139 replies to this topic

[LongMa]

Pictures are somewhat useful but not really. The few genes (and they are few) that make up physical appearance are the most easily influenced by environment and natural selection.

It is dumb to assume that because 3,000 or 2,000 years ago some people came from a certain area (like Jiangsu) that people there today should look like the people who had ancestors who left thousands of years ago.

Think about that real hard for a second. You are basically saying that on average no one mixed with anyone else in that time, that the people there are the same as they were, relatively unchanged themselves, there was no natural genetic drift in thousands of years!!!! There was no ongoing divergent natural selection due to changing tastes, environment, etc. There was no wars that could have killed off massive amounts of people, no disease outbreaks (which would cause genetic bottlenecks that could obvious effect appearance as there is less genetic diversity in the population)...

So pictures are somewhat useful, but when you are talking about thousands of years of distance between populations it is kind of silly to base an argument almost completely on "looks".

Looks can also be influenced heavily by mannerism, clothing style, hair style...so you might think you can tell a Japanese from a Korean when they are in front of you...yes.

But if dressed identical and not speaking can you? I know from experience living in Japan and China that more often than not people can not. Chinese assume any "East Asian looking person" is Han. Japanese assume most Koreans and maybe (guess) 50-60% of Chinese are Japanese when they are on the streets of Tokyo and dressed similar.

These things are too subjective to base any serious argument on.

It is much better to stick to objective biological evidence when speaking of relationship and anthropological evidence, histories, etc.

It's like saying Southern Germans, Austrians, Englishmen, Swiss Germs, Dutch, Swedes, etc are not related due to differences in appearance, and they do differ in appearance to a certain extent, even if they largely overlap.

We know they are related because we know about 3,000 years ago they all lived in the Baltic region as one large group separated by different tribes who spoke dialects of the same language.

However...if you simply ignore all that, genes, etc. If you look by appearance today (ignoring who these populations often intermarried with..Celts, Romans, Slavs, Hungarians, Finic Speakers, etc)...well you can say most of them are "separate" and distinct people with no relationship. LOL

Edited by LongMa, 05 October 2008 - 10:15 AM.

[Yang Zongbao]

okok, we get your point akhissar , Japanese are more related to Han Chinese and your links to genetic analysis proves this. Anyway, Koreans have O-LINE1, linking them with the Hmong.

This is about Korean-Japanese relationship. Please keep on topic.

Of course you get his point. You ARE akhissar.

[LongMa]

I would also add, if you are going to post pictures, post pictures of average people. Pictures of singers, actors, even politicians are bias.

Idols, entertainers are usually partially where they are because they are attractive. What is attractive is mostly (although not totally) cultural, especially when speaking about facial features. Obviously those people are what people WANT to look like in Japan, Korea, China...not necessarily what they REALLY look like. This is true in every nation.

Post pictures of ordinary people, students, street scenes, etc. That is far more accurate of what people in the society look like than famous folks.



Korean Students



Japanese Students



Chinese students Beijing



Hong Kong kids



Mongolian Kids

Edited by LongMa, 05 October 2008 - 11:33 AM.

[LongMa]

I will do this again with adults.



Korean



Japanese



Beijing Chinese



Hong Kong Chinese



Mongolian

[peepee]

China is a continental country over 20 times the size of Japan & Korea,and also has very diversed populations.In order to have fairer comparison,we need to look at photos of average northern Han-Chinese of Shandong peninsula & Henan & Hebei & northern Jiangu because these 4 particular provinces have affirmative gene markers with Japanese and Koreans.

Just wondering,why are Cantonese people don't ever missed out as a comparision between Chinese & Koreans or Japanese masses despite the fact that they're most obvious least genetically related.It's like trying to match Europe's southern mainland Italians or Sicilians to Caucasian-Americans of Anglo-Saxon origins.The result is,they definitely don't share facial similiarities.

a photo of my Japanese obaasan friend 's family.Typical Japanese males are narrower-faced and slender built oppose to broader-faced Korean counterparts are bulky.

here is link to Monglian looking ' zainichi Koreans ' http://flickr.com/ph...57601702187568/

Attached Files

•  653547649_90.jpg   39.82K   12 downloads

Edited by peepee, 06 October 2008 - 06:38 PM.

[ykstr]

China is a continental country over 20 times the size of Japan & Korea,and also has very diversed populations.In order to have fairer comparison,we need to look at photos of average northern Han-Chinese of Shandong peninsula & Henan & Hebei & northern Jiangu because these 4 particular provinces have affirmative gene markers with Japanese and Koreans.

