So, the Ainu and the Emishi are two of the indigenous peoples of the Japanese archipelago.
From where did the modern population of Japan colonize from? Ancient China? Ancient Korea? Is there even a modern equivalent of the ancestors of the modern Japanese population?
Photo is from the February 1967 issue of National Geographic, Ainu woman with tattoos signifying ability to marry.
Other urls found in this thread:
smbe-2016.p.asnevents.com.au
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
The Yangtze, where rice agriculture began and where most rice-growing populations originate.
Source: some bullshit I read somewhere
Am i the only one who find them yo be somewhat similar to abos?
They're supposed to be genetically related to the indigenous peoples of the Pacific North-West, like the Haida, Tsimshian, and Tlingit. You can definitely see some resemblance there, but I can see the similarities to Australian Aborigines in the heavy brow, deep set eyes, and thick hair.
I imagine Asians are originally descended from people who looked a bit like Abos or Negritos whose coloration changed as they moved into more temperate climates. Agriculture spread the modern 'Mongoloids' we recognize today from East Asia to the Pacific Islands, while surviving hunter-gatherers like Ainu or Southeast Asian Negritos retain more 'archaic' features. And prior to this some had crossed into the Americas giving rise to another race.
I'm pulling this out of my ass though.
Modern Yamato Japan is basically a mix of the Jomon hunter-gatherers (believed to originate from Southeast Asia) and the sedentary rice-growing Yayoi people from Korea.
Ainus and Ryukyus show more Jomon traits which points to the theory that the Yayoi immigrated from the Korean peninsula to Kyushu and Honshu and gradually spread north and south from there.
Yayoi wasn't just colonizers from the Korean peninsula, though. I'm surprised this is still being pushed, probably by Koreans. There was significant migration from coastal China and Siberia as well.
Well the genetic makeup strongly suggests this theory. Although it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of Yayoi colonizers from those regions, their numbers were not as significant as those from Korea. Otherwise Ryukyus and Ainus would have had even less Jomon genes.
OP here - thanks for the responses, guys. Interested in researching the Jomon, as cultures practising hunter gatherer subsistence economies interest me greatly.
Here's another photo from the Feb. '67 NatGeo, showing an Ainu man performing a bear-hunt dance. At work and on mobile, sorry for the landscape orientation.
thought about this article? it mention japan cultural-linguistic connection with certain ethnic in south east asia
Jomon are Basal East Eurasians who emerged after the differentiation between East Eurasians/Melanesian but prior to the split between Northern/Southern East Eurasians.
Jomon no longer exists in a pure form,the Ainu are admixed with Tungusic populations while the Ryukyuans and the Japanese are predominately Yayoi.
Archaeology,linguistics(Koreanic loanwords in Old Japanese,Japonic toponyms in Korea) and genetics(Uniparental markers,autosomal studies) all support that the Yayoi lived in southern Korea.
The ancestors of Koreanics/Japonics may have been similar an Ulchi like population who were dominated by rice farming southern Chinese like population(smbe-2016.p.asnevents.com.au
I think they're a mix of Austronesian with Sinitic influences and Ainu/Jomon to lesser extent and possible Altaic influence as well.
en.wikipedia.org
There's a theory that posits Japanese and Korean having an Austronesian substratum and and an Altaic superstratum.
en.wikipedia.org
It isn't hard to imagine considering the Mongols did try to invade them and succeeded in Korea and maybe a something similar occurred during some point in their early unwritten history when their culture was less developed. The smaller nomadic culture though was not able to replace the culture of the larger settled population but may have assimilated to it in a way similar to how the Indo-Aryans/Bhramans assimilated to the Indus valley culture. Maybe legendary warrior figures and blacksmiths are descended from Altaics.
Not a turanboo btw.
Egypt
the best theory I've seen is that sinitic populations are simply neonatal austronesian populations. Japan had a different basal austronesian group than china which would be the o3 and the d, but then became flooded with sinitics and altaic koreans, who changed the phenotype but didn't completely wipe away haplotype markers.
then they underwent the same selection pressures as the chinese for 10k years.
so they basically are just chinese with thinner noses.
good post.
it's really cool, because genetics has more or less settled the issue 95%.
crackpot science. japanese is very clearly related to korean, though the altaic link is much less clear.
molecular dna studies have more or less confirmed they're completely unrelated to javanese, and that basal japanese groups were a combnation of southern chinese farmers, and a smaller population of ainu hunter gatherers who were most closely related to ancient austronesians in tibet (who also went into australia.)
the ryukyu people are some of the most pure yayoi, actually. just wanted to point that out. their languages are mutually intelligible with japanese in a weaker sense, and they bear zero similarity to the taiwanese natives, nor the hokklo who are only a stones throw away
>the best theory I've seen is that sinitic populations are simply neonatal austronesian populations.
Austronesian most likely didn't originate on the mainland though proto/para Austronesian(Tai Kadai?) did.
Without ancient autosomal DNA there's only so much you can do with craniofacial measurements and uniparental markers.
