First off, i am no anthropologist but i just noticed the poor terminology used on this forum to classify different groups of humans

1. ethnicity and race are not the same thing, they are NOT interchangable terms. There is NO such thing as "Han race", "Korean race", "Manchu race", Japanese "race", british "race",etc,etc. Despite that, Ethnicity does have racial implications, more on that later
2. Han Chinese are NOT racially mixed, only mixed on a sub-racial level. all Han Chinese are racially Mongoloid
3. the science of dividing racially Mongoloid people into sub-races(Sinid, Tungid,Austroasiatic, etc,etc) is considered a pseudo science mostly because no one really researches much into it (ironically, the science of dividing up caucasoids is not considered a pseudo science)
4. Especially do not attempt to label race/phenotype by using language groups. There is no such thing as "Altaic features", "indo european features",etc,etc

misconceptions

1. "race is a pseudo science and race is only a skin deep concept". WRONG, although the true science of race is not perfect, its not a pseudo-science. Anthropologists can identify skulls belonging to certain groups, its clear that race is hardly skin deep. Anthropologists spend years measuring and classifying skulls but it does not mean they have a "racist" agenda
2. "there is no genetic basis for being Han". Han Chinese are certainly hetereogenous but everyone from Dongbei down to Guangdong has a specific lineage traced from paternal Y chromosome and this y chromosome is also found in populations in Korea, Mongolia, and Japan IE there is more Chinese in everyone else than there is in us since they can't really find anything THAT specific regarding genotype in other Mongoloid populations surrounding China.

Not sure what this line means - could you rephrase it?

浪淘音, you've given a timely reminder. I personally avoid using the word 'race' nowadays ever since I learned in 2001 (in university) how the concept was invented by Europeans in the 19th century and then misused for superiority theories based on skull shapes. However, the word is still routinely misused in non-academic contexts - for example, there are four main "races" in Singapore (they're actually ethnicities), and someone who discriminates against people of another ethnicity is called a 'racist'.

'Race' is now up there with 'nation' on my list of loaded words that cause more trouble than they're worth.



I read last year in a science magazine that there are often more genetic similarities between people of different 'races' than between two people of the same 'race'. Are skull shapes really more significant compared to genetics? I'm not that knowledgeable about biology or genetics, so I'd appreciate if someone clarified.

well, 30,000 years ago, it was impossible to tell different populations apart by phenotype

since then, through adaptation and SOME mixing, human groups diverge.

craniometric measuring is not an exact science but its pretty much the only way anthropologists can determine the "race" of someone who died thousands of years ago. It doesn't mean they think one shape is inferior or superior

There is less genetic variation within human "race" types than within a troop of chimpanzees, that means we are a very inbred race. Experimental evidence with dogs and cats shows that inbreeding can express extreme phenotypical differences, visually a purebred dog can be very different from a wolf or in fact other different purebred dog. Im sure we all can appreciate this relying on visual cues on the subject of "race" is inaccurate. I'll also like to say that Chinese have a very large variation in genetic lineage so if you define those as "Han" I bet many caucasoids will be included.

actually, no. only Han MTDna is diverse, the Y chromosome is relatively uniform

and define "caucasoid" lineage. if this so called "caucasoid" lineage is older than 10,000 years, then it doesn't count

all Chinese are Mongoloid, get over it

Well I do know that Southern Chinese were divided from Northern Chinese as a distinct group with ploynesians. That was based on physical similarities of course. It is actually quite hard to group genotypical differences among a same species group like human. Likely that you can find say a Negroid or Caucasoid genetically more similar to you than another person in China. Race is more than just gene, a mongoloid group is easier to pin down than a "han" group, but not all mongoloid are Chinese.