Just wondering,why are Cantonese people don't ever missed out as a comparision between Chinese & Koreans or Japanese masses despite the fact that they're most obvious least genetically related.It's like trying to match Europe's southern mainland Italians or Sicilians to Caucasian-Americans of Anglo-Saxon origins.The result is,they definitely don't share facial similiarities.

a photo of my Japanese obaasan friend 's family.Typical Japanese males are narrower-faced and slender built oppose to broader-faced Korean counterparts are bulky.

here is link to Monglian looking ' zainichi Koreans ' http://flickr.com/ph...57601702187568/

Let me correct this post.

Koreans have the most genetic affinity with Shandong Chinese (who are also the northeast Chinese). I think Koreans have a long face, longer than Japanese. I think some look shorter because Korean faces are sometimes very broad as well. Typical Mongolian face is VERY long and medium-broadness.

Japanese have the most genetic affinity with Jiangsu Chinese (eg. Shanghai/Anhui). Some Japanese look Korean, but some look rather southern Chinese.

And by the way, that photo of Japanese look 100% southern Chinese.

Plus the photos of Zainichi Koreans don't look very Korean.

Edited by ykstr, 08 October 2008 - 08:57 AM.

[ykstr]

We shouldn't be posting photos as a "Korean and Japanese relationship" source, but anyhow:

Very typical looking Koreans

Edited by ykstr, 08 October 2008 - 09:06 AM.

[ykstr]

An interesting Japanese-southern Chinese relation

Sixteen HLA-A/HLA-B/HLA-DRB1 haplotypes were estimated to have a frequency greater than 1% (Table 4). Most of the Ryukyuan haplotypes were also observed in Hondo Japanese, although their frequencies were often different. Remarkably, the most frequent haplotype in Ryukyuans, A*24-- B*54-DRB1*0405 (6.1%), was also observed at lower frequencies in Hondo Japanese (3.1%), South Koreans (1.2%), and other East Asian populations (Akaza et al. 1994; Park et al. 1998; Tanaka et al. 1997), but it was not found in the Ainu (Bannai et al., unpublished data, 1998). Although the A*2-B*35-- DRB1*1501 and *24-B*59-DRB1*0405 haplotypes were shared by Ryukyuans and Hondo Japanese, their frequencies in Hondo Japanese were less than 1%. On the other hand, haplotype A*24-B*52-DRB1*1502, which is most common in Hondo Japanese (8.6%), was relatively rare in Ryukyuans (



Then where did the haplotype A*24-B*54-DRB1*0405 come from? A probably equivalent haplotype, A*24-B*54-DR*4, has been found in Southern Han Chinese at a frequency of 4.3% (Imanishi et al. 1992a), although only a serological typing was performed for HLA-DR. This haplotype was also common in Kyushu, Okinawa's neighbor to the north, and in the Pacific Ocean side of Japan. Accordingly, some common Ryukyuan haplotypes are considered to be derived from southeast Asia, not from northeast Asia.

These findings support the hypothesis that an ancestral population marked by the A*24-B*54-DRB1*0405 haplotype moved into Okinawa, and then the migration affected more or less the Pacific Ocean side of Japan (Tokunaga et al. 1996). Thus it is likely that the weak similarity between Ryukyuans and the Ainu was mainly caused by this gene flow from South China to the Okinawa Islands. In contrast, the most predominant haplotype in Southern Han Chinese, A*2-B*46-DR*9 (5.1%) (Imanishi et al. 1992a), is less common in Ryukyuans (

In conclusion, (1) 3 Japanese populations are clustered together in a phylogenetic tree based on highly polymorphic HLA genes; (2) the genetic distance between Ryukyuans and the Ainu is larger than that between Ryukyuans and Hondo Japanese; (3) recent gene flow by way of the Okinawa Islands, presumably from South China to Japan, caused the differentiation of Ryukyuans from the Ainu and created high affinity between Ryukyuans and Hondo Japanese.

Samples investigated in the present study were obtained from the mainland of the Okinawa Islands. It will be important to investigate further the Saki-shima region, such as the Yaeyama and Miyako islands, which are located at the southwest end of Japan. Moreover, future studies of HLA genes at the sequence level are expected in South Chinese populations.

Acknowledgments We thank Kouichi Kashiwase for technical advice. This research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan, through a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research.

Literature Cited

Akaza, T., T. Imanishi, K. Fujiwara et al. 1994. HLA alleles and haplotypes of Japanese population. MHC 1:219-226.

I think Ainu are the most genetically distant. Okinawan and Mainland Japanese share genetic affinities with southern Chinese (more specifically Jiangsu Chinese).

Edited by ykstr, 08 October 2008 - 09:12 AM.

[ykstr]

Koreans have high genetic affinities with northern Chinese, majority of Japanese and Mongolians.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1510113

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.

[ShingenT]

try using the edit button more often.

[LongMa]

I think Ainu are the most genetically distant. Okinawan and Mainland Japanese share genetic affinities with southern Chinese (more specifically Jiangsu Chinese).

