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




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.






http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...486445/abstract






http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11763.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.




this is on the female side only though.

http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/10a/1832



http://www.springerlink.com/content/n71jacqer4f19jlf/
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.com/mt/marxy/archives/20...o-japanese.html




Look at this comparison:

http://www.msu.edu/~jk13/Abs.Beckwith.pdf


If you have some other proof, please present it.

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.kumanolife.com/History/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.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...=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.

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.

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.



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.

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.

I still fail to see your evidence.

I posted several genetic studies:

One by Japanese:

http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/abstract/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/content/95/20/11763.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.

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.

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."

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.

Genetic make up of Japanese by japanese researcher







http://www.oniazuma.com/2008/01/looking-fo...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.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...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.com/prehist/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

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.



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

...please look below.

Dear CoolZ

Also this....

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1569806

You posted

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


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



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.

Try to keep this one civil guys.

Almost forgot this one:



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.




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.



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.



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:



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.

what makes sense to me is that: modern koreans look more like mongolians than japanese,infact i can tell a korean apart from a japanese in most cases.

korenas and japanese don't look a like at all.

the issue isn't how much they look like each other. The issue is how much relationship there is between each other. I think we all agree that there's some similarities, and also some differences.. and these differences are what makes them look different from each other.

as for Koreans and Mongolians, I used to think so too until I started meeting many Mongolians in person. There's something slightly different.

what's quite disturbing to me is the non Japanese and non Koreans that act as if they know more about Japanese and Koreans more than they know themselves

We are not talking about appearance. Many Hong Kongers don't look anything like people in Harbin, but both would say they are Han.

Uhm...that means what?

And no I'm sorry I've lived in Japan for a a little over a year in Tokyo. Japanese can not always tell Zainichi Koreans on site in Tokyo, that is not accurate. Sure there is a stereotypical Korean look and a stereotypical Japanese look, but there is a far more overlap.

I live in Washington D.C. (well metro area) we shop at H Mart and other Korean grocery stores because they carry a variety of Asian foods. Everyone always assumes my wife is Korean and speak Korean to her. She is not and has no known Korean ancestry. In fact when we lived in Japan and too a weekend trip to Korea, everyone assumed she was Korean (and I was an American soldier) LOL... The thing is my wife does not dress stereotypically Japanese and when she is not speaking Japanese or talking to Japanese people she does not make a lot of Japanese mannerisms.

When we lived in Houston, Texas which is full of Chinese, Vietnamese born Chinese (huaqiao) and also ethnic Viet people always assumed she was Chinese and would try to speak Mandarin to her at the Chinese grocery store.

When she could respond, they would stare at her and ask her where she is from. She would say Japan and then they would say something..."oh yes, you look Japanese" LOL

Appearance is not a good way to determine ancestry when you have group this related, sorry. That is not going to be accurate most of the time. IN fact we have a thread on this site called "All Asians Look A Like" and most folks did horribly on determining who was Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.

I bet if I put Asian Americans in a room, who were pure Korean, Chinese, and Japanese...if I put 100 of each you would have a hard time sorting them, especially the Korean and Japanese.

Hell, many Japanese actors and singers are actually Zainichi Korean...can you tell who they are by look? Most Japanese can not.

I agree with Chanpura as well...Mongols do overlap with Koreans but Mongols also have a stereotypical look that is distinct.

Ethnocentrism is disturbing to me.

Still, I expected this so I found one study from a group of Japanese univeristies and another from Chinese that said the same thing as the Western study on genealogical relationship.

Still I was not aware genes changed by who looked at them...this is interesting. I did not know languages the framework to evaluate languages changed when Korean eyes looked at them as compared to Japanese eyes, as compared to Italian eyes, LOL

This must be some type of new physics.

Anyway, I still have not seem evidence to refute anything I have said. I have went through and broke down the evidence presented in a logical way. Is rational logic different in Japan and Korean than everywhere else in the world? If so, then maybe should also address is 1+1=2 in East Asia, maybe it does not. Maybe if a Japanese and Korean looks at it 1+1=4.

The sky might not be blue either...might be red to their eyes.

Ok, you at least provide personal examples to demonstrate your point.



Yes, but I tend to think a stereotypical "look" of an ethnicity is never accurate and is not a good umbrella for covering everyone in that ethnicity. As you said yourself, if you placed 100 East Asians in a room, people of their ethnic groups and others would have a hard time identifying who belonged to which ethnic group. This also applies to Mongols.

