139 replies to this topic

[LongMa]

I wanted to create this thread as not to go to off topic from another one about the Ainu:

The Japanese and Korean are nothing like the different Germanic people. All evidence points to the fact that early Japanese spoke a different language than the Koreans and that they were not mutually comprehensible. The claim that early Japanese mixed with early Koreans more than with the Han Chinese is also quite baseless.

Early as in what?

We don't have records of what Yayoi Japanese sound like, even 2,000 years ago.

That's like me saying...well Romanian and French are incomprehensible 500 years ago.


The claim that Early Japanese mixed with Koreans more than Han means what?

Mixed with in what way? Biologically? Culturally? biologically, Japanese are more related to Koreans than Han Chinese...by far, they group very close.

Article
Origin of the Koreans: A population genetic study
N. Saha, J. S. H. Tay
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Human Genetics, National University of Singapore, Singapore 0511

Keywords
Population genetics • Blood genetic markers • Genetic distance • Genetic origin • Linguistics • Average heterozygosity

Abstract
A population genetic study was undertaken to investigate the origin of Koreans. Thirteen polymorphic and 7 monomorphic blood genetic markers (serum proteins and red cell enzymes) were studied in a group of 437 Koreans. Genetic distance analyses by both cluster and principal components models were performed between Koreans and eight other populations (Koreans in China, Japanese, Han Chinese, Mongolians, Zhuangs, Malays, Javanese, and Soviet Asians) on the basis of 47 alleles controlled by 15 polymorphic loci. A more detailed analysis using 65 alleles at 19 polymorphic loci was performed on six populations. Both analyses demonstrated genetic evidence of the origin of Koreans from the central Asian Mongolians. Further, the Koreans are more closely related to the Japanese and quite distant from the Chinese. The above evidence of the origin of Koreans fits well with the ethnohistoric account of the origin of Koreans and the Korean language. The minority Koreans in China also maintained their genetic identity. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Received: 29 January 1990; Accepted: 4 November 1991

http://www3.intersci...486445/abstract

In Fig. 1 B, two clusters for the northern populations are discernible. Altaic language-speaking Buryat, Yakut, Uyghur, and Manchu clustered with the Korean and Japanese, two language isolates but closely related to Altaic. Two Han populations, one from north China and the other from Yunnan, also contributed to this cluster (cluster N1). Another Altaic language-speaking population, Ewenki, formed a cluster (cluster N2) with Tibetan, Tujia, and Hui, all of which were originally derived from the northern populations though currently living in the western part of China (21).

http://www.pnas.org/...5/20/11763.full

This shows that Northern Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans do group with Japanese...but the article above shows that between Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese...Japanese and Koreans are much more related.

It also shows that genetically Koreans and Japanese were closely related to other Altaic Speaking groups and if you read further in the article, quite distant from Southern Chinese, Taiwanese Aborigines, etc.



On this site, a book by the foremost population genetic researcher, Dr. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza he states that:

He says that although Koreans are quite distant from Ryukuans and Ainu they are very similar to Japanese on the main Islands. You can find that at the bottom of the first column.

Pg 231 (above the page I just mentioned) it shows quite clearly...are more related to the majority of Japanese, than Northern Chinese or anyone else in the region. The people in Southern Honshu around Kinki and people in Kyushu (he says in the text, Southern Kyushu) are outliers for some reason but the majority of Japanese in Hokkaido and Honshu are very close to Koreans.

Even some people in Bhutan seem to be more closely related to the Japanese than Northern Chinese, which I find quite interesting, but I'm not sure the population size measured, that seems odd. If you look at the chart at the top of pg. 231, you can see that Southern Chinese are very divergent (once again) from Japanese and Korean.

. Population-based comparisons confirmed that present-day Japanese have their closest genetic affinity to northern Asian populations, especially to Koreans, which finding is congruent with the proposed Continental gene flow to Japan after the Yayoi period. This phylogeographic approach unraveled a high degree of differentiation in Paleolithic Japanese. Ancient southern and northern migrations were detected based on the existence of basic M and N lineages in Ryukyuans and Ainu. Direct connections with Tibet, parallel to those found for the Y-chromosome, were also apparent.

this is on the female side only though.

http://genome.cshlp....act/14/10a/1832

The phylogeny revealed a closer genetic relationship between Japanese and Koreans than to the other surveyed Asian populations. Based on the result of the dual patterns of the haplotype distribution, it is more likely that the population structure of Koreans may not have evolved from a single ancient population derived from Northeast Asians, but through dual infusions of Y chromosomes entering Korea from two different waves of East Asians.

http://www.springerl...1jacqer4f19jlf/
What evidence do you have to refute this?


So let me repeat, Japanese and more closely related to Koreans linguistically and genetically than any other people presently alive in East Asia. I see nothing that refutes that.

I don't think I need to post more studies, it is kind of obvious where this is going.


As far as linguistics

Who in Asia is more related to the Japanese than Koreans?

Please show some genetic evidence from a study.

As far as Korean and Japanese language similarities...

When people compare languages they don't just look at vocab, the more important thing is grammar, that changes the least, vocab is relatively easy to change overtime, sentence structure is not.