I would say that ethnicity is a combination of culture, history and genotype. Although you may not think it, genetic does flow across barriers, a misconception is that it needs a large influx of "foreigners". China was not exactly geographically isolated like say Australia or Americas. Why should Y chromosomes be more uniform? Patrilineal lines contribute both X and Y eqaully.

there is no polynesian line in southern Chinese. Thats austronesian. Polynesians are not related

i also never said tracing Y chromosome is better than MTDNA but the fact is that Y chromosome of ALL HANs is consistent

Talks about the Austronesian group here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian


It seems to be more of a language group than a Race or Ethnicity. It does include Polynesian.

anthropologists can't decide whether polynesians are even Mongoloid. However, Austronesians are classified as Mongoloid

besides, no one said Austronesians are a "race". stop using ethnicity and race interchangably

Hmm...I wasn't...I said Ethnicity or race.


Quite personally, I don't agree with all this Mongoloid and Negroid stuff. In my opinon it denotes no real relation. Even Arabs are considered Caucasoid along with Europeans... IMHO that doesn't really click for me...eh...

middle easternern phenotype is the first true caucasoid phenotype btw

you don't have to agree with it, you're not an anthropologist. There the ones that have to research this stuff. you disagreeing won't change anything

i suppose language family is only true relation, right? (hint, hint)

Why the Y and not the X chromosome? What do you mean by "uniform". If it simply implied they lie within a normal curve, then I have also mentioned that it is impossible to identify han ethnicity by this mean.

And how would you know? Genetically we are related, however genetically they are also be related to many other groups. See how difficult it is?How would you define them? As Jagoon mentioned, some of their words used are similar to Austronesian words. Being a seafaring people I think it is inevitable that they picked abit from different culture.

SInce human originates from Africa, possibly we were all blacks once. Also Africans show the greatest variabilty within their genetic lineage than from the other continent. calling them an ethnic group is false. I might say an Australian Aborginal, or an American Indian is an ethnic group based on genotype. Han? Ha! Not within a population of 1 billion with a huge variability genetically.

Forum member NiShishei posted an article regarding the subject of Y chromosome lineage in just about all Han populations studied, both north and south

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...opic=2296&st=30

In addition, haplogroups O1b-M110, O2a1-M88 and O3d-M7, which are prevalent in southern natives17, were only observed in some southern Hans (4% on average), but not in northern Hans. Therefore, the contribution of southern natives in southern Hans is limited, if we assume that the frequency distribution of Y lineages in southern natives represents that before the expansion of Han culture that started 2,000 yr ago5

i've read dozens of articles about studies conducted by different anthropologists and they pretty come to the same conclusion

i wouldn't say the M122-C mutations is common purely to Han but its prevelant in just about all studied

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

the evidence is there, if you choose to ignore it, i could care less. None of this information has any implications on your own life. if you want to believe you are STILL an African (human populations started leaving africa 50,000 years ago, its time to move on), thats your bussiness

I see, the chart was for the purpose of determining migration patterns of Chinese within China, therefore why only the Y-chromosome was taken. It implied that there was a pattern of migration of male Han group towards the south while the females stayed behind. It doesn't really define the Han ethnicity you know? Let me explain again.

(1.) Han ethnicity is a very large population that shared a similar culture for a long time.
(2.) They freely interbreed as the chart linked shows. Though it is the male lineage.
(3.) Han ethnic group has a large genetic variability due to all this.
(4.) Due to trade, war other influences Han genetic diversification increases.
(5.) Since Noone can determine the "original" Han genotype or cares to or is willing to deny that most of the Chinese population as non-Han, otherwise too many people can join the club.

Lol! I see you don't believe racial assimilation happens! Like breed with like and all that.

you still don't get it, do you? O3-M122 and O3e-M134 haplotype with theM122-C mutations IS the original Han genotype, its prevalent in ALL Han populations studied. The reason the Y chromosome was chosen was because its passed directly down from the father, last time i checked, everyone has a father (cept maybe you since you claim to be directly descended from prehistoric africans ), the Y chromosome mutates very little so its easier to use it to track lineage. haplotypes O3-M122 and O3e-M134 appeared about 15,000 YA and the mutation occured 7000 years ago, meaning all Hans have an ancestor from this one group dating to that time period.