Where is the genetic evidence that Japanese are so closely related to Jiangsu Chinese? I have never seen such a study. The only thing I have seen is an article about early Yamato cultural habits being similar to some Jiangsu pre-Han "barbarian" groups...

Please clarify.

[peepee]

Koreans have high genetic affinities with northern Chinese, majority of Japanese and Mongolians.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1510113

It's a ' known fact ',some northern Chinese & Koreans & Mongolians are basically ONE PEOPLE.Japanese and indigenous peoples of Siberia & China's NE region ( old Manchuria ) are closest kins.

Your link was a brief DNA study for 437 Koreans,that's barely a good representation of over 100 millions Koreans.

Edited by peepee, 08 October 2008 - 07:42 PM.

[tutu123]

Where is the genetic evidence that Japanese are so closely related to Jiangsu Chinese? I have never seen such a study. The only thing I have seen is an article about early Yamato cultural habits being similar to some Jiangsu pre-Han "barbarian" groups...

Please clarify.

Origin of the Yayoi people

The earliest archaeological sites are Itazuke site or Nabata site in the northern part of Kyūshū. The origin of Yayoi culture has long been debated. Chinese influence was obvious in the bronze and copper weapons, bronze mirrors (Dōkyō), bells (Dōtaku), as well as irrigated paddy rice cultivation. Three major symbols of the Yayoi Culture - the bronze mirror, the bronze sword, and the royal seal stone.

In recent years, more archaeological and genetic evidence have been found in both eastern China and western Japan to lend credibility to this argument. Between 1996 and 1999, a team led by Satoshi Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Science Museum, compared Yayoi remains found in Japan's Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from early Han Dynasty (202 BC-8) in China's coastal Jiangsu province, and found many similarities between the skulls and limbs of Yayoi people and the Jiangsu remains.[8] Two Jiangsu skulls showed spots where the front teeth had been pulled, a practice common in Japan in the Yayoi and preceding Jōmon period. The genetic samples from three of the 36 Jiangsu skeletons also matched part of the DNA base arrangements of samples from the Yayoi remains.

Some scholars also concluded that the Korean influence existed. These include "bunded paddy fields, new types of polished stone tools, wooden farming implements, iron tools, weaving technology, ceramic storage jars, exterior bonding of clay coils in pottery fabrication, ditched settlements, domesticated pigs and jawbone rituals."[9] This assumption also gains strength due to the fact that Yayoi culture began on the north coast of Kyūshū, where Japan is closest to Korea. Yayoi pottery, burial mounds, food preservation was discovered to be very similar to the pottery of southern Korea.[10]

However, some argue that the rapid increase of roughly four million people in Japan between the Jōmon and Yayoi periods cannot be explained by migration alone. They attribute the increase primarily to a shift from a hunter-gatherer to an agricultural diet on the islands, with the introduction of rice. It is quite likely that rice cultivation and its subsequent deification allowed for mass population increase.[citation needed] Regardless, there is archaeological evidence that supports the idea that there was an influx of farmers from the continent to Japan that absorbed or overwhelmed the native hunter-gatherer population.[10]

Some pieces of Yayoi pottery clearly show the influence of Jōmon ceramics. In addition, the Yayoi lived in the same kind of pit-type or circular dwellings as that of the Jōmon. Other examples of commonality are chipped stone tools for hunting, bone tools for fishing, bracelets made from shells, and lacquer skills for vessels and accessories.

Today the theory, the Yayoi people are that mix of the native Jōmon with immigrants from China and Korea, is believed widely and most textbooks of Japan have described that.

http://www.kahaku.go...pix/5/5-14.html

Most studies reach a conclusion that Japanese are descendants of a mix of Jomon (not to be confused with Ainu), Koreans and Chinese from the modern Jiangsu province area (southeastern coastal Chinese).

Edited by tutu123, 11 October 2008 - 09:56 AM.

[tutu123]

It's a ' known fact ',some northern Chinese & Koreans & Mongolians are basically ONE PEOPLE.Japanese and indigenous peoples of Siberia & China's NE region ( old Manchuria ) are closest kins.

Your link was a brief DNA study for 437 Koreans,that's barely a good representation of over 100 millions Koreans.

Rather than saying stuff like "some northern Chinese & Koreans & Mongolians are basically ONE PEOPLE" and "Japanese and indigenous peoples of Siberia & China's NE region ( old Manchuria ) are closest kins.", why don't you, for once, give us links to genetic studies within the last decade which supports your statements.

Plus that DNA study samples 437 Koreans, that's correct. Most genetic studies have sample sizes of much less than 400 for one ethnicity. So that genetic study rather accounted for a large sample size compared to other genetic studies.

[Karakhan]

Your link was a brief DNA study for 437 Koreans,that's barely a good representation of over 100 millions Koreans.

care to post a survey on one particular group that uses a higher number of samples?