I've seen a lot of debates center around patrilineage O (whether it's southern or northern) without the debators having read or adequate knowledge of the subject matter. They just cite abstracts of various studies which without knowing the full story can be confusing and even contradicting. I wanted to do a topic so that people can actually get what it's all about. I'll further update this topic as I go, with citation, maps, tables, quotes, and such. Below is just an introduction. I think a thread like this is necessary to bring China History Forum and historical anaylysis into the modern era. There is a dearth of accurate genetic knowledge in this forum of very intelligent people, at a time when the most avant-garde books, articles, and documentraies concerning history are already fervently employing human genes.
Firstly, O is a paternal lineage from which roughly more than half of East and SE Asians trace their descent from. O is in turn descended from K, who is also the father of more or less half of Europeans, South Asians, and Melanesians as well as most of Native Americans.
O and N are basically the same lineage, NO. N is found in high % in Eastern Europe, Siberia, as well as East and SE Asia but it's more of a player in northern latitudes as compared to O, which is the biggest lineage in East and SE Asia.
The root of O and N, variously designated as NO/"O*"/M214 is found in Tibeto-Burmans and Altaics but not in Han Chinese, Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao, Tai-Kadai, and Austro-Asiatic groups. This might be suggestive of a more northern origin for the root/father of N and O.
The root/father of O is found among .7 % of northeastern Asians, .5 of Mongolians/Tibetans/Uighur, and .1% of "SE Asians" though in the study I'm citing "SE Asians" mainly refer to southern Chinese minorities.
The important point to keep in find that studies, often relying on numerical differences instead of differences between groups, do not confirm anything on their own. Furthermore, the conclusions in the abstracts are often NOT even the voice of the data but the personal interpretation of the authors, interpretations which often are not explicitly pointed to by the data. It is IMPORTANT to use genetic studies only in HARMONIZATION with other fields. IN FACT, often inferring prehistory from archaeology and historical records, legends, and linguistics offer a better clue to the past. The best hypotheis/ theory/reconstruction is one that is most parsimonious between a variety of disciplines and fields tackling the same subject. The habit of many in the DNA era of using genetic studies to posit conclusive-final arguments is misguided.
Full Version: Patrilineage O
China History Forum, Chinese History Forum > Chinese History Topics > Chinese Ethnic Groups and Peoples > Chinese Anthropology
Is O3 really from the south? What does the data really say?
An analysis of the study, "Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian-Specific
Haplogroup O3-M122", link
Ok, I wanted to simplify this but I realized people are still not gonna get it even if they read it, so I'll just simply this even more. If you wanna see an in-depth analysis of the paper, scroll down the thread.
In the study the maps show O3/M122 to have the highest frequency in SW China. I looked at the study finally in detail today and the peak of frequency in Yunnan actually based on 28 Dulong Tibeto-Burman tribals. 28 out of 28 Dulong had M122/O3, 100%, and thusit was concluded that the highest frequency of O3 is in SW China. What they should've done was make a map with the frequency of M122/O3 carriers per square kilometer.
Peaks of the 5 sub-branches are all basically based on tiny samples of Tibeto-Burman tribals, Dulong, Achang, Nu...
Here are the frequency table for each ethnic group and the maps:
For a detailed analysis of the study, scroll down the thread.
An analysis of the study, "Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian-Specific
Haplogroup O3-M122", link
Ok, I wanted to simplify this but I realized people are still not gonna get it even if they read it, so I'll just simply this even more. If you wanna see an in-depth analysis of the paper, scroll down the thread.
In the study the maps show O3/M122 to have the highest frequency in SW China. I looked at the study finally in detail today and the peak of frequency in Yunnan actually based on 28 Dulong Tibeto-Burman tribals. 28 out of 28 Dulong had M122/O3, 100%, and thusit was concluded that the highest frequency of O3 is in SW China. What they should've done was make a map with the frequency of M122/O3 carriers per square kilometer.
Peaks of the 5 sub-branches are all basically based on tiny samples of Tibeto-Burman tribals, Dulong, Achang, Nu...
Here are the frequency table for each ethnic group and the maps:
For a detailed analysis of the study, scroll down the thread.