That's the beauty of genetic diversity, even within ethnic groups such as "Korean" or "Japanese" etc.

Eric

Well, Hong Kongers are Southern Chinese mostly coming from the Yue people while the people in Harbin are Northern Chinese and probably have alot of Manchu blood as well as some Mongol in them. Of course they will look different. They are both technically Han but some researchers have said that Northern Han maybe closer to Koreans/Mongols/Manchus while Southern Han might be closer to Viets and SouthEast Asians then they are to each other.

Not so .... ,it's a common misperception sadly.

Let's read what researchers wrote @ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...cgi?artid=21714

Genetic relationship of populations in China on the PNAS website,it is quite long and I scanned through but still can't find anything that substantiate your claim.

Quote: " genetic evidence does not support an independent origin of Homo Sapiens in China ".The phylogeny also suggested that it is more likely that ancestors of the populations currently residing in East Asia entered from Southeast Asia." from the abstract, and " Now that we have established that populations in East Asia were subjected to genetic contributions from multiple sources: Southeast Asia, Altaic from northeast Asia, and mid-Asia or Europe. It would be interesting to estimate relative contributions from each source.Unfortunately,the current study involved only mostly minority populations.A study involving populations across the country is necessary to reveal such a picture " .

At the conclusion,what I see is that the study is more of Chinese minority groups than the larger Han Chinese majority.It seems to suggest and enforce Li Hui theory of at least one of the 3 streams of transmigratory routes taken by Chinese peoples,the stream of genetic marker M119 ( where the Viets belong ) whose path was through northern SE asia into China and they contain Bai Yue and other minorities like Dai but not Han Chinese.So it sort of confirm " the current study involved only mostly minority populations " in the article on PNAS and they " entered from Southeast Asia " ( not the Han Chinese, mind you).

Li Hui asserts that Han Chinese are M117 genetic marker and Viets & Bai Yue are M119. Viets does not share the M122 genetic marker with the Hans. M117 and M7 stemed from M122,which the Viet ethnic is not.

I read the other article on PNAS, and quote

"Usually, most Chinese immigrants to the U.S. (and to other countries, like Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, etc.) come from southern China, and this is certainly true of the cell lines from California residents from China born in the mainland, collected by Louise Chen and Alice Lin at Stanford and used in our surveys (2, 7, 8). Han-Chinese living in the south of China mostly came originally from the North, but they did so at very different times, and thus had different times for gene flow from the earlier settlers,that is the minorities"

The statement sort of confirm Han Chinese from south China " mostly came originally from the north ",which substantiate Li Hui theory of one of his 3 streams where in one stream the peoples passed through tibetan plateau to arrive in North China were ancestors of the Han-Chinese and Tibetans, carrying the genetic marker M117.PNAS site states that "Han-Chinese living in the south of China mostly came originally from the north, but they did so at very different times".

Virtually all Han Chinese share the same paternal and maternal lineage except for few southern groups that had Austronesian maternal ancestors.The many migrations ( referenced Tang & Song history chronicles ) into southern China have diluted the bloodlines.

The fact is that the Han Chinese majority and ethnic Vietnamese didn't share a common root.Any culture similarity,language similarity and genetic similarity in the south are due to chinese expansion to the south,and cultural diffusion, and mixing with the local people but not by common root. its simple as that.It is a fact that Vietnamese culture shares similarities with Chinese culture is due to Chinese influence like how Chinese influenced Korean and Japanese,not by common root.Another fact that the northern Han-Chinese migrated southward in large numbers and some have mixed with the locals and thats the reason they are genetic related ( same scenario with both Japanese & Koreans because their ancestors originally from Asia continent which is today's China excluding Russian Far East Territory & outer Mongolia ).

Definitely agree with this.

Actually what Chen said about North and South Chinese is partially correct.

As I documented in detail here, with source studies:

http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/chi...mosome-testing/


The variation in Han Chinese is not mostly on the male side but the female side.

This is not shocking or unusual. Men are not particular about who they sleep with...they just raise their children in their culture. this has happened all over the world, whenever men can't easily get women of their ethnicity (or even when they can) they will marry, rape, concubine, make a mistress of other ethnicities of women.

Please check the link. The study shows clearly Han Chinese men are fairly uniform...women are not.

i've lived in flushing,ny before and have many korean friends. and they all looked very korean, iwould never mistaken them as japanese or chinese.

korean football team





japanese football team









koreans and japanese looks very different as you can see.

That's NOT true.