As far as language, there is some argument about if Japanese is related to any of their neighbors, and some argument if Japanese is related to the Koguryo language, which is quite divergent from Modern Korean. The argument is that Japanese is closer to Koguryo than modern Korean, because after Koguryo was broken up their language did not become standard Korean, but Silla did and they were likely not mutually intelligible.


http://www.pliink.co...o-japanese.html

Indiana University-Bloomington linguistics professor Christopher Beckwith's relatively new tome Koguryo: The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives offers a fascinating and plausible solution to the enduring origin puzzle. From around 100 B.C. to the 7th century A.D., modern day Korea was divided into three kingdoms: Koguryo, Shilla, and Paekche. The three states were eventually unified under Shilla in 668, and the modern Korean language originates from the language spoken in Shilla. Koguryo and Paekche, however, had different languages which are posited to be related to each other. Scholars thus make two groupings of Korean peninsula languages: the Han2 languages - spoken in Shilla and among the subjugated class in Paekche - and the Puyo-Koguryoic languages of Koguryo, Puyo (another Northern Korea state), and Paekche's ruling class. The latter family is now totally extinct and probably made a minor impact on modern Korean. The lack of written records and remaining vocabulary items from these languages make it difficult to learn much about the nature of the "Koguryoic" family.

SNIP

There are, however, two sets of Chinese records that list words from the Koguryo language. Beckwith identifies thirteen words ("Archaic Koguryo") contained in a 3rd century Chinese record about the language of the Koguryo people. The second record is the Samsuk Sagi, the "Three Kingdoms of Korea" work that includes a record of a king in 755 changing all the place names in Korea into Chinese. The older toponyms in the Koguryoic areas do not resemble modern day Korean, and despite some controversy of whether the names were given by the Koguryo people or by other peoples populating the area before their arrival, Beckwith shows that a match between these and the Archaic Koguryo lexical items strongly suggest that the toponyms are from the "Old Koguryo" language. For many of these Koguryo place names, the record shows a Chinese transcription of the word's pronunciation as well as a meaning for the word. Beckwith identifies around 130 distinct Old Koguryo words from this document.

Scholars have known about these Koguryo lexical items for almost a century now, but the main problem has been reconstructing the proper Chinese pronunciation of the era in which the words were transcribed. There have been many improvements upon this knowledge in recent years, and Beckwith employs this new understanding of old Chinese to reconstructing many of these Koguryo words with more accuracy than before.

For examples of the close relation of some Koguryo words and Old Japanese, download this 2-page PDF. Almost all scholars agree that the language contained in this "Koguryo" set looks much like Old Japanese. Roy Andrew Miller - who is famously convinced that Japanese is an Altaic language - believed these words to be Proto-Japanese from Wa people who were living on the peninsula. There, however, is no evidence of a Proto-Japanese/Wa conquest in Korea that could have caused a change in place names. An important side note, which Beckwith emphasizes in the paper, Korean words look absolutely nothing like the Koguryo vocabulary, and the weakness of this connection puts the Japanese-Korean relation theory in doubt.

If the Japanese (Wa/Yayoi) and Koguryo/Paekche peoples are truly related, how in the world did they get all the way through the Korean peninsula and down to Japan which there is no record of happening? They didn't. Based on the work of Gisaburo N. Kiyose, Beckwith proposes a somewhat radical immigration narrative for the Wa. He puts the original Koguryoic homeland in Liao-Hsi (present day Liaoning) on the coast of Northeast China. Once the Chinese put pressure on this racial group, the more nomadic and warlike Puyo-Koguryo peoples (who had already split from the Wa at this point) made their way up to Korea and Manchuria. The Wa - who were mostly fishermen and farmers - left by boat to Korea, Kyushu, and the Ryukyuan islands at the same time. Archaeologists have artifacts that show a connection between the Yayoi culture and the culture of that period on the peninsula, and Beckwith suggests that this does not necessarily mean a voyage from settlements in Korea to Japan but a simultaneous settlement of both areas. He also re-emphasizes that no traces of this farming culture can be found in Manchuria or North Korea - which would be critical to proving Japanese came from Northeast Asia as the Altaic family theory would suggest.

Look at this comparison:

http://www.msu.edu/~...bs.Beckwith.pdf


If you have some other proof, please present it.

[peepee]

Who in Asia is more related to the Japanese than Koreans ? Please show some genetic evidence from a study.

As far as Korean and Japanese language similarities...When people compare languages they don't just look at vocab, the more important thing is grammar, that changes the least, vocab is relatively easy to change overtime, sentence structure is not.

The true answer is .... ' Siberians '

Take a close look at attached DNA map.It shows Japanese share most gene markers with Siberia,lesser degree with natives of China's NE region & Korea peninsula.

Japanese source has percentage breakdown of 25.8% Chinese versus 24.2% Korean @ http://www.kumanolif...istory/dna.html.Obviosuly,Japanese themselves believe they're more genetically related to Chinese than Koreans.


You basically dispute what Jared Diamond wrote in 1998 Discovery Magazine .... it's the article set-off ' Japanese & Korean blood tie obsession frenzy ' among foreign Asianphiles in recent years.In all honesty,it's quite disturbing .

(note: your words here in reply to my post from this afternoon in " The Ainu thread ' http://www.chinahist...=0#entry4953124

below is excerpt:

Since languages change over time, the more similar two languages are, the more recently they must have diverged. By counting common words and features, linguists can estimate how long ago languages diverged, and such estimates suggest that Japanese and Korean parted company at least 4,000 years ago.( that's at least 1500 years before the arrival of proto-Koreanic people in the peninsula )

However, the similarities between Japanese and Korean are confined to general grammatical features and about 15 percent of their basic vocabularies, rather than the detailed shared features of grammar and vocabulary that link, say, French to Spanish; they are more different from each other than Russian is from English.

Attached Files

•  DNA.jpg   4.02K   1 downloads

Edited by peepee, 07 October 2008 - 03:47 AM.

[peepee]

A side note ....


Jon Carter Covell’s book “ Korean Impact on Japanese Culture: Japan’s Hidden History ” is very famous among Koreans and they wave the book like the Bible or Qur’an.

However, the author has less credibility than Benjamin Fulford. … meaning the author has NO credibility whatsoever. She was not even a historian. I doubt she was able to read Hanja ( Chinese ) and Japanese. And if you can’t read those languages, you are not entitled to talk about Korean history since Korean historical documents are written in Hanja and Japanese.