genetic diversity of the Han population is mostly in the MTDNA

furthermore, you said it yourself, the Han population was always huge making it extremely difficult for outside groups to affect the gene pool significantly. For instance, Northern China before the Mongol invasions, never dropped in population below 50 million. the most successfully assimilated nomads were Tuoba Xianbei, Southern Xiong Nu and NuZhen. AT MOST, these populations totaled barely 2 million (nomads have small populations by nature). Using Sinodontry studies, the populations of the steppe and Northern Han were never that different to begin with especially with such a low non-Han ratio meaning that Northern Han could assimilate all they want and it would barely affect the population as a whole

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

like i said before, you can ignore all the studies and findings all you want, it won't affect you personally. if you have a black girlfriend, more power to you

I don't even know why iam arguing with you. As I have said the chart was to map the migration of "Han" chinese from the north to the south. By no mean do all Han Chinese posseses the O3-M122 and O3e-M134 haplotype with theM122-C mutations. Those type occurs with a higher frequency within the Northen han group, but is not uniform within the entire ethnic group. They were using it to determine how closely related the Southern Chinese were to the Northern! It even shows the standard deviation for the pop not having those genotype within the chart! How can you say that all han posseses those types!!?

Is there any call speculating about people you know nothing about on the internet forums? I am here merely presenting facts and squashing misconception within reasons for what I know.

Please do some research before you start talking, its the mutation that occurs in high frequency, the haplotypes themselves are common to all Han Chinese. the variations are extremely minute, it shows all Han Chinese came from one population that existed at least 7000 years ago when the mutation occured on the two haplotypes in question because every Han sampled has this. The mutation also occurs in southern populations.

the information implies all hans came from a single population at one point, it DOES NOT imply purity so basically even the most austroasiatic/austronesian bred Cantonese has northerner descent within him. The information also implies the recent migrations (last 1500 years) were from a single area and NO single population of southern aboriginals replaced Northern migrants, they MIXED which also implies the admixture was of maternal lineage IE wife taking since the MTDNA is very diverse

also, the variation like i've said before is on the MTDNA.

you clearly don't know genetics too well. the majority of your past posts on this thread, you kept asking "why the Y chromosome", if you even took a biology class in your life, you'd know the Y chromosome mutates very little enabling anthropologists to track lineage alot easier. The two haplotypes in question have existed for at least 15,000 years yet only one major mutation has occured.

This is the source that you linked to me, maximum mean average among population possesing those O3-M122 and O3e-M134 haplotype, 54.2%. Say again that all Hans have them? You know mTDNA doesn't mix do you? It is descended 100% from the mother no contribution from the father! The only way there is variability within it is due to mutation. They are using Y chromosome because they are tracking a mutation within the Y chromosome!

You must know very little about DNA because Y chromosome doesn't mutate anymore than X chromosome! You don't even know what are mTDNA, as you have demonstrated and misintepretd a simple little chart regarding migration patterns, based on genetic variation! The article did not even address wether those genotypes are a unique characteristic of "Han" ethnicity you made it up they were!

Another thing you misunderstood was that O3-M122 and O3e-M134 are mutations called M122-C, that was why they were tracking it because it is easier to track mutations. The chance of a convergent mutation in 2 people are very low.

What an unpleasant person you are . For your information genius, the descended from African remarks is not an unqualified remark. mTDNA which has less variation than normal DNA indicates that, archaeology also indicates a general migration of Homo saipens originating from Africa. You never even try to dispute my argument except regugitate the same old argument.

I'm impressed by the knowledge of science in the two of you guys, but not so impressed by your politeness towards each other. Disagree by all means, but do so without insulting each other's intelligence or parentage. Otherwise I will start deleting sentences or even entire posts.

Thanks!

I apologize for being abit rude at the end. Furthur I have no issues with anyone believing as they do. At the start I noticed the statements made at the start of the thread to be abit dogmatic and decided to see if additional information was forthcoming. I made statements pertaining to genetics and how extreme phenotypes developed. Later I was directed to another thread with information. What I argued was primarly based on information on that thread, seeing how the information was misinterpreted or twisted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Habitat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-of-...-migrations.jpg



http://www.mitomap.org/WorldMigrations.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_migration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_World

And at last:

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/mummi...l/cherchen.html