This is one of the things that comes up time to time. Now, here we go again.

Here is news [ in Korean] saying some Korean professor called 홍윤기 claims Amaterasu was a Korean ( Silla ) and Sugawara no Michizane was a Korean ( Silla ) too.

http://www.segye.com/Articles/News/Article...705081157000049

Many Japanese already pointed a whole bunch of mistakes in his claim. And their conclusion was the professor couldn’t even read the documents in old Chinese characters because there are so many pain simple mistakes.

Besides, even I know Amaterasu is a mythical god. Not even a human. Don’t confuse history and myth OK ? The Korean myth “Dangun” is considered to be historical fact in Korea and this myth is the basis of the 5000 Years of Korean History. Japanese don’t confuse history with myth ( except some were exaggerated and distorted during the war ).Japanese don’t confuse politics with history.

The Korean professor turned out to be a professor at “University of Foreign Language/Studies ” He is not even a historian.

This kind of things make many Japanese making fun of Koreans.( * Below is the list [ in Japanese ] of Japanese said to be Korean-Japanese by Koreans but they are not.If “he is great, he must be Korean” type thinking is so common in Korean society that there is an article about this in the Wikipedia [in Japanese].Some Japanese created, just for fun, the 在日認定 certificate of being recognized as a Korean(descendant) by Koreans.


http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9C%A8%E6%...%AA%8D%E5%AE%9A


* list [ in Japanese ] of Japanese said to be Korean-Japanese by Koreans but they are not

五木ひろし Hiroshi Itsuki （本名:松山 数夫 韓国でのｲﾍﾞﾝﾄに参加したりした為、捏造認定される。両親とも日本人

美空ひばり Hibari Misora （両親とも日本人。死去時に週刊文春が徹底取材）

矢沢永吉 Eikichi Yazawa （過去スレのｲﾝﾀﾋﾞｭｰに海外に出て日の丸を見ると安心すると発言。ﾊﾟｽﾎﾟｰﾄも日本）

北野武 Takeshi Kitano （武が勘違いしてｸｫｰﾀｰ発言。後に母自ら否定し、本人も間違いだったと雑誌で発言）

星野仙一 Senichi Hoshino （韓国で捏造認定するも、父親は戦前の三菱重工の工場長で、著名な航空技術者だった星野仙蔵）

石川梨華 Rika Ishikawa （Mｽﾃでﾊﾟｽﾎﾟｰﾄ公開。日本人だった）

草なぎ剛 Tsuyoshi Kusanagi （薙じゃない字は帰化人では使えない字だから日本人）

倉木麻衣 Mai Kuraki (父方の祖父が、昭和中期の詩人である山前實治)

ユーミン Yumi Matsutoya （実家が八王子の老舗「荒井呉服店」）

中島みゆき Miyuki Nakajima （明治時代からの医者一家に生まれる。ありえない）

高倉健 Ken Takakura （本名：小田 剛一 先祖が江戸後半の筑前商家の内儀である小田宅子。「東路日記」の著者）

中田英寿 Hidetoshi Nakata （在日の願望が広まり、朝鮮日報が在日韓国人3世と報道。しかし中田本人と事務所が完全否定した為、朝鮮日報が誤りだったと訂正）

稲本潤一 Junichi Inamoto （ＷＣの活躍により捏造認定されるが、両親ともに国体に出場。鹿児島出身）

松井稼頭央 Kazuo "Kaz" Matsui （在日による願望認定で噂が広まるが、2004年アテネ五輪日本代表メンバーに選出される）

石田ゆり子 Yuriko Ishida （小学生時代水泳でｼﾞｭﾆｱｵﾘﾝﾋﾟｯｸ出場。父親の仕事の関係で台湾に在住していた。朝鮮とは何の関係も無い）

貴ノ花 Takanohana Kenshi （中学時代、全国選抜水泳大会で記録を更新しｵﾘﾝﾋﾟｯｸの候補に選ばれる）

布施明 Akira Fuse （ｵﾘﾋﾞｱﾊｯｾｰと結婚した事で在日が願望認定するが、実兄が国際海洋法の権威で政府関係の役職にも多く就いている布施勉・横浜市大教授）

木村拓哉 Takuya Kimura （在日による願望認定。弟はｱﾒﾘｶﾝﾌｯﾄﾎﾞｰﾙの日本代表でＷ杯に出場）

椎名桔平 Kippei Shiina (顔が半島系などの理由で在日が願望認定。しかし本人は高校時代ｻｯｶｰで国体出場）

長嶋茂雄 Shigeo Nagashima (朝鮮日報が疑惑を指摘するが、父が千葉県臼井町(現佐倉市)の収入役だったのでありえない)

