WI-Yamato Japanese didnt settle the island.

funnily enough Japan and Korea are more related to Altaic mongols than Han chinese.

Well, before AD 668, various Korean entities frequently allied with Central Asian and Japanese ones, often against their Chinese counterparts (mostly for geopolitical reasons).

Not really. Koreans (and thus Japanese-since many came from Korea) are related to Han Chinese, since they originated in CHina.

Not really. Where are you getting this assumption from?

On a historical basis, the only significant migration from China to the Korean Peninsula occurred shortly after Gojoseon fell in 108 BC (although there was a minor migration of roughly 1,000 refugees from the Yan earlier in 195 BC, they were quickly absorbed into the local population), despite the fact that the "native" state had been consolidated around 1500-700 BC, based on archeological evidence. Additionally, many of the Han Chinese within the peninsula (of which the vast majority were located along the northwestern coast) eventually fled back to China after Goguryeo conquered the last commandery in 314 AD, meaning that their genetic contribution was relatively limited.

Genetically speaking, the populations for China, Korea, and Japan are entirely distinct from each other, although extensive migrations have led to some overlaps. While Chinese and Koreans do have high frequencies of Haplogroup O2 (Y-DNA), this is largely irrelevant when you consider that this is also present in significant amounts across Central, East, and Southeast Asia as well (although Japan has a higher proportion of Haplogroup D), not to mention entirely different distributions of different subclades present within each country/region, indicating that they are not necessarily related. When examining the proportion of other haplogroups for Y-DNA, as well as all of the mitochondrial DNA, those for Korea more closely resemble the ones in Central Asia, Manchuria, and Japan, indicating disparate migrations that would have occurred for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Also, while there is a broad correlation of genetic distribution (especially for Y-DNA) for China as a whole, the "original" Han Chinese population originated from what is now Shaanxi, and gradually expanded (but did not entirely displace the native populations) into other areas soon after 1000 BC or so, while countless upheavals across most of what became China Proper for two millennia have also led to significant genetic mixing among specific groups that had been relatively distinct from each other in the past.

In any case, the OP is virtually impossible, as frequent tensions for a millennia (~300 BC to AD 668) within "China" and "Korea" would have forced major migrations to occur.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but this is irrelevant. The Basques and the British are similar in their genetic makeup most likely due to the original Celtic culture that spanned Western and Central Europe, as well as covering the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula, not because the "British" are descended from the "Basques." If this had been the case, it would essentially indicate that despite numerous invasions from the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and the Normans over a millennia or so, the "Celts" spread out across the British Isles were not significantly displaced by their invaders, despite rapid shifts in language and culture with each wave of invasions. This corresponds well to the specific haplogroups (at least for Y-DNA) present within Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Northern Italy, which all have similar frequencies of R1b (which may or may not be directly related to the original Celts), while the frequency is much higher among Basques. Granted, the sample sizes ("n") are very small, and the "R1b" in Britain may be different from the "R1b" in France, for example, but this would only indicate that the "Celts" who emigrated to and populated what is now Basque and Britain continued to "retain" their genetic identities, due to their relative geographic isolation, while those within other regions might have been eventually replaced by other groups, not that the two (isolated) groups were "directly" related.

For (an ASB) comparison, this would loosely be the equivalent of "Proto-Chinese" populations displaced by "Proto-Central Asian" ones across most of "China Proper," who were then pushed onto the coast from Shandong to Guangdong. Additionally, the highest percentage of those sharing the same (sub-)haplogroup reside within the Leizhou Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago ITTL, although the "Chinese" presumably originated from Shaanxi, and outward migration from China mostly occurred from Jiangsu and Zhejiang.
I remembered reading (see more here though that might be outdated) that the British and the Basques are two different branches of the same genetic group, and that the Celts were a drop in the metaphorical gene pool, as were all of the other invaders. Certainly I would say that with the Normans, who must have been few in number, though I thought large numbers of Romans and Anglo-Saxons moved. If that were true, the genetic similarities between the British and Basque would be not the result of a wider Celtic culture but in fact be directly related. But that's not too important. It was an example. If this was not true, I could find another example.

That's exactly what my point is: genetics is irrelevant when it comes to culture and ethnicity. Or at least that's what it seems like to me, and I think most can agree. Two different groups, like the Scots and English in the British Isles, can be genetically identical but still be two different cultures. On the other hand you can have a genetically diverse group in the form of the "Han" Chinese (I don't like the term Han Chinese), which is still culturally unified (though of course there's lots of variation amongst them anyways). So while the geneticist might look to the "Yamato" Japanese (I don't like this term either) as a combination of Jōmon and Yayoi genes, a cultural look would find the Japanese to be a cultural offshoot of the Yayoi, who may have been basically indigenous but might not have been. And personally, I think a more foreign attribution would make sense. So while we can't talk of the Japanese genetically being the result of foreign settlement, we can possibly speak of them as being the cultural result of it.