I’ve seen so many ridicules Korean articles based on the book. Any descent Korean experts know the book is a joke. But, the problem is that a few non-experts take it seriously. It is sad sad to see those who believe Korean propaganda. Korean web is full of it as you see in the beef protest.

Those Korean ridicules view of history (or fantasy) is spreading from Korean web to the English web.. Watch out.

[LongMa]

Peeppee:

I have no intention of going around and around with you arguing the margins.


Jared Diamond is not a geneticist. The evidence I put does not say that Japanese are more related to arctic people overall, just some Japanese in certain areas of Japan. Any population has genetic variation. I'm talking about the "average" Japanese. Everything above, clearly shows the average Japanese person is more related to Koreans than anyone else in Asia biologically. The linguistic evidence I've posted shows Japanese is related to an ancient "Korean dialect" that is no longer spoken and there is no present language in Asia that is more related to Japanese than modern Korean, although it is significantly distant.

Japanese and Korean parted company at least 4,000 years ago.( that's at least 1500 years before the arrival of proto-Koreanic people in the peninsula )

That does not conflict with anything I have said.

As far as what "Japanese believe" I don't really care. Most of that is based on unsubstantiated myth and legend. One of the sources I posted above, why by a Japanese genetics team based on Japan. Genes don't lie, histories of geneologies often do.

I'm not Korean and I'm not sure why you brought up Jon Carter Covell’ book. I have not used that as a source.

[peepee]

Jared Diamond is not a geneticist.

As far as what "Japanese believe" I don't really care. Most of that is based on unsubstantiated myth and legend. One of the sources I posted above, why by a Japanese genetics team based on Japan. Genes don't lie, histories of geneologies often do.

Exactly,Jared Diamond is no more than just an ' amateur theorist ' .Oddly though,it's always the some enthusiasts throw out his name to back up their belief that ' Japanese & Koreans are twins ' or more related than any other NE Asians which is clearly false.

What's quite disturbing to me,it's the non-NE Asians act as if they know Japanese and Korean people more than they know of themselves.1 American CHF here once refuted a Korean poster's acknowledgement of Koreans are more closer to Mongolians than Japanese which is genetically accurate.Oh,he too posted a link to Jared Diamond as if he's ' the messenger '.

Japanese conducted own DNA researches clearly showed Japanese share most gene markers with people of northern Siberia,lesser degree with natives of China's NE region & Korea peninsula.The fact is,Japanese are indeed closer to Siberians than Chinese or Koreans.

If you don't care what Japanese believe,then why would you selected random research by a Japanese team that fit your agenda ?? It's the Japanese always accept who they are,clearly proved they're indeed not as related to Koreans as some people keep insisting.

Edited by ShingenT, 30 September 2008 - 10:02 PM.
change the wording a little bit, but tried to the original meaning intact

[LongMa]

Exactly,Jared Diamond is no more than just an ' amateur theorist ' .Oddly though,it's always the foreign Asianphiles & Koreans throw out his name to back up their belief that ' Japanese & Koreans are twins ' or more related than any other NE Asians which is clearly false.

What's quite disturbing to me,it's the non-NE Asians act as if they know Japanese and Korean people more than they know of themselves.1 American CHF here once refuted a Korean poster's acknowledgement of Koreans are more closer to Mongolians than Japanese which is genetically accurate.Oh,he too posted a link to Jared Diamond as if he's ' the messenger '.

Japanese conducted own DNA researches clearly showed Japanese share most gene markers with people of northern Siberia,lesser degree with natives of China's NE region & Korea peninsula.The fact is,Japanese are indeed closer to Siberians than Chinese or Koreans.

If you don't care what Japanese believe,then why would you selected random research by a Japanese team that fit your agenda ?? It's the Japanese always accept who they are,clearly proved they're indeed not as related to Koreans as some people keep insisting.

I still fail to see your evidence.

I posted several genetic studies:

One by Japanese:

http://genome.cshlp....act/14/10a/1832

They represented all these Japanese institutions:

Department of Gene Therapy, Gifu International Institute of Biotechnology, Kakamigahara, Gifu 504-0838, Japan 2 Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife 38271, Spain 3 Department of Sports Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan 4 Japan Science and Technology Agency, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan 5 Department of Anthropology, National Science Museum, Tokyo 169-0073, Japan 6 Department of Forensic Medicine, Yamagata University School of Medicine, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan 7 Department of Human Functional Genomics, Life Science Research Center, Mie University, Tu-shi, Mie 514-8507, Japan 8 Department of Neurology, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan 9 Department of Medicine, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan 10 Department of Geriatric Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan 11 Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Institute of Gerontology, Nihon Medical School, Kawasaki 211-8533, Japan 12 Laboratory of Biochemistry and Metabolism, Department of Basic Gerontology, National Institute for Longevity Sciences, Obu 474-8522, Japan 13 Department of Epidemiology, National Institute for Longevity Sciences, Obu 474-8522, Japan 14 Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan


The other is by Chinese:

http://www.pnas.org/...5/20/11763.full



Genetics is a hard science.

4+4 = 8 it does not matter if you are a Nigerian, Swiss, American, Japanese, Indian, or Mongol.

Genes don't change based on who is looking at them and this research is peer reviewed and from reputable sources.
What you are saying has no meaning to me unless you deal directly with the data. Please stop spamming on this thread.

Ainu are clearly related to Siberians...the average "Yamato" Japanese citizen is not.

I have showed that in detail...you can accept reality, refute it with clear evidence of your own, or be quiet.

Edited by LongMa, 30 September 2008 - 10:53 AM.

[peepee]

I still fail to see your evidence.Ainu are clearly related to Siberians...the average Japanese citizen is not.