Neolithic Northern/Central China was most likely ancestral to East Eurasians,most likely facilitated by agriculturalists.(Uniparental markers,low fst distance between modern East Eurasians as well as the relatively young age of Sinitic,Austronesian,Hmong Mien and Tai Kadai)
Erlitou,Early Shang(Yanshi) and late Shang(Yinxu) show mtdna affinities to the
native N* M231/N1c1 Tat hunter gatherer population of northern Hebei/Inner Mongolia/Western Liaoning(Hongshan,Lower Xiajiadian etc.)
This population was historically influenced by by East Eurasian agriculturalists(O2* M122,O2a M324,O2a2 P201,O2a2b1a1 M117) and nomadic pastoralists(C2 M217).
>Japan had a different basal austronesian group than china which would be the o3 and the d, but then became flooded with sinitics and altaic koreans
Whoever brought various O2 subclades and O1b2* P49 to Korea/Japan would not be Austronesian.
Perhaps pre Sinitic Shandong is the best candidate for the O2 markers.
D is far too old to assign to East Eurasians.
If we assume Koreanic was introduced by Buyeo pastoralists the genetic affinity of modern day Koreanics/Japonics may be the result of proto/para Japonics switching to Koreanic instead of being replaced.
They literally look like White Abos
I've always found it strange how divergent the indigenous populations of Okinawa and Taiwan were from each other, despite their geographic proximity.
To consider Okinawans relatively more Yayoi than Ainus (or aboriginal Taiwanese for that matter) may be correct but to culturally and genetically classify them as somewhat pure Yayoi is quite a stretch.
For anyone interested in a primer on Ryukyu linguistics I found this video quite interesting. Who knew that Uchinaguchi was 1 of 6 dialects spoken there?
youtube.com
you clearly have a mor advanced understanding of haplotypes than I do.
what I got from the idea that before sinicization in east asia, them being austronesian was more in the morphological sense than haplotypic.
the sinicized types HAPPENED to be of a certain strain of haplotypes that probably had larger brow rides, smaller brains, and were morphologically similar because of this to austronesians.
when neoteny set n for selection purposes, they essentially became sinitic without ever changing haplotype. because you can change the phenotype without changing the haplotype, which is why we still share these haplotypes with aficans.
my interpretation of the record we have so far is that this morphological shit occurred first somewhere around, as is typically proposed, shandong, and then these morphological changes proliterated by some part genetic dispersion, but he larger part seems to have been shifting selection pressure, which began to impose demands for high intelligence upon ALL regional populations.
you'll notice that southern chinese are closer genotypically to austronesians, but morphologically they look more similar to northern chinese. part of this is genetic introgression of northern DNA, but you'll also notice that the border of southern china also more or less marks the permanent borders of civilization, beyond which, societal eugenics could not function.
immediately south of china people begin looking like cavemen (small remnants of this remain in southern chinese, but not much.)
I'm no expert, this is just what I've read
but I enjoyed your post. thank you.
physical proximity has only entailed genetic similarity post-bronze age. previously, we see that settled regions tend to be populated by raiding groups by genocide with very little genetic mixing. for example, the philistines were genetically greek, they were r1b, rather than the J groups that currently live there.
As a rule of thumb the further you go back in East Eurasian neolithic the more diverse the morphology some of which can be classified "Australoid".
There are some Yangshao sites that are even more southern shifted than any modern day Southern Chinese minority to the point where they resemble Indonesians/Malaysians.
Again,physical anthropology may be invalidated once we have the results of ancient autosomal dna.
>my interpretation of the record we have so far is that this morphological shit occurred first somewhere around, as is typically proposed, shandong, and then these morphological changes proliterated by some part genetic dispersion
Most likely the result of the Longshan culture. There is craniofacial continuity between early neolithic Longshan to Erlitou and eventually Shang.
>you'll notice that southern chinese are closer genotypically to austronesians, but morphologically they look more similar to northern chinese.
Depends how you define "southern Chinese".
The genotypes of Hubei,Anhui and Jiangsu Han largely resemble Northern Han with minor southern admixture.
Zhejiang,Jiangxi and Hunan Han are somewhere in the middle and overlap with the Tujia.
Fujian and Guangdong Han(including Hakka) resemble the She and Miao populations with Cantonese being slightly more southern shifted.
My guess is that the historical Sinitic speakers might be more northern shifted than their modern counterparts while completely Sinicizing upper/middle/lower Yangzi basin that contributed to Austronesian shifted Southern Chinese.
THis pretty much.
Nara basin Japanese "Yamato" = Yangtze Chinese + Southern Korean peninsula
Okayama Japanese = Southern Korean peninsula
Chikuzen Japanese = Also Southern Korean Japanese? I'm not sure on this one, but they are VERY important to the founding of Japan, almost as much as the Nara basin Yamato
Northern Japanese = Emishi + Yayoi hybrids, can grow very nice facial hair
Southern Kyushu = Kumaso, Jomon as fuck, but different from the Emishi/Ainu. Look like Southeast Asians, but they are unmistakenly Japanese.
Shikoku = No idea
Of course this has changed due to migrations and stuff but Japan had very low mobility before the restoration, so alot of phenotypes and sterotypes still persist into 2016.