In summary, I find the study's conclusions a bit flawed. There is no adequate prove of the southern origin of O. This is because their findings do not explicitly support thier conclusions. Their conclusion is that M-122 has highest SNP variance and STR diversity in Austroasiatic and Tai-Kadai speakers. And yet the results show that the highest frequencies and SNP variances are actually among Tibeto-Burman speakers (who the study acknowledges are historically living in NW China) and the highest STR diversity are actually among southern Chinese (who is anyone below the Yangtze), not "SE Asian" (southern Chinese tribal groups). This discrepancy is unsatisfactrily explained away, which gives the impression that the authors are in favor of a particular theory instead of just presenting the data/results of their study and providing a series of alternative explanations.
The explaination isn't satisfactory because
1. It disagrees with histroy and archaeology.
2. Usually good authors/studies provide a series of alternatives to explain the data to give a balance and since of likelihood of each, whereas in this study only one theory is provided by the authors when several theories are present.
In conclusion, the authors are fitting the data into their own prefered box, without the data naturally fitting the box at all. Thus, the results may be unsatisfactory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layout:
1. Frequency analysis, since the frequency map is probably what everyone looks at first, or even only.
2. SNP and STR diversity analysis.
3. Analysis of study's age estimate for M-122/O3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Frequency Analysis:
The highest frequencies are in SW China among particular Tibetan-Burman tribes, with the Dulong having 28 out of 28. The study itself acknowledges that Tibeto-Burman speakers are of a recent northern origin.
Frequency distribution cannot be used to deduce origin of O3 for two reasons:
a. Since the samples involving the groups with high frequency are relatively small and the frequency between different ethnic groups of the same region vary drastically, the high frequency in the SW China tribal areas can be best explained as founder effects in patrilineal tribal clans.
b. The northern origin of Tibeto-Burman groups:
From present study:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNP and STR diversity
However,
The high variance between groups of Chinese languages in the south can best be explained by isolation in stable settings as well as successive waves of north immigrants. Similarly, the historical records also support this same cause for the same type of diversity among minority ethnic groups - successive waves pushed south under Han expansion and subsequent isolation under stable settings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From STR network, it seems that the green (southern Chinese and Tibeto-Burman) populations are where the highest diversity, major nodes, and ancestral motifs lay.
Authors further reduced groups to build a second network consisting of northern Chinese and A-A and TK speakers under the assumption that Hmong-Mien, Tibeto-Burman, and southern Chinese suffer from admixture, although it's unclear why T-K and A-A wouldn't also be under the same influence from Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao and Tibeto-Burman since they live in the same region, often in the next village, and admixture is usually bi-directional.
Problems with rebuilt network:
1. Once you've taken away nodes, it's no longer the real deal with an interpreted network.
2. It's unclear how admixture affects the nodes themselves, which gives a straight-forward idea of where the nodes are located. We can assume that it was a case of Austroasiatics and Tai-Kadai migrating to southern China and becoming southern Chinese, but that's too many assumptions on too little evidence, and it also contradicts circumstancial historical of the southern migration of Tai-Kadai and even Austro-Asiatic. We can also assume that southern China was the original homeland of AA and TK, but that still doesn't support origin of O3 in SE Asia, as southern China is anywhere below the Yangtze. The origination point of rice cultivation in southern China is already a bit more like central China.
3. This interpreted network is based on presumptions that may be flawed.
4. It also leaves out an alternative scenario, that M122 arose in southern Chinese/Hmong-Mien/Tibeto-Burmans. This scenario actually agrees with the archaeology of agricultural spread and initiation in central China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Accuracy of study's age analysis of O3:
The estimated aged of lineages vary by study depending on method, assumed factors, and available data. O3 was estimated to be ~20-10,000 from another paper.
The age of O3 in present study, 20-30,000 years old, seems rather unlikely. If O3 is indeed that old SW China, which strattles the border with Assam in India, it would have shown up in Assam relatively early. Yet, O3 in India is associated with Tibeto-Burman speakers only, not Austro-Asiatic, and the time of entry is estimated to be relatively recent.
