Population of Shangdong, China in 500 B.C. closer to European than Asian

Posted by VanSpeyk on December 30, 2006, 05:40 AM | #

Quit interesting. Especially in combination with what we know about archelogical finds of Tarim mummies of Western-China.  These mummies were discovered in the late 1980s by Victor Mair and had a European appearance. Genetic studies have showed that these people were of Indo-European descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies
and
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050419-101056-2135r.htm

Posted by mitochondrial brute on December 30, 2006, 06:38 AM | #

Hey, I thought “race replacement is impossible.”

This:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/17/9/1396/F3

is a visual representation of race replacement - or, better put, a view of matrilineal replacement.  Note how the “Linzi” group shifts over time.

I would, however, not call mtDNA data “genetic structure.”  When Paabo et al. demonstrate with their Neaderthal genome sequencing that it is possible to get at the nuclear DNA of ancient remains and produce viable results, these Linzi/Chinese samples should be re-evaluated.

Posted by Yarus on December 30, 2006, 08:58 AM | #

Erm, I hate to be the bearer of annoying news, but this (6 year old) study has been rebutted already. As this Brute person suggested, these samples have been re-evaluated and tested using more extensive and refined methods. According to the study by Yao et. al, the residents of Shandong two and a half millennia ago were even further removed from Europeans than the present population:

The reanalysis of two previously published ancient mtDNA population data sets from Linzi (same province) then indicates that the ancient populations had features in common with the modern populations from south China rather than any specific affinity to the European mtDNA pool

As the Han people invaded Shandong from the North after the fall of the Qin dynasty, they intermarried with the indigenous peoples. Eventually, this gave rise to the modern genetic profile of Shandong, which has a much stronger Northern Mongoloid component. So yes, in a way ancient Shandong was subject to ethnic-replacement and interbreeding, but the invading ethny resembled the average European more than the older ethny, albeit only by a small degree.

By the way, even before I came across this newer study, something still seemed fishy with the hypothesis of a Europoid Easternmost China: how come the terracotta statuary in the infamous Qin emperor’s tomb, located in the Shaanxi province and dated to 210 BC, depicted an overwhelmingly East Asian populace, even though it is much closer to the living space of the Tarim peoples than Shandong?

Posted by autosomal brutey on December 30, 2006, 01:41 PM | #

“As this Brute person suggested, these samples have been re-evaluated and tested using more extensive and refined methods.”

Yes, but what we don’t need are yet more mtDNA analyses.  Let Paabo demonstrate the efficacy of his protocols and then we can take another look at these ancient DNA samples.

Yao et al, write;
“To reconstruct the evolutionary history of China, it is thus important to take (pre)historic knowledge and archaeological assemblages into full consideration. Our results highlight that the interpretation of ancient DNA should begin with sufficient data and not draw conclusions on too limited a data set. “

Yes, and if they had sufficient honesty, they would admit that even “properly interpreted” mtDNA data is not “sufficient data” and meets the definition of a “too limited…data set.”

You can’t reconstruct “the evolutionary history” of any people looking at what is essentially a single locus.  Yes, previous methodological constraints have heretofore limited ancient DNA analyses to mtDNA, but at least admit that you cannot reconstruct an “evolutionary history” from that.  It would be better to just dissect the genetic structure of modern populations, using a combination of standard techniques and ancestral chromosomal block analyses to attempt to quantitate admixture and give a reasonable estimate of the timing of the admixture.  Later, when Paabo’s methods become more routine, you can go back to the ancient materials.

I don’t believe the Yao data is telling us much more than the earlier set.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 30, 2006, 04:23 PM | #

Quit interesting. Especially in combination with what we know about archelogical finds of Tarim mummies of Western-China.

Hmmm?  Oh!  I forgot to give credit for the links to SFer OdinPatrick:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/whites-shandong-china-before-asians-351070.html?t=351070

He goes into the Tarim Basin Caucasians too.

Posted by James Bowery on December 30, 2006, 05:22 PM | #

Yes, but what we don’t need are yet more mtDNA analyses.  Let Paabo demonstrate the efficacy of his protocols and then we can take another look at these ancient DNA samples.