No,It's Japanese evidence don't fit your agenda you failed to accept.Re-read my post#2,Japanese-language DNA mapped out gene markers closest between Japonic islands and Siberia & report has percentage breakdown of 25.8% of Chinese & 24.2% of Korean genes in average Japanese population.

[peepee]

Regarding the so-called ' Yamato ' Japanese,it's now an ethnicity of all assimilated immigrant groups since Yayoi period which should also include Wa-jins ( 倭人:Japanese ... they were neither Sinic nor Koreanic ) .. Emishi .. Austro-Asiatic Hayato & Kumaso clans ... proto-Siberian Tungusic " Mishihase 粛慎 " in once lived in Japan's Akita Province ... Torai-jins ( 渡来人 ) of both Korean & Chinese ... etc ... etc ...

Japanese are more ' mud ' than the Koreans.

Japan's foremost nationalist,Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, wrote in 1968, for example, that Japan was effectively a homogenous country that had maintained an "absolutely original culture" for centuries.

26 years later,he refuted his own words.

In Ishihara's 1994 book "No-to-ieru Asia" ("Asia that can say no"), however, he described the perception of Japan as an ethnically homogeneous country as absurd, stating that Japan is a mixture of "all the ethnic groups in Asia."

[LongMa]

No,It's Japanese evidence don't fit your agenda you failed to accept.Re-read my post#2,Japanese-language DNA mapped out gene markers closest between Japonic islands and Siberia & report has percentage breakdown of 25.8% of Chinese & 24.2% of Korean genes in average Japanese population.

I already showed evidence from Japan that is fairly recent.

You have not produced a study, anyone can quote figures from anonymous sources.

This is the last time I will respond until I see something concrete.

[DearCoolZ]

Genetic make up of Japanese by japanese researcher







http://www.oniazuma....f-japanese.html

by NHK, basically Japan's PBS
The Japanese Genetic Sequence:
4.8% Uniquely Japanese
24.2% Korean
25.8% Chinese
8.1% Ainu
16.1% Okinawan
21% Other (more)




This video also refutes Korean claims that Japanese descended from Korea. Rather, Japanese are more mixed.
Delves into genetic research which has totally changed notions of who the Japanese are. Overturns Korean claims that the Japanese are descendants of Koreans. Rather, the Japanese are a very diverse people made up of Ainu, Okinawan, Chinese, Korean, and various other genetic sequences.

The Modern Japanese were thought to be a mixture of ancient Jomon and Yayoi Peoples. Recent Genetic Research has proven that the Jomon and Yayoi People themselves were a mixed ethnicity even when they first reached the Japanese Islands.

http://www.pubmedcen...i?artid=1569806



LD patterns can be refined at a local level using haplotype block analysis resulting in delineation of haplotype blocks for high-LD and nonblocks for low-LD regions (Daly et al. 2001; Gabriel et al. 2002; Phillips et al. 2003). Haplotype blocks are generally associated with limited haplotype diversity, such that a few major haplotypes explain the majority of the diversity in a block (Daly et al. 2001; Gabriel et al. 2002; Phillips et al. 2003). The Korean population is known to be very close to the Chinese and Japanese. The haplotype block structures of the three ENCODE regions, ENr131, ENr213, and ENr321, were generally concordant among Korean, Japanese, and Chinese, although some differences were observed in ENr213 and ENr321. Block structure in ENr131 had the highest concordance. ENr213 had the highest sequence coverage by blocks, especially when density difference was taken into account. In ENr321, block structure was more similar between Korean and Chinese than between Korean and Japanese. Because haplotype blocks were defined using LD thresholds, certain variations may change the block boundaries in particular regions (Ke et al. 2004b), especially when the regions are small.




Haplogroup O3 among Koreans


Of that 40% Koreans who have O3, more than 20% of it derives from the Han Chinese and Sino-Tibetan/Burmese specific (O3a5).



Fact is a lot of Chinese from Yan, Zhao and Qi migrated to Korea during and after warring states period. The colony of Lelang once mainly spoke the Yan dialect.






Korean Origins
Human Genetics (Online First)

Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans

Han-Jun Jin et al.

We have analyzed eight Y-chromosomal binary markers (YAP, RPS4Y711, M9, M175, LINE1, SRY+465, 47z, and M95) and three Y-STR markers (DYS390, DYS391, and DYS393) in 738 males from 11 ethnic groups in east Asia in order to study the male lineage history of Korea. Haplogroup DE-YAP was found at a high frequency only in Japan but was also present at low frequencies in northeast Asia, including 2.5% in Korea, suggesting a northern origin for these chromosomes. Haplogroup C-RPS4Y711 was present in Korea and Manchuria at moderate frequencies: higher than in populations from southeast Asia, but lower than those in the northeast, which may imply a northern Asian expansion of these lineages, perhaps from Mongolia or Siberia. The major Y-chromosomal expansions in east Asia were those of haplogroup O-M175 (and its sublineages). This haplogroup is likely to have originated in southern east Asia and subsequently expanded to all of east Asia. The moderate frequency of one sublineage in the Koreans, haplogroup O-LINE1 (12.5%), could be a result of interaction with Chinese populations. The age of another sublineage, haplogroup O-SRY+465, and Y-STR haplotype diversity provide evidence for relatively recent male migration, originally from China, through Korea into Japan. In conclusion, the distribution pattern


The close relatedness of the haplotypes of the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese populations was further confirmed by phylogenetic analysis (supplemental Figure 2 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/) (Akey et al. 2002).