P. 417 (p. 10 of PDF)
What's a FEMA blunder is how you used a sampe of 28 Dulong Tibeto-Burman tribals in SW China to argue with Asian teens for half a year on AF and other places about how "progressive Asians are mixed with "proto-Europids".
Another laughable thing is how you copied stuff my from blog and forum and then posted it here, proceeding to lecture to me about what an expert you are and how you are going to teach me the "real stuff". Then you got a lesson in reality by the members here, afterwhich you deleted all of your silly posts.
Every post you write just makes you look bad, though you don't know it. And it's sad considering your age that you don't realize that.
The explaination isn't satisfactory because
1. It disagrees with histroy and archaeology.
2. Usually good authors/studies provide a series of alternatives to explain the data to give a balance and since of likelihood of each, whereas in this study only one theory is provided by the authors when several theories are present.
In conclusion, the authors are fitting the data into their own prefered box, without the data naturally fitting the box at all. Thus, the results may be unsatisfactory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layout:
1. Frequency analysis, since the frequency map is probably what everyone looks at first, or even only.
2. SNP and STR diversity analysis.
3. Analysis of study's age estimate for M-122/O3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Frequency Analysis:
The highest frequencies are in SW China among particular Tibetan-Burman tribes, with the Dulong having 28 out of 28. The study itself acknowledges that Tibeto-Burman speakers are of a recent northern origin.
Frequency distribution cannot be used to deduce origin of O3 for two reasons:
a. Since the samples involving the groups with high frequency are relatively small and the frequency between different ethnic groups of the same region vary drastically, the high frequency in the SW China tribal areas can be best explained as founder effects in patrilineal tribal clans.
b. The northern origin of Tibeto-Burman groups:
From present study:
QUOTE
The Yangtze River was used as the geographic border to separate the SEAS and NEAS. In the SEAS, there are 14 Tibeto-Burman–speaking populations with a recorded history of migration from northern China ∼3,000 years ago (Wang 1994).
p. 3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNP and STR diversity
QUOTE
In general, the distribution of the O3-M122 haplotypes
did not show distinctive divergence between
southern and northern populations, with all the major
subhaplogroups shared between them—except for O3-
M7, which was observed only in the southern populations
and therefore indicates a recent common ancestry
of the O3-M122 lineage in East Asia. Using the STR
data, we calculated the gene diversities; no significant
differences were observed between SEAS and NEAS or
among different language groups (data not shown). The
AMOVA analysis did not show significant between-group
divergence either (data not shown).
did not show distinctive divergence between
southern and northern populations, with all the major
subhaplogroups shared between them—except for O3-
M7, which was observed only in the southern populations
and therefore indicates a recent common ancestry
of the O3-M122 lineage in East Asia. Using the STR
data, we calculated the gene diversities; no significant
differences were observed between SEAS and NEAS or
among different language groups (data not shown). The
AMOVA analysis did not show significant between-group
divergence either (data not shown).
However,
QUOTE
However, the MDS
analysis showed that the NEAS are closely related by
clustering together, whereas the SEAS showed relatively
loose connections with larger variance, indicating that
SEAS are genetically more polymorphic than are NEAS
(fig. 5). It should be noted that the difference in genetic
variance between NEAS and SEAS could be due to the
sampling-density discrepancy. However, our previous
studies showed that northern Han populations are relatively
homogenous, with similar Y-chromosome haplotype
distributions (Ke et al. 2001a, 2001b). In addition,
the four northern Han populations sampled in the present
study covered different geographic regions in northern
China. Therefore, the genetic variance observed probably
reflected the true genetic background of the northern
populations in China. In the MDS map, the Hmong-
Mien populations were clustered closely with Han populations,
which reflects the recorded history of admixture
(Wang 1994).