I guess I wasn't clear when I first wrote, since looking back I can see a reason to be confused. I should have written something like "The people in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England wouldn't care if they shared chromosomes with the Basques" as opposed to speaking of "Basque chromosomes."
 
Yes, but this is irrelevant. The Basques and the British are similar in their genetic makeup most likely due to the original Celtic culture that spanned Western and Central Europe, as well as covering the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula, not because the "British" are descended from the "Basques." If this had been the case, it would essentially indicate that despite numerous invasions from the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and the Normans over a millennia or so, the "Celts" spread out across the British Isles were not significantly displaced by their invaders, despite rapid shifts in language and culture with each wave of invasions. This corresponds well to the specific haplogroups (at least for Y-DNA) present within Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Northern Italy, which all have similar frequencies of R1b (which may or may not be directly related to the original Celts), while the frequency is much higher among Basques. Granted, the sample sizes ("n") are very small, and the "R1b" in Britain may be different from the "R1b" in France, for example, but this would only indicate that the "Celts" who emigrated to and populated what is now Basque and Britain continued to "retain" their genetic identities, due to their relative geographic isolation, while those within other regions might have been eventually replaced by other groups, not that the two (isolated) groups were "directly" related.

I'm skeptical that the Celts created a huge genetic change in either Iberia or the British Isles. I'm guessing the populations of Western Europe have probably been pretty similar ever since farming first spread there. And they likely never took over the Basque areas in large numbers, or that area would still be Celtic. Basques having a higher proportion of R1b, which is associated with Indo-Europeans, has always been a mystery. One theory is that R1b isn't associated with Indo-Europeans after all.

Also, if R1b is associated with Indo-Europeans, wouldn't Angles and Saxons and Normans be just as likely to carry it to the British Isles? If not I think that points to the haplotype already being present in Europe prior to the Celts.

Like with red hair, I'm unconvinced the gene was spread by the Celts, as opposed to already being present in areas the Celts conquered. For red hair the biggest argument against is that the trait isn't particularly common in the ancient core Celtic areas, for R1b it's that it's so present in the Basque Country. You have to resort to some odd arguments to explain why if R1b is more common inside the Basque area than outside it if R1b was brought by Indo-Europeans and the Basque country is the only pocket in Western Europe that doesn't speak an Indo-European language.

funnily enough Japan and Korea are more related to Altaic mongols than Han chinese.

This sounds unlikely. Source?
 
Last edited:
This sounds unlikely. Source?

I'm guessing they're referring to the Altaic theory, a now largely abandoned linguistic proposal that says that the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic languages form one family. Either way, linguistic relationships do not equal genetic relationships.
 
I remembered reading (see more here though that might be outdated) that the British and the Basques are two different branches of the same genetic group, and that the Celts were a drop in the metaphorical gene pool, as were all of the other invaders. Certainly I would say that with the Normans, who must have been few in number, though I thought large numbers of Romans and Anglo-Saxons moved. If that were true, the genetic similarities between the British and Basque would be not the result of a wider Celtic culture but in fact be directly related. But that's not too important. It was an example. If this was not true, I could find another example.

That's exactly what my point is: genetics is irrelevant when it comes to culture and ethnicity. Or at least that's what it seems like to me, and I think most can agree. Two different groups, like the Scots and English in the British Isles, can be genetically identical but still be two different cultures. On the other hand you can have a genetically diverse group in the form of the "Han" Chinese (I don't like the term Han Chinese), which is still culturally unified (though of course there's lots of variation amongst them anyways). So while the geneticist might look to the "Yamato" Japanese (I don't like this term either) as a combination of Jōmon and Yayoi genes, a cultural look would find the Japanese to be a cultural offshoot of the Yayoi, who may have been basically indigenous but might not have been. And personally, I think a more foreign attribution would make sense. So while we can't talk of the Japanese genetically being the result of foreign settlement, we can possibly speak of them as being the cultural result of it.

I guess I wasn't clear when I first wrote, since looking back I can see a reason to be confused. I should have written something like "The people in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England wouldn't care if they shared chromosomes with the Basques" as opposed to speaking of "Basque chromosomes."