As shown in supplemental Table 1 (http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/), overall these extreme cases were rare in regions and samples analyzed in this study whether the comparison was made against the early version of HapMap ENCODE data (February 2005) or the latest (October 2005). This demonstrated again that Korean, Japanese, and Chinese are indeed closely related populations and tagging SNPs selected from the CHB/JPT HapMap are highly transferable to the Korean population.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is some Han Chinese specific genetic Y markers found in Japanese today (ie O3a5, O3a and O1). There is no reason to doubt Yamaguchi's findings. These Yayoi brought rice farming and other tech. to Japan




The Japan Times, March 19, 1999

Yayoi linked to Yangtze area
DNA tests reveal similarities to early wet-rice farmers

Some of the first wet-rice farmers in Japan might have migrated from the lower basin of China's Yangtze River more than 2,000 years ago, Japanese and Chinese researchers said Thursday.

This was suggested by DNA tests conducted by the researchers that showed genetic similarities between human remains from the Yayoi Period found in southwestern Japan and the early Han Dynasty found in China's central Jiangsu Province, Satoshi Yamaguchi told reporters.

People who introduced irrigation techniques to the Japanese archipelago in the Yayoi Period (250 B.C.-300) were believed to have come to Japan either from the Korean Peninsula across the Tsushima Strait, or from northern China across the Yellow Sea.

The latest findings, however, bolster another theory suggesting the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze, which is believed to be the birthplace of irrigated rice cultivation.

Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Science Museum, said the researchers compared Yayoi remains found in Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from early Han (202 B.C.- in Jiangsu in a three-year project begun in 1996.

The researchers found many similarities between the skulls and limbs of Yayoi people and the Jiangsu remains.

Two Jiangsu skulls showed spots where the front teeth had been pulled, a practice common in Japan in the Yayoi and preceding Jomon Period.
But the most persuasive findings resulted from tests revealing that genetic samples from three of 36 Jiangsu skeletons also matched part of the DNA base arrangements of samples from the Yayoi remains, the scientists said.



here is dr. satoshi horais publication,in english.

http://www.trussel.c...ist/news146.htm

The Japan Times
August 31, 1999
By MARTIN FACKLER
The Associated Press
Japanese roots surprisingly shallow
Migrants from mainland planted new culture around 400 B.C.


The invaders came from across the sea.

With their advanced technology and overwhelming numbers, they quickly seized a foothold in the new world. The original inhabitants — tribes of hunter-gatherers, were driven back or perished.

The story may sound familiar, but this is not the European conquest of the Americas. It is what archaeological research suggests may have happened in prehistoric Japan.

It is a controversial view of Japan's past that should raise eyebrows in a country of history buffs. But it doesn't. Most Japanese have never even heard of it.

That's because while Japanese archaeologists have come to accept the view that their ancestors migrated from the Asian mainland, most popular discussion still adheres to the pre-World War II ideology that the Japanese are racially distinct from other Asians.

"There has been a gap in thinking," said Hisao Baba, curator of anthropology at the National Science Museum in Tokyo. "Archaeology has made a lot of progress, but politics has made it difficult for the general public to take a critical look at their own past."

Of course, Japan isn't alone in mixing history with politics. British archaeologists argue over the extent of Celtic vs. Anglo-Saxon heritage, and Americans have only recently begun to view their past from the perspective of American Indians.

But in few countries are the issues as charged as here.

The question of origin cuts to the core of Japan's identity. Japanese have long celebrated themselves as ethnically unique, partly to offset the humiliation of having to borrow from the modern West.

A sense of difference also made it easier to justify the military occupation of neighbors like Korea and China earlier in the century.

Archaeology in Japan long followed that line.

For much of this century, Japanese archaeologists said Japan's gene pool had remained isolated since the end of the last ice age, more than 20,000 years ago.

Confronted with evidence that a sudden change had swept Japan in about 400 B.C. — replacing a millennia-old hunter-gatherer culture with a society that could grow rice and forge iron weapons and tools — archaeologists attributed it to nothing more than technological borrowing from the mainland.

But more recent analysis of skull shapes has shown the rice farmers who appeared 2,400 years ago were racially quite different from the hunters whom they replaced.

In the l980s new research on DNA taken from burial remains revealed even more startling results: The islands' first inhabitants had little in common with most modern Japanese — but were almost identical to the Ainu, a tiny indigenous group now found on Hokkaido.

The same analysis also showed modern Japanese are close genetic kin to Koreans and Chinese.

A younger generation of Japanese archaeologists now accepts that some sort of migration took place and that ethnic minorities like the Ainu are much more closely related to Japan's original inhabitants.

Debate among researchers focuses on just how many migrants came and whether they violently displaced the natives — or peacefully intermarried with them.

"It's only since the 1970s that we started to see this period in history more dispassionately," said Yoshinori Yasuda, a professor of archaeology at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto.

The public remains largely ignorant of these developments, despite the enormous popular interest in Japan's past.

Newspapers, which devote a remarkable amount of print to archaeological finds, proclaim any site, no matter how old, as left by "our ancestors."

School textbooks still give the last ice age as the date of the most recent migration to Japan from mainland Asia — if they mention outside influence at all.

Even the museums curated by archaeologists themselves often display diagrams showing how ancient hunters evolved into the present-day Japanese "salaryman."

So widely accepted are such views that when NHK aired a documentary two months ago describing some of the recent DNA findings, it was immediately deluged by more than 200 calls.

"Most of the viewers expressed shock or surprise," said NHK spokeswoman Akiko Toda. "A few refused to believe it."

Archaeologists have a hard time explaining the gap in thinking.

One reason, they say, is it takes time for academic theories to gain public acceptance. Then there is the caution shown by textbook compilers against adding ideas that are still in dispute.

But at root, they say, may be a deep-seated reluctance among Japanese to accept that they share the same genes with their Korean and Chinese neighbors.

The attitude is left over from the start of this century, when Japan was building a colonial empire and justified its domination in terms of cultural and racial superiority.

Until 1945, schoolchildren were taught that the emperor was of divine descent and the Japanese had lived on their islands since the creation of the world.