The conclusion here presumes that population homogeneity and heterogeity is unaffected by historical demographic changes, which is flawed. An analagous situation to elucidate this point is the distribution of 20 or so Chinese languages, of which only 1, Mandarin, is found in northern China. Furthermore, the southern Chinese languages preserve more of the ancient characteristics. A straight-forward conclusion would be that Chinese language originated in SE China, and yet this is contrary to history. The Chinese language and civilization orignated in the north. The drastic change and homogenity can best be explained by the extreme depopulation and cross-migrations in the north as a result of drought, civil wars, barbarian invasion - slaughter and drought and migration that is recorded in history.analysis showed that the NEAS are closely related by
clustering together, whereas the SEAS showed relatively
loose connections with larger variance, indicating that
SEAS are genetically more polymorphic than are NEAS
(fig. 5). It should be noted that the difference in genetic
variance between NEAS and SEAS could be due to the
sampling-density discrepancy. However, our previous
studies showed that northern Han populations are relatively
homogenous, with similar Y-chromosome haplotype
distributions (Ke et al. 2001a, 2001b). In addition,
the four northern Han populations sampled in the present
study covered different geographic regions in northern
China. Therefore, the genetic variance observed probably
reflected the true genetic background of the northern
populations in China. In the MDS map, the Hmong-
Mien populations were clustered closely with Han populations,
which reflects the recorded history of admixture
(Wang 1994).
The high variance between groups of Chinese languages in the south can best be explained by isolation in stable settings as well as successive waves of north immigrants. Similarly, the historical records also support this same cause for the same type of diversity among minority ethnic groups - successive waves pushed south under Han expansion and subsequent isolation under stable settings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From STR network, it seems that the green (southern Chinese and Tibeto-Burman) populations are where the highest diversity, major nodes, and ancestral motifs lay.
Authors further reduced groups to build a second network consisting of northern Chinese and A-A and TK speakers under the assumption that Hmong-Mien, Tibeto-Burman, and southern Chinese suffer from admixture, although it's unclear why T-K and A-A wouldn't also be under the same influence from Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao and Tibeto-Burman since they live in the same region, often in the next village, and admixture is usually bi-directional.
Problems with rebuilt network:
1. Once you've taken away nodes, it's no longer the real deal with an interpreted network.
2. It's unclear how admixture affects the nodes themselves, which gives a straight-forward idea of where the nodes are located. We can assume that it was a case of Austroasiatics and Tai-Kadai migrating to southern China and becoming southern Chinese, but that's too many assumptions on too little evidence, and it also contradicts circumstancial historical of the southern migration of Tai-Kadai and even Austro-Asiatic. We can also assume that southern China was the original homeland of AA and TK, but that still doesn't support origin of O3 in SE Asia, as southern China is anywhere below the Yangtze. The origination point of rice cultivation in southern China is already a bit more like central China.
3. This interpreted network is based on presumptions that may be flawed.
4. It also leaves out an alternative scenario, that M122 arose in southern Chinese/Hmong-Mien/Tibeto-Burmans. This scenario actually agrees with the archaeology of agricultural spread and initiation in central China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Accuracy of study's age analysis of O3:
The estimated aged of lineages vary by study depending on method, assumed factors, and available data. O3 was estimated to be ~20-10,000 from another paper.
The age of O3 in present study, 20-30,000 years old, seems rather unlikely. If O3 is indeed that old SW China, which strattles the border with Assam in India, it would have shown up in Assam relatively early. Yet, O3 in India is associated with Tibeto-Burman speakers only, not Austro-Asiatic, and the time of entry is estimated to be relatively recent.
QUOTE
On the basis of the STR data, we estimated the ages
of the major O3-M122 subhaplogroups by use of the
coalescence method developed by Zhivotovsky (2001).
Table 3 lists the age estimations; all the subhaplogroups
have a history older than the Neolithic time, with a range
of 25,000–30,000 years ago.
of the major O3-M122 subhaplogroups by use of the
coalescence method developed by Zhivotovsky (2001).
Table 3 lists the age estimations; all the subhaplogroups
have a history older than the Neolithic time, with a range
of 25,000–30,000 years ago.
P. 417 (p. 10 of PDF)
QUOTE(ocean view incubus @ Mar 5 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]4793468[/snapback]
This reminds me of FEMA's 9/11 report.
What's a FEMA blunder is how you used a sampe of 28 Dulong Tibeto-Burman tribals in SW China to argue with Asian teens for half a year on AF and other places about how "progressive Asians are mixed with "proto-Europids".