I responded earlier because your previous post suggested that the "British" may have "split off" from the "Basques," as opposed to assuming that the two genetic groups formed two different branches with a shared origin (as you clarified here). While previous estimates assumed that the Anglo-Saxons may have contributed significantly to the English gene pool, the specific figures have gradually been reduced over time in light of recent genetic studies, as the Germanic invaders would have carried R1a, as opposed to R1b.

Also see my response further below.

In terms of the "Han" Chinese, I also realize that the "ethnic" group is genetically very diverse when examining specific regions (as I hinted in an earlier post), although studies have also suggested that there might be several genetic correlations when looking at the group as a whole. Other than that, though, I think that we're generally in agreement, as I've extensively detailed earlier why and how culture and language are often not correlated with individuals' genetic origins, in which all are frequently muddled with politics.

I'm skeptical that the Celts created a huge genetic change in either Iberia or the British Isles. I'm guessing the populations of Western Europe have probably been pretty similar ever since farming first spread there. And they likely never took over the Basque areas in large numbers, or that area would still be Celtic. Basques having a higher proportion of R1b, which is associated with Indo-Europeans, has always been a mystery. One theory is that R1b isn't associated with Indo-Europeans after all.

Also, if R1b is associated with Indo-Europeans, wouldn't Angles and Saxons and Normans be just as likely to carry it to the British Isles? If not I think that points to the haplotype already being present in Europe prior to the Celts.

Like with red hair, I'm unconvinced the gene was spread by the Celts, as opposed to already being present in areas the Celts conquered. For red hair the biggest argument against is that the trait isn't particularly common in the ancient core Celtic areas, for R1b it's that it's so present in the Basque Country. You have to resort to some odd arguments to explain why if R1b is more common inside the Basque area than outside it if R1b was brought by Indo-Europeans and the Basque country is the only pocket in Western Europe that doesn't speak an Indo-European language.

That makes sense, given that the Celtic languages are part of the Indo-European language family, while Basque is not.

However, I think that disagreements generally stem from the fact that it's unknown exactly when the (proto-)Celtic culture emerged, in which estimates differ by at least several centuries, while it is uncertain when the major waves of migration occurred before the Romans arrived in England. That being said, after looking at other sources, a majority of the current population on the British Isles is most likely descended from the original inhabitants before 6000-5000 BC or so, while various migration waves after AD 43 or so were relatively limited. As a result, given that R1b forms a majority in the British Isles, the Celts (expanded by ~1000-500 BC) were probably not the major source for this haplogroup.

I have a question, though: Is the R1b haplogroup assumed to have emerged within Europe from a single source (as opposed to marginally related minor subclades)?
 
Last edited:
I responded earlier because your previous post suggested that the "British" may have "split off" from the "Basques," as opposed to assuming that the two genetic groups formed two different branches with a shared origin (as you clarified here). While previous estimates assumed that the Anglo-Saxons may have contributed significantly to the English gene pool, the specific figures have gradually been reduced over time in light of recent genetic studies, as the Germanic invaders would have carried R1a, as opposed to R1b.

Also see my response further below.

In terms of the "Han" Chinese, I also realize that the "ethnic" group is genetically very diverse when examining specific regions (as I hinted in an earlier post), although studies have also suggested that there might be several genetic correlations when looking at the group as a whole. Other than that, though, I think that we're generally in agreement, as I've extensively detailed earlier why and how culture and language are often not correlated with individuals' genetic origins, in which all are frequently muddled with politics.



That makes sense, given that the Celtic languages are part of the Indo-European language family, while Basque is not.

However, I think that disagreements generally stem from the fact that it's unknown exactly when the (proto-)Celtic culture emerged, in which estimates differ by at least several centuries, while it is uncertain when the major waves of migration occurred before the Romans arrived in England. That being said, after looking at other sources, a majority of the current population on the British Isles is most likely descended from the original inhabitants before 6000-5000 BC or so, while various migration waves after AD 43 or so were relatively limited. As a result, given that R1b forms a majority in the British Isles, the Celts (expanded by ~1000-500 BC) were probably not the major source for this haplogroup.

I have a question, though: Is the R1b haplogroup assumed to have emerged within Europe from a single source (as opposed to marginally related minor subclades)?

I have no idea. There seems to have been two main branches of R1 that spread through Europe, R1b and R1a, with A to the east. Does that mean B originated in Europe?

It'll be good when more papers about ancient autosomal European DNA come out, so we can get a much better picture of ancient population movements and stop messing around with these damned haplotypes.
 
Top