QUOTE (MC420 @ Jul 2 2008, 03:33 PM)
I'm not certain if you're fully understand the meanings and context of the the world "barbarians" which you've used within the above assertion. I would read it as a rather "racist" remark regarding our contemporary context. Pls review and re-edit it on your term accordingly.
Btw, if you keep refer to the "pure Han concept" genetically, pls provide your objective genetic studies for references.
I think you are being quite sensitive, but that is your perogative. I don't know what your understanding of "racism" is but where I come from we do not consider ethnicity to be races. Koreans and Chinese are not different races at least not to my understanding, neither are Japanese and Tugustic. Further, I am not Chinese, not even Asian. I use the term barbarian from the point of view of the Chinese to refer generally to nonHan ethnic groups on the borders of China proper at the time, meaning the Non-Han people on their border. People who were not huaren.
Just as people on the borders of the Roman Empire or even inside it (like Germans and Celts) were considered barbarians.
Anyway I put barbarian in quotes to make it clear that is not my personal meaning. I have books written in the 1990's that refer to the Dutch and Portugese in Chinese as Nanban (Southern Barbarians)...
As far as Pure Han...no group is perfectly pure and definately of one Haplogroup, etc.
What we can say is that the Han originated around the Yellow River and as Chinese culture spread outward, they absorbed many types of people to their north/south/east and west. People were were austroasian, Turikic, tugustic, etc. I think we all agree with this.
Genetically it is thought that Han can be represented by what I wrote on my site:
http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/chi...mosome-testing/QUOTE
European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 23 January 2008; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201998
A spatial analysis of genetic structure of human populations in China reveals distinct difference between maternal and paternal lineages
Fuzhong Xue et al.
Analyses of archeological, anatomical, linguistic, and genetic data suggested consistently the presence of a significant boundary between the populations of north and south in China. However, the exact location and the strength of this boundary have remained controversial. In this study, we systematically explored the spatial genetic structure and the boundary of north–south division of human populations using mtDNA data in 91 populations and Y-chromosome data in 143 populations. Our results highlight a distinct difference between spatial genetic structures of maternal and paternal lineages. A substantial genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is the characteristic of maternal structure, with a significant uninterrupted genetic boundary extending approximately along the Huai River and Qin Mountains north to Yangtze River. On the paternal side, however, no obvious genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is revealed.
QUOTE
Although Haplogroup O3 appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, it also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region. 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)
Japanese are slightly a majority of O2b1 and a significant population of D and C.
This is not common in Mainland China, especially outside of Manchuria.
Most Chinese are O3, to my knowledge
QUOTE
to 20%[4] of Japanese males.
Now Koreans are:
QUOTE
40% of Manchurian, Korean, and Vietnamese males,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O3_(Y-DNA)If Japanese were mostly Han Chinese who migrated to Japan they would most likely have more O3 if they were mostly Korean it is possible they would also have more O3, they do not.
Genetic drift is possible as well as some type of selection pressure, but it is most likely based on other evidence (like language) that the Yayoi came from North Eastern Asia, somewhere near Manchuria and Korea...before ethnic Han colonized the area or arrived inside of modern day Korean in large numbers or Manchuria.
Meaning Han Chinese men have pretty uniform ancestry on their father's side, not perfect but you can look at it this way.
If you take group 1, and that group has a certain mix of A, B, C subgroups, but no D
and you have another group (group 2) that has A, B, C, D, and D is close to the majority.
You can tell that although there was some intermarriage in that between the groups that the subgroup D did not come from Group 1.
So this is my meaning from Chinese and Japanese. Chinese are group 1, Japanese are 2. Most of the Japanese paternal genetic ancestry is not Han Chinese or found in most of Mainland China...outside of areas we know used were Tugustic or Mongol where many of those populations were absorbed by Han, other than that, the rest of China does not show them.
I think the logic is clear. Someone is not what they think they are or someone is now something they were not in the past.
Besides all this if you spend a week in Tokyo and a week in Beijing or Shanghai you can see the Japanese look distinct on average from the majority of Chinese in those cities and although you might see some Chinese who look Japanese you will find far less Japanese who look Chinese (much less various in China)...so you can often tell who Chinese people are in Japan by appearance. Japanese look much more like Tugustic and Koreans than they do the average Han Chinese person.
This is not an accident you would expect this based on the mixture of Haplogroups that Japanese have more North East Asian admixture and as well as some Ainu which would create a different mix of looks from the average person in China.
Underhill et al. (2000); (g) Hammer et al. (2001); (d) Karafet et al. (2001); (e) Semino et al. (2000); (z) Su et al. (1999); and (h) Capelli et al. (2001). Non-contiguous naming systems in prior nomenclatures result either from the use of non-PCR markers that have not been typed on the YCC panel or unpublished lineage definitions. Prior haplogroup names shown in red are found in more than one position in the phylogeny. Cross-hatching within the 'Semino' nomenclature indicates lineages which cannot be named according to their system. Mutations M104 and P22 on lineage M2 are independent discoveries of the same polymorphic marker.