斉藤和巳 Kazumi Saito (朝鮮日報が記事で断定。しかし父が国体出場）

DearCoolZ:

I'm sorry to tell you but, as I said, in Japan. Where I lived in Suginami-Ku and Nakano-Ku in Tokyo for 15 months...most Japanese can not tell who is Korean or not on appearance. Most zainichi do not generally stand out. I know this because I have been to Shin-Okubo...that is the Korean town in Tokyo...it is close to Shinjuku...off the Chuo Line...most of these people are Zainichi and if you walk around there you can not generally tell who is Korean unless they speak Korean, most of them speak Japanese with no accent so that is not a good indicator either.

One thing I can say is, it appears Koreans almost all wear glasses...at a young age...more so than Japanese, but you can't just walk up to a young person in Japan and say "Oh you have glasses and you are not even 25, you are Korean". LOL

this is easy to explain.

You have a stereotypical Korean look. I agree with you.

There is also a stereotypical Japanese look. Lets say those are two poles...inbetween there is overlap, significant.

If you are in Japan...to say that

07:18 PM post...sorry the first guy on the left could be Japanese, what is different is his hair style...most Japanese guys his age do not have that style...that's about it.

My wife says the guy to the right could also be Japanese...the issue is mannerisms and clothing styles/hair style more than anything.

The two kids below them do look non-Japanese.


As far as the Korean soccer team...from left to right 1st row...MY WIFE (Not me) says that these people look Japanese:


the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th,

2nd row

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th

3rd row

1st, 3rd, 4th

So that is 13/23 (57%) Koreans on the Korean soccer team with the proper hair style could pass as Japanese on the streets of Japan.


She said the only real difference is that they have "out of date" hair styles (from a Japanese point of view)...but other than that they could easily be Japanese.

I'm pretty certain my wife (and even myself) have seen more Japanese people in her (our) lives than you.

In any case...this is off topic, as phenotype does not necessarily show relationship. It is obvious that the Jomon have influenced how the Japanese look and Jomon were not present in Korea (at least not in large numbers).

No one is debating if all Japanese and Koreans look exactly the same, obviously not.

This is like saying Mexicans don't look like Spaniards (on average) so they are "obviously" not related. Uhm...totally false. Mexicans are on average about 60% European, 40% Amerindian...most of that European is from Spain...

I'm not going to belabor the point because it is kind of pointless. You can believe what you wish.

A word of advice...don't go to Tokyo and start saying "An-yong" to people you think are Korean, you might get assaulted.

http://www.kahaku.go.jp/special/past/japan...pix/5/5-14.html
More about the research:
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.

Surprisingly, Japanese also display the highest frequency of haplogroup O3a5, which is a Han Chinese and Sino-Tibetan specific O3 branch.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content-nw/full/172/4/2431/TBL1

Xue et. al.

Japanese
Haplogroup O3a5 (O3e) 10/47= 23%

This frequency is about 5% higher than the frequency of O3a5 among Manchus, Koreans and other Northeast Asians.




O3 (M122) distributed throughout Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Austronesian regions of Oceania, with O3a3 (LINE1, M159) represented in Hmong-Mien people; and O3a5 (M134) in Sino-Tibetan peoples.


So the haplogroup O3 found among Koreans and Manchurians are related to the southeast Asian ethnic groups (Miao, Hmong) who also live in China and the haplogroup O3 found among Japanese are related to the Sino-Tibetan ethnic groups (Han Chinese) who live predominantly in China.

IIRC, that table was created by some Chinese poster on allempires history forum and does not have a source to support it.

Plus the Hammer et. al 's findings are not very accurate. O3 O-LINE1 marker is typical for Hmong populations, not Han Chinese. Typical Han Chinese O3 marker is O3a5 (O3e and O3e1). All historical, archaeological and anthropological facts all point towards a northeast Asian origin of the original Hmong ancestors. Korean O-LINE1 marker is a result of interactions with Hmong-Mien people's ancient ancestors in northeast Asia before their migration to SE Asia. To call Hmong-Mien populations "Chinese populations" is not accurate enough.

Look at this study in 2007
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content-nw/full/172/4/2431/TBL1

Japanese
Haplogroup O3 (total)- 11/47 = 23.5%
Haplogroup O3a5 (O3e and O3e1) = 10/47= 22%

You can see all (except for one) Japanese haplogroup O3 is the Sino-Tibetan/Han Chinese specific O3a5 marker.