Another laughable thing is how you copied stuff my from blog and forum and then posted it here, proceeding to lecture to me about what an expert you are and how you are going to teach me the "real stuff". Then you got a lesson in reality by the members here, afterwhich you deleted all of your silly posts.
Every post you write just makes you look bad, though you don't know it. And it's sad considering your age that you don't realize that.
I thought that this O3-M122 was from Tai's ancestors, wherever where their homeland was.a question: Why is Southern Chinese coloured the same with Tibeto-Burman in the node diagram?
SNP = Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism
STR = ???
FEMA=???
The conclusion was based on their examination of Tai-Kadai speakers. But they arrived at this by discounting southern Chinese and Tibeto-Burmans without what it seems good reason.
But the raw data is that southern Chinese and Tibeto-Burmans have the "roots" of O3, so straight-forwardly, without any interpretation, O3 originated in southern Chinese/Tibeto-Burmans.
The map they did was especially misleading and useless, since it was based on 28 Dulong of Tibeto-Burman ethnicity. The number of samples is hardly reliable and the ethnicity in question is hardly indicative of a southern origin. Even today, the Tibeto-Burman speakers of Yunnan look more like northerners than even southern Chinese.
I'm not against a southern origin of O or O3 per se, just against unconscious biases which oftentimes are descended from older racist ideas.
In this study, if you clear the smoke, it seems that the researchers regard Austroasiatic and Tai-Kadai speakers as the purest stock. In fact, in the conclusion, they talk about "Caucasoid" admixture in northern Asia. I've seen Khmers mixed with Whites, and they don't look Chinese.
But the raw data is that southern Chinese and Tibeto-Burmans have the "roots" of O3, so straight-forwardly, without any interpretation, O3 originated in southern Chinese/Tibeto-Burmans.
The map they did was especially misleading and useless, since it was based on 28 Dulong of Tibeto-Burman ethnicity. The number of samples is hardly reliable and the ethnicity in question is hardly indicative of a southern origin. Even today, the Tibeto-Burman speakers of Yunnan look more like northerners than even southern Chinese.
I'm not against a southern origin of O or O3 per se, just against unconscious biases which oftentimes are descended from older racist ideas.
In this study, if you clear the smoke, it seems that the researchers regard Austroasiatic and Tai-Kadai speakers as the purest stock. In fact, in the conclusion, they talk about "Caucasoid" admixture in northern Asia. I've seen Khmers mixed with Whites, and they don't look Chinese.
QUOTE(rudeboy @ Mar 14 2006, 06:47 AM) [snapback]4794958[/snapback]
The conclusion was based on their examination of Tai-Kadai speakers. But they arrived at this by discounting southern Chinese and Tibeto-Burmans without what it seems good reason.
I see. QUOTE
Even today, the Tibeto-Burman speakers of Yunnan look more like northerners than even southern Chinese.
Dulong, look Northerner??? 
QUOTE
I've seen Khmers mixed with Whites, and they don't look Chinese.
And I've heard (from friend) that Chinese mixed with Tamil (Dravidian) looks like Malay.
QUOTE(ocean view incubus @ Mar 14 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]4795130[/snapback]
ren is getting his a*** kicked on the dnaanthro group.
Yeah, he's kicking my butt.
Why don't you give a link to where he is kicking my butt?(BTW, I still suspect that you and Philip Deitiker are the same guy because you use the exact same language and exact same theories.)
Here are some of the guy-who-is-kicking-my-butt's past claims for you history experts:
1. "Melanestic 'Mongoloids'" are from Polynesia.
2. "Sub-'Mongoloids'" as SE rice farmers replaced "Caucasoids" in north China 3,500 years ago to become Chinese "Mongoloids".
3. Tocharians/Xinjiang mummies are from the British isles.
4. Rice and wheat was brought by SE Asian farmers into North China.
5. Chinese sorghum and millet are from the Middle East
6. Han Chinese lived in Xinjiang and were forced to settle in Japan and Korea, making those regions more "Caucasian".
7. Middle Easterners were Siberia and north China before a Chinese rice expansion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy doesn't even get his facts straight before opening his mouth, and he actually runs the joint. Actual quotes of his claims:
It's just laughbale.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/message/1912
QUOTE
There are several events that could explain the mosaicisms.
