tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post5626822309870032572..comments2024-03-27T22:28:06.861-06:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: Genetic Links of Mon-Khmer and Hmong-Mien Peoples ConfirmedAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-71858160503599696652011-11-29T10:12:20.759-07:002011-11-29T10:12:20.759-07:00The papers with detailed Y-DNA haplogroup D phylog...The papers with detailed Y-DNA haplogroup D phylogenies show that the subhaplogroups found in the Andaman Islands, India and Tibet form a common cluster (including D* in Tibet) for which Japan's D2 and D3 are outliers. North Asian Y-DNA hg D haplogroups are pretty much fringes of the Tibetan phylogeny. Y-DNA hg D in India is associated with ASI autosomal genetics.<br /><br />Thus, I see D making a path from South Asia to Southeast Asia from which it seeds the Andaman Islands.<br /><br />There is no Y-DNA hg D in Australian Aborigines or Melanesians (they have M, N and R by the maternal side, and C and MNOPS (a branch of K and F) in the paternal one), and it is not associated with elevated levels of Denisovian admixture autosomally. So, it can't be in the first wave of modern human migration into Southeast Asia and East Asia on the coastal route ca. 50,000 years ago. But, the Jomon Japanese arrive 30,000 years ago, presumably carrying the forebears of D2 and D3, and the Y-DNA hg D in Tibet probably dates to the pre-LGM era. It also seems likely that the female counterpart to all of the Y-DNA hg D populations was pretty much exclusive mtDNA hg M (x derived hgs of M).<br /><br />I agree that genetic flow for D went through Burma rather than the South China Sea coast. I would put an origin for D1 in Eastern India or Burma. D* is trickier because this has to derive from DE which is found in both West Africa and IIRC Tibet. <br /><br />My personal guess is that DE was a small secondary boat based Out of Africa wave of migration (40,000 years ago or so) that swiftly reached India and then was absorbed into local ASI populations in India and Southeast Asia outside of the Andaman Islands and Japan and Tibet, which had to seek islands or marginal territory for themselves since Asia was already inhabited.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-54706651477241064152011-09-12T14:14:26.500-06:002011-09-12T14:14:26.500-06:00I must question the idea that an NJ tree in Y-DNA ...I must question the idea that an NJ tree in