While such attitudes may finally be changing, saying that the Japanese share recent roots with other Asians remains a social taboo that some researchers even today say they hesitate to break.

"I was afraid when I first published my work. I didn't know what sort of reaction I'd get," said Satoshi Horai, a professor at the Graduate University for Advanced Studies near Tokyo, who conducted the DNA research linking Japanese with Koreans and Chinese.

"Nothing has happened yet," he said, "but that might just mean the public hasn't read my book."



Source: Satoshi Horai, "DNA Jinrui Shinkaron," AP

Edited by DearCoolZ, 30 September 2008 - 07:51 PM.

[LongMa]

Dear CoolZ:

I watched the vast majority of the special. Big problem here.

Those two articles at the end are far older than my studies (one also done by Japanese).

When was the NHK special done? What year? The year is important, because there are more genetic markers discovered and being used now than even 4 years ago. So if the NHK special was done in 2001, that is too out of date.

The biggest thing is that NHK Special was all based on MtDNA (mitochondrial) passed down from the mother in a direct line. There is no mention at all of Y Chromosome tests. NONE. They repeat over and over again MtDNA and then attribute that to all Japanese, instead of just female ancestry. That is not an accurate depiction of the Japanese gene pool, and this explains why my evidence does not coincide with yours.

That is heavily biased because it ignores about 99% of your genes. MtDNA is none recombinant DNA (means it never changes or recombines) and it ignores any male ancestry.

All over the world the MtDNA of all populations for females is more diverse than for males and tends to overlap more with other regions than for males. The reason is simple, most people here know at least the history of one or two nations, so you can think of examples of how women were traded, kidnapped, raped in war, taken as slaves, etc. Male captives were often just executed, enslaved and not allowed to procreate, etc. This creates gene bias in a population.

To prove my point:

Global MtDNA


Global Y Chromosome DNA



Look at the diversity between the two.

In ANY CASE THIS IS A BAD WAY TO DETERMINE GENETIC RELATIONSHIP OR DISTANCE BECAUSE IT ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 98% OR SO OF YOUR GENES. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT POPULATION MIXTURE OR THE OTHER GENES.


So there are two different things being discussed here.

One is haplogroup

The other appears to be a study of genetic distance, which tends to test the chromosomes which are not sex linked (X and Y), those are the only ones that do not recombine, that is why they are excluded.

Let me give you an example of why this is important when judging relationship.


R1B is common in Western Eurasia. About 20% of African Americans males have a common European Y Chromosome. Lets assume 10% of them have R1B.

They could have got that from a direct English ancestor in 1780, but since that time have had no direct white ancestors of any kind, just other people of SubSahara African decent. So assuming 25 years per generation, after 9 generations, in 2008, there descendants might have little to know genetic ancestry from Europe but for the Y Chromosome, which makes up a very small portion of their total genome.

So if you did a test for genetic distance, they could potentially be as distant from a European as a Nigerian, although they clearly have a European Haplogroup.

This is why it is important to examine the studies and understand what they are telling you.

The genetic distance between any East Asian population is much smaller than a Nigerian and a Englishman, but the point is that looking at Haplogroups and then saying...something about other type of genetic distance test can give you divergent results.

I am also NOT claiming Japanese descendant from Koreans.

My claim is the populations are so closely related because they share at least one major common ancestor, this also explain lingustic similarities that neither share with any Chinese dialect or Sino-Tibetan language but does loosely reflect other Altaic langauges and the ancient "Korean" Kingdom of Goguryeo (Koguryo). Some of the words are almost identical and are very base words that one would not import from a foreign land through trade, etc.

by NHK, basically Japan's PBS
The Japanese Genetic Sequence:
4.8% Uniquely Japanese
24.2% Korean
25.8% Chinese
8.1% Ainu
16.1% Okinawan
21% Other (more)

The above only refers to female ancestry not male. In any case I have shown another study that shows Korean MtDNA is more similar to Japanese than Chinese, and IT WAS ALSO DONE BY JAPANESE RESEARCHERS.


I have shown break downs of Chinese populations. Southern Chinese are quite divergent from Japanese.

Northern Chinese, who are Han who have heavily admixed with or acculturated "barbarian" Turkic/Mongol/Tungustic people are fairly related to Japanese and Koreans, but as I have shown they are considerably more distant from Japanese than Koreans are.

I've shown this in 3 different studies from widely different sources. One Chinese, One Japanese, One Western, and Another by the most respect population geneticist alive (look up his background if you don't believe me).

All this is quite logical and flows well between genetics/linguistics/and I would also say anthropology.

According to the NHK interpretation my wife is Ainu because she has a M* MtDNA Haplogroup...from some unknown ancestor centuries ago. Uhm...what about all her other dozens of ancestors? All her other ancestors could have been Korean and Chinese for all we know but if we only go by MtDNA she is 100% Ainu. LOL

Edited by LongMa, 30 September 2008 - 08:50 PM.

[LongMa]

...please look below.

Edited by LongMa, 30 September 2008 - 09:29 PM.

[LongMa]

Dear CoolZ

Also this....

http://www.pubmedcen...i?artid=1569806

You posted

LD patterns can be refined at a local level using haplotype block analysis resulting in delineation of haplotype blocks for high-LD and nonblocks for low-LD regions (Daly et al. 2001; Gabriel et al. 2002; Phillips et al. 2003). Haplotype blocks are generally associated with limited haplotype diversity, such that a few major haplotypes explain the majority of the diversity in a block (Daly et al. 2001; Gabriel et al. 2002; Phillips et al. 2003). The Korean population is known to be very close to the Chinese and Japanese. The haplotype block structures of the three ENCODE regions, ENr131, ENr213, and ENr321, were generally concordant among Korean, Japanese, and Chinese, although some differences were observed in ENr213 and ENr321. Block structure in ENr131 had the highest concordance. ENr213 had the highest sequence coverage by blocks, especially when density difference was taken into account. In ENr321, block structure was more similar between Korean and Chinese than between Korean and Japanese. Because haplotype blocks were defined using LD thresholds, certain variations may change the block boundaries in particular regions (Ke et al. 2004b), especially when the regions are small.