Yes.  Using mtDNA demography for EGI is like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp post because that’s where the light is.  The Y chromosome is more strongly correlated with territory and therefore probably with EGI as well.  Of course direct autosomal analysis itself is the best measure where feasible.

Posted by insensitive rude slur spewing brute on December 30, 2006, 05:36 PM | #

“Of course direct autosomal analysis itself is the best measure where feasible. “

Agreed.

I’ll also agree that NRY data are likely to be more informative than mtDNA, although both are, essentially, single loci.

The preference for mtDNA in ancient sample analysis is methodological - there is much more of it than the nuclear DNA, and the Y chromosome is part of the nuclear DNA as are the autosomes, and therefore much harder to find sufficient amounts of in reasonable quality.  It’s relatively easy for researchers to get at the mtDNA, but, the ease is inversely related to its utility.

The researchers should acknowledge these limitations and not make claims about the data that are a stretch.  The only way to determine the actual relationships of the Linzi samples to modern populations is if the Paabo method works and could be applied to these samples.

Another question: in what condition are the overall samples?  Are the skulls intact?  Is the morphology more Asian or more European?  Until the autosomal DNA is examined, you’d get better data I think just examining the bones than fishing around with the matrilineages there.

Posted by juan peron brute on December 31, 2006, 06:39 AM | #

With previous talk of “pink-skinned white Latin Americans” and “as homogenous as the parental nations white Latin American nations”, as well as an inaccurate 1984 NA article on Argentina, the following is of value:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/12/genetic-components-of-argentinean.html

That should have been obvious, since street scenes from Argentina (for example, rioting/protests) reveal large numbers of mestizos.

Of course, given the very wide variation there individual Argentines also need to be considered independent of the national average, but the average in Argentina does match the story from Chile and elsewhere.

Posted by Yarus on December 31, 2006, 05:34 PM | #

Brute:

I don’t believe the Yao data is telling us much more than the earlier set.

In respect to fully understanding the genotype of ancient populations, I concede that both paper’s aren’t nearly as helpful as I thought, regardless of which one is right. I had forgotten about the overwhelmingly maternal aspect of MtDNA, thus I was overeager in citing the Yao et al. paper to clear things up.

However, with respect to matrilineages and the paper I cited, surely you agree that the first half of your first comment on this page was also a bit overeager?

Speaking of skeletal remains, I can’t seem to find anything on scholar.google.com, although one paper did mention that the ancient Yangshao culture was predominantly Mongoloid. If any lurkers on this page have advanced access to such papers, please post.

Posted by inscrutable oriental brute on December 31, 2006, 05:49 PM | #

“However, with respect to matrilineages and the paper I cited, surely you agree that the first half of your first comment on this page was also a bit overeager?”

Well, yes, I need to remember my usual attitude of ignoring genetic studies that do not involve autosomal markers.

Essentially, I view mtDNA and NRY studies, when printed out, as fitting material for rapid recycling into toilet paper.

“...that the ancient Yangshao culture was predominantly Mongoloid.”

That’s fine.  I have no axe to grind regarding that all ancient cultures were due to Europeans.  According to a crude “color” scheme, browns and yellows are capable of civilization as are whites (although the verdict of history points to differing relative levels of achievement), blacks are not, while reds have shown some past developments in that direction.

What that has to do with genetic interests?

Nothing.

Posted by sergio zalmoxis on May 22, 2007, 05:54 PM | #

white people are no the majority u guys are fucking bithes who can suck my dick.and u guys dont even khow whos white or not i can see that on ur majority map.africa is like 3 times biger then europe and u can fit 3 europes into china so suck my dick white minorities.even not all of the people in europe are white.just like romaninas there not white we just have so many white people cuz of the white colonists from roman empire and the romaniazed slavic people that live there.

Posted by SU on April 19, 2010, 02:45 AM | #

Nothing surprise. In Korea as well, such an European DNAs were found among people buried in the present day of Kangwon. Their DNAs are rather Scythians, than modern day Koreans.

Posted by spiritedW on May 28, 2011, 12:11 AM | #

So whitey showed up for the party, merged a little and disappeared. Did Vikings have an affect on the local religions? Or was the everese true, were the more genetically advanced Asians inviting us over to enhance their gene pool for girth and strength. I want to find out if the horse like asian men, sumo wrestlers, are genetically linked to anglos.