For Koreans (Koreans in north and south combined), O3a5 marker is significantly less, especially for Koreans in north, where O3a5 only accounts for 4/25 (16%) of the total sample size. This means the O3 markers found in Koreans are mostly not of Han Chinese origin, but rather other sources. Most sources point toward an ancient Hmong interaction between Koreans in northeast Asia.

Haplogroup O3a5 isn't Han Chinese either. It is more Sino-Tibetan (Tibetans, Han Chinese). It's found in Mongolia and native populations of northern Asia and Siberia as well.

Here is another very recent source (2006)

http://www.imbice.org.ar/es/lab_06_b/06.pdf

Haplogroup C3
Koreans- 17%
Japanese- 5%
Chinese- 8%
Manchu- 17%
Khalkh- 55%

Haplogroup N3
Koreans- 4%
Japanese- 0%
Chinese- 0%
Manchu- 0%
Khalkh- 5%

Haplogroup C3 and N3 are typical haplogroups found in native populations in north Asia and Siberia.
HOWEVER, important fact: Haplogroup C3 branches C3a, C3b, C3d, C3e, C3f are not typical of native populations of north Asia and Siberia. C3a is a Japanese specific haplogroup C3, and it only occurs at 2-5% frequency. C3d is a Han Chinese specific haplogroup C3.

The main haplogroup C3 found in northern Asia is the original haplogroup C3 (found in Mongols, Tungusic people and Koreans) and haplogroup C3c (found in Mongols and Tungusic people). The reason why haplogroup C3c isn't found in Korea is probably because haplogroup C3c is a more recent mutation from Genghis Khan's clan. The original haplogroup C3 is actually more common in Khalkh Mongolians than haplogroup C3c. Northern Asian settlement in Korea began in ancient times, not during Genghis Khan's conquests.

Another perspective of Korean looks from a credible source not just unidentifiable random photos.

Many main characters in S Korea epic TV drama look more ' Chinese '.This is not to dispute there are some do look Jaoanese or Mongolians as suggested in this thread and others @ CHF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzD25o8Giu4...feature=related

A study on genes determining blood characteristics. 437 Koreans sampled.

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

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.

Koreans are absolutely distantly related to southern Chinese,it's the ' Northern ' Chinese share most gene markers with them.

You need to provide direct link otherwise it's count as ' insuffficient ' report.

Wait ... you're now contradicting previously posted reports suggesting Koreans have genetic tie to SE Asian people like the Hmong !!!

to akhissar:

Archeological and historical studies have shown that proto–H-M populations were associated with the Neolithic cultures that were found in the Middle Reach of the Yangtze River, i.e., Daxi Culture (5,300–6,400 years before present [YBP]) and Qujialing Culture (4,600–5,000 YBP), and the San-Miao tribes in Central-southern China



Some 40% of haplogroup C H-M samples have the motif 16189–16298–16327, which will be referred to as C5. It is almost completely absent in the northern East Asian populations and seems to be the major branch of haplogroup C in the southern East Asians such as Dai, Zhuang, and Lahu (Yao et al. 2002b; Yao and Zhang 2002).


More than half (54%) of F mtDNAs belong to the F1a lineage, which is the predominant F type in H-M and other southern East Asians (Kivisild et al. 2002).



R9c, a newly defined haplogroup in this study, is observed only in 4 H-M samples. This rare haplogroup is found only in southern China and Southeast Asia. By including an additional 11 R9c samples (Oota et al. 2002; Yao et al. 2002a; Tajima et al. 2003; B.W, unpublished data), the age of R9c is estimated as 29,600 ± 16,300 YBP, appearing to be a deep lineage distributed in southern East Asia. Other R9 lineages, F1b, F1c, F2a, and F3 are seen in some populations with low frequencies.






In contrast, it is absent or occurs as singletons in the other H-M populations. Haplogroup A6, which was observed in the Northern Han, Japanese, and Korean populations, occurs in some H-M populations as singletons. N9 consists of Y and N9a. Only one sample in the MHN belongs to Y, and N9a occurs in some populations with low frequency.

C3 is found among Ainu in Japan, it is thought that they got it after they came to Japan, from the Nivkhs, who they had intermarried with in past centuries. It was found in 13% of Ainu males, but...as I remember the sample size is small.

I'm not sure the subgroup of C3 it is though.