Uhm...that does not say what you think it says.


The study is looking at 4 things, but 3 are really important for this.

Here we show that the LD pattern, block structure, haplotype diversity, and recombination rate are highly concordant between Korean and the two HapMap Asian samples, particularly Japanese.

1) Haplotype diveristy and block structure

2) LD (linkage disequilibrium) PATTERN, Non-random associations between polymorphisms at different loci are measured by the degree of linkage disequilibrium (LD). Linkage disequilibrium is generally caused by genetic linkage and the rate of recombination; rate of mutation; random drift or non-random mating; and population structure. For example, some organisms (such as bacteria) may show linkage disequilibrium because they reproduce asexually and there is no recombination to break down the linkage disequilibrium.

3) Recombinant DNA (the vast majority of your DNA), how much it is similar between populations

The findings were:

1) "Furthermore, the majority of the major haplotypes as defined in JPT and CHB remained major haplotypes in KR, demonstrating a high degree of haplotype conservation across the three populations (Table 3). In ENr321, where a higher concordance of block structure was observed between KR and CHB than between KR and JPT (Figure 1, b–d, Table 2), the major haplotypes were found, however, to be more conserved between KR and JPT (0.749) than between KR and CHB (0.662). This indicates that the Koreans and Japanese are perhaps more closely related in this particular region."[/b]

So on two they are slightly more similarity between Japanese and Chinese, on one they are more relations between Koreans and Japanese.

2) LD : "This observation indicates that the Korean population is very close to Japanese and Chinese populations in general and, perhaps, closer to Japanese than to Chinese."

3) "The pattern of estimated recombination rate in ENr131 was very simple compared to the other two regions and remarkably similar between KR, JPT, and CHB (Figure 1e). In contrast, recombination rates of ENr213 and ENr321 regions were more varied across regions as well as among populations (Figure 1e)."

There was no real conclusion here...that appears obvious.

So the final result of the test???

". The present results also show that tagging SNPs selected from the Chinese and particularly from the Japanese samples are highly transferable to our Korean samples. Even in regions where differences were observed among the three groups, tagging SNPs from the Japanese performed at least as effectively as those from Korean samples"



As I said, it does not say what you think it says.





To sum it up, none of this refutes my initial post that Koreans, on average are more related to Japanese and vice versa than Japanese or Koreans are related to other populations.

NOw if you get into subpopulations of Japanese or Koreans that could give different outcomes, I admit...but over all what I said is accurate.

[ShingenT]

Try to keep this one civil guys.

[LongMa]

Almost forgot this one:

Korean Origins
Human Genetics (Online First)

Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans

Han-Jun Jin et al

We have analyzed eight Y-chromosomal binary markers (YAP, RPS4Y711, M9, M175, LINE1, SRY+465, 47z, and M95) and three Y-STR markers (DYS390, DYS391, and DYS393) in 738 males from 11 ethnic groups in east Asia in order to study the male lineage history of Korea. Haplogroup DE-YAP was found at a high frequency only in Japan but was also present at low frequencies in northeast Asia, including 2.5% in Korea, suggesting a northern origin for these chromosomes.

Yap can also be found among Tibetans in high amounts and in pretty much all Africans, but Yap in Tibet is highly distant from the Japanese and Korean version, meaning there is a very ancient connection could be well over 20,000 years old or so. This "Yap" marker is represented in Haplogroup D in Asians. It is quite common in Japan, about 25% of the population. This would be D3 in Tibetans and D2 in Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D_...A)#Distribution

It is thought to be an Ainu marker in Japan.

Haplogroup C-RPS4Y711 was present in Korea and Manchuria at moderate frequencies: higher than in populations from southeast Asia, but lower than those in the northeast, which may imply a northern Asian expansion of these lineages, perhaps from Mongolia or Siberia. The major Y-chromosomal expansions in east Asia were those of haplogroup O-M175 (and its sublineages). This haplogroup is likely to have originated in southern east Asia and subsequently expanded to all of east Asia. The moderate frequency of one sublineage in the Koreans, haplogroup O-LINE1 (12.5%), could be a result of interaction with Chinese populations. The age of another sublineage, haplogroup O-SRY+465, and Y-STR haplotype diversity provide evidence for relatively recent male migration, originally from China, through Korea into Japan. In conclusion, the distribution pattern

This is the meat.

C is thought to have originated over 60,000 years ago.
C is found in its highest frequency in Mongolia and the surrounding area and
The version they are talking about is specific though...the Ainu also have a lot of C2, the same seen Ghenghis Khan had.

Genetic testing of the Ainu people has shown them to belong mainly to Y-haplogroup D.[7] The only places outside of Japan in which Y-haplogroup D is common are Tibet and the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean.[8] In a study by Tajima et al. (2004), two out of a sample of sixteen (or 12.5%) Ainu men were found to belong to Haplogroup C3, which is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the indigenous populations of the Russian Far East and Mongolia;[7] Hammer et al. (2006) tested another sample of four Ainu men and found that one of them belonged to haplogroup C3.[9] Some researchers have speculated that this minority of Haplogroup C3 carriers among the Ainu may reflect a certain degree of unidirectional genetic influence from the Nivkhs, a traditionally nomadic people of northern Sakhalin Island and the adjacent mainland, with whom the Ainu have long-standing cultural interactions.[7] According to Tanaka et al. (2004),

C (any C) is uncommon in Japanese males who are not of Ainu ancestry.

