese culture. <_<
	Chaos never died, the Empire was never founded.


cydevil	Nov 16 2006, 10:45 PM Post #11
Member Posts: 16 Group: Members Member #72 Joined: October 30, 2005	Thank you all for your valuable input. Personally, if there were any major Altaic contributions to Chinese populations, I think it was more ancient than Khitans or Jurchens, such as migrants from Lower Xiajiadian. Has anyone read "Peopling of East Asia"? I'm thinking about making a trip to the Library of Congress(Korea) to have a look at the book, but I'm not sure if it'll be worth the one hour trip. Oh, and ren, do you remember I said there were caucasian Y-Chromosomes found in Korean populations? I didn't track back on the original one where I got that idea, but I got another that came with a similar result. I thought you might be interested: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/172/4/2431 Not necessarily caucasian perhaps, but it's somewhat exotic to the area I believe. Perhaps intermixing before proto-Koreans migrated to the peninsula?



black man	Nov 17 2006, 12:24 AM Post #12
Liaison Posts: 2,462 Group: supermod Member #48 Joined: July 11, 2005	cydevil Nov 16 2006, 10:45 PM Has anyone read "Peopling of East Asia"? I didn't yet, but maybe in a couple of weeks I'll have an opportunity to take a look at it. Quote: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/172/4/2431 Not necessarily caucasian perhaps, but it's somewhat exotic to the area I believe. Perhaps intermixing before proto-Koreans migrated to the peninsula? You mean "Y(xA, CE, JR)"? As far as I know, according hgs are very rare in South Koreans (less than 1% in a sample from Seoul/n=154). "Y(xC,D,K)" was found in a sample from Beijing by Korean researchers. The percentage was so high (17%) that it could be a local hg, unlike "F(xK)" in the northern Chinese sample of Karafet et al. which were just hgs J and G. In some parts of China there might have been locally restricted founder effects concerning "F(xK)" because the frequencies are relatively high in some places while being zero or close to zero in other places. Since "Y(xA, CE, JR)" was found in only two Koreans in China, what do you know about the origins of "Chinese" Koreans? Are they Koreans from all parts of Korea or close to Koreans from one particular region of Korea? Are they mixed with other ethnic groups (e.g. with Han Chinese)?



cydevil	Nov 17 2006, 10:16 PM Post #13
Member Posts: 16 Group: Members Member #72 Joined: October 30, 2005	Quote: You mean "Y(xA, CE, JR)"? As far as I know, according hgs are very rare in South Koreans (less than 1% in a sample from Seoul/n=154). "Y(xC,D,K)" was found in a sample from Beijing by Korean researchers. The percentage was so high (17%) that it could be a local hg, unlike "F(xK)" in the northern Chinese sample of Karafet et al. which were just hgs J and G. I was talking about Haplogruop J, R and P. It's also very few in the sample, but I was talking about intermixing by sleight chance, not any major intermixing. Quote: In some parts of China there might have been locally restricted founder effects concerning "F(xK)" because the frequencies are relatively high in some places while being zero or close to zero in other places. Since "Y(xA, CE, JR)" was found in only two Koreans in China, what do you know about the origins of "Chinese" Koreans? Are they Koreans from all parts of Korea or close to Koreans from one particular region of Korea? Are they mixed with other ethnic groups (e.g. with Han Chinese)? I'd say most of them are from the northern edge of Korea, but many of them also came from all over Korea to escape Japanese occupation. I doubt they mixed with other ethnic groups. If they did get mixed, especially on the paternal side, they would be regarded non-Korean. I would like to point out that some Koreans in the northern edge of Korea may originally be of Manchu heritage. Korea started assimilation policy of assimilating proto-Manchus since Koryo Dynasty, allowing them to settle in Korea with a free patch of farmland and farm tools. Koryo was a very open society. It took immigrants from various sources, such as Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and even Arabs.



black man	Nov 17 2006, 11:40 PM Post #14
Liaison Posts: 2,462 Group: supermod Member #48 Joined: July 11, 2005	Quote: I was talking about Haplogruop J, R and P. It's also very few in the sample, but I was talking about intermixing by sleight chance, not any major intermixing. One man carrying hg P(xR1a) turned out to belong to hg Q1 in the Korean sample of the "Eurasian heartland" paper by Wells et al. There are no age estimates or diversity estimates of Q1 known to me. Hg Q1 (aka "h13" in some Chinese papers) was also detected by Han Chinese, Tibeto-Burmans, Hazaras and one inhabitant of the province Sindh of Pakistan. Researchers like Michael Hammer, Tatiana Karafet, Vadim Stepanov and Peter Underhill might have more detailed information about the downstream markers of P* but didn't publish them, yet. Hg J has its highest diversity in SW Asia, it's thus likely to be from there. Different subclades of hg R were detected in East Asians (especially R1b-M73, which is also found in Hazaras, and R1a1, which is also found in Turko-Mongols besides South Asians, West Asians and Europeans).



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · East Eurasia and the Americas; Oceania · Next Topic »