1. The movement of 'anglo' derived people derived from extreme NW
europe into the Tarim basin.
2. The expansion of B46 (rice/wheat farming) into the region of
northern china.
1. He got the whole IE-migration backwards. There were "anglos" in Briton 7,000 years ago, he claims. 1. The movement of 'anglo' derived people derived from extreme NW
europe into the Tarim basin.
2. The expansion of B46 (rice/wheat farming) into the region of
northern china.
2. Rice wasn't farmed in north China and wheat was introduced later on from Central Asia AFAIK. The earliest crops in north China was sorghum and millet. Earliest millet are in Inner Mongolia.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/message/2088
QUOTE
I have not mentioned Sogham and Millet, however these would be
consistent with a stronger middle eastern presence in the region.
consistent with a stronger middle eastern presence in the region.
The oldest millet are in Inner Mongolia, not the Middle East, and sorghum has always been a uniquely Chinese crop, not Middle Eastern.
He's misleading people with facts.
Chinese millet isn't the same species as African millet, and Chinese millet is older.
Sorghum, as I said, is also a "uniquely" Chinese crop in Eurasia. It wasn't brought by colonizing Middle Easterners into China.
Even taking what he quoted at face value, just read it. Neither backs up his claim of the Middle Easterner colonizing Mongolia. I've already replied to him there and I'm not wasting my time with you here.
Just stop misleading people and stop stalking me and leaving me racist message everywhere. Grow up you man child.
Chinese millet isn't the same species as African millet, and Chinese millet is older.
Sorghum, as I said, is also a "uniquely" Chinese crop in Eurasia. It wasn't brought by colonizing Middle Easterners into China.
Even taking what he quoted at face value, just read it. Neither backs up his claim of the Middle Easterner colonizing Mongolia. I've already replied to him there and I'm not wasting my time with you here.
Just stop misleading people and stop stalking me and leaving me racist message everywhere. Grow up you man child.
QUOTE(ocean view incubus @ Mar 18 2006, 08:42 PM) [snapback]4796537[/snapback]
Human from Africa had to pass the Middle East to reach Mongolia. Some might leave genetic traces.
What is factually wrong about this?
What is factually wrong about this?
African millet and Chinese millet are different species. Chinese millet is older. It's not that hard to understand.
This means no one from Africa or the Middle East brought millet to China. This means that his claim that Middle Easterners were the original inhabitants of northern Asia 8,000 years ago before being replaced by SE Asian rice "Mongoloids" is highly questionable.
As for sorghum, I'm not sure of the exact origins but it says "brought by ship to India from Africa 2,000" which has nothing to do with Middle Easterners in Inner Mongolia 8,000 years ago who were replaced by SE Asian rice "Mongoloids".
This is as simplistic as I can get.
Setzer Prism, this is the last time I'm gonna reply to you.r frivolent posts.
You are equating a lineage with an ethnic group.
A more rational statement is that the majority of Arctic dwellers from Europe through Siberia to Greenland have a certain "Mongoloid"-look. This is the average Swede according to Dienekes's composite:
And this woman was even more this way before the expansion of Middle Eastern farmers.
Plus, the Ainu were reduced to their present distribution by Yayoi expansion, not to mention the Japanese islands would have warmer, oceanic weather.
QUOTE(ocean view incubus @ Mar 19 2006, 11:50 AM) [snapback]4796651[/snapback]
Isnt it strange that the majority of the Ainu live in colder climates than the majority of O* carriers.
So that means Austroloids (aka Ainu/Jomon) were better adapted to live in colder climates than Sino-Tibetans who are said to have originate from the north.
So that means Austroloids (aka Ainu/Jomon) were better adapted to live in colder climates than Sino-Tibetans who are said to have originate from the north.
You are equating a lineage with an ethnic group.
A more rational statement is that the majority of Arctic dwellers from Europe through Siberia to Greenland have a certain "Mongoloid"-look. This is the average Swede according to Dienekes's composite:
And this woman was even more this way before the expansion of Middle Eastern farmers.
Plus, the Ainu were reduced to their present distribution by Yayoi expansion, not to mention the Japanese islands would have warmer, oceanic weather.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.