The big stuff is obviously the O Supergroup.

O is dominant in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam...most of East and Southeast Asia...all originated from the same population at one time, obviously, but now we have to get down to what type of "O" is where. Most of these subgroups are more than 10,000 years old but we are talking about Korean and Chinese (and other) populations heading to Japan, I would thin in the last 5,000 years or less...if we are calling them "Chinese and Korean"....obviously even 5,000 years ago there were no Koreans as a people. Chinese it could be argued did not exist either...depends on how much of the preZhou histories you believe.


O-SRY+465 = O2b.

The above says this is from China and came through Korea into Japan...it is relatively receipt, no one explains what that means, but I would imagine in the last 10-5 thousand years.

Well 02b is not common in Han Chinese.

O2b1 (47z) is common in Japanese and Ryukuans but not in China at all and not much in Koreans. It is obvious the relationship is inverse, the closer you get to China moving away from Japan the less O2 and O2b1 you find. Hmmm...

O2a can be found from Central Asia to Japan to Indonesia and dominant in Southeast Asia...its not unque to anyone, but not dominant in Northeast Asia.

Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity), about 40% of Manchurian, Korean, and Vietnamese males, about 35% of Filipino and Malaysian males, about 25% of Zhuang[2] and Indonesian[3] males, and about 15%[4] to 20%[5] of Japanese males.

O3 is obvious dominant in Han Males.

So to say CAME FROM CHINA, does not mean came from Han. Came from within Modern Chinese borders maybe?

Likely.

That is different from "Came from Han".

Since I maintain that Yayoi Japanese were very close related to Koguryo and we know historically they were a mixed group of people who spoke a language related to modern Koreans but very divergent that had core words very similar to Yayoi...that we know had a significant Chinese population or at least acculturation...

I would say it is more likely that people came from modern Japan from around this region...proto-Korean/proto-tungustic people and spread through Korea into Japan, at a time long before Koguryo ever existed...it is just that they were the last closest historically recorded link to Yayoi...Yayoi did not come from them either, but a mutual ancestor.

One again:

The phylogeography of Haplogroup O2b suggests a very ancient origin in Manchuria, followed by a long period of isolated evolution and population increase within the Korean Peninsula. Only the most ancient branches of this haplogroup, which are labeled as Haplogroup O2b*, have been detected among the indigenous populations of Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, and even then they are found only at very low frequencies. Haplogroup O2b* Y-chromosomes have been detected at a similarly low frequency among the Koreans, but Korean males display a very high frequency of a derived subclade, Haplogroup O2b1* (P49). In fact, Haplogroup O2b1* comes close to being the modal Y-chromosome haplogroup in Korea, occurring in approximately 30% of all Korean males.

A subclade of Haplogroup O2b1, namely Haplogroup O2b1a (47z), is found at a fairly high frequency among the Yamato people and Ryukyuan populations of Japan. Haplogroup O2b1a has been detected in approximately 22% of all males who speak a Japonic language, while it has not been found at all among the Ainu or Nivkhs of the northern extremes of the Japanese Archipelago. Based on the STR haplotype diversity within Haplogroup O2b1a, it has been estimated that this haplogroup began to experience a population expansion among the proto-Japanese of approximately 4,000 years ago, which makes it a good candidate for a marker of the intrusion of a Neolithic population of the prehistoric Korean Peninsula into the southwestern parts of the Japanese Archipelago. However, the parent haplogroup, O2b1*, is also found among Japanese, although at a relatively low frequency of approximately 4% to 7%, and the descendant haplogroup O2b1a is either completely absent from or found at only extremely low frequency (which could represent historical Japanese admixture) among samples of modern Koreans, which suggests the possibility that Haplogroup O2b1* might have colonized the Japanese Archipelago much earlier, with the subgroup O2b1a subsequently evolving within the proto-Japanese-Ryukyuan population of the western parts of the archipelago

It seems obvious that this came from present day China but NOT FROM HAN CHINESE, at the time these people weren't Chinese in any way...

This makes sense genetically and linguistically.

It is obvious in modern times that many of these proto-Tungustic/proto-Korean people were absorbed or acculturated into Northern Han dynasties, but obviously not enough to change the fact most Han males are O3.

Does this mean no Han Chinese immigrated to Japan.

No. They obviously did and we have historic record of various Chinese clans living in Southern Honshu (and there is genetic evidence), but I do not believe they were the primary input to the population...as the language did not change to something related to Chinese (they just borrowed words and a writing system).


My opinion of all this:

Japanese are a combination of several inputs from the Asian mainland. (Reminds me of Brits...as compared to Europe).


Based on what I read it appears Jomon were mostly from the Russian Fareastern/Siberian region or whatever populations that were most related to the Jomon moved into that area and into North and later South America.

There was also some unknown Southeast Asia/Pacific Islander component in Kyushu and maybe the Ryukus...

Then some mix of Sino-Tibetan/ and proto-Altaic population came from present day Manchuria or further West and moved through Korea into Japan. They likely came in small numbers at different times...the Proto-Altaic were dominent...likely more related to proto-Tungustic/proto-Korean and they were the Yayoi.

Then on top of all that...more modern Koreans and Han Chinese came in historic times into Southern Honshu and Northern Kyushu.

All that combined...makes the Japanese more related to Koreans because the primary inputs in both populations were Proto-Altaic and Sino-Tibetan groups....

What makes Japanese divergent from Koreans is the Jomon input and the Southeast Asian/Polynesian input...but more the former...

This combined with the linguist evidence and the archeological evidence...its makes sense.

It does not make sense that Japanese are just a satellite of a Korean kingdom or were mostly Han Chinese who migrated there in historical times.

Edited by LongMa, 30 September 2008 - 10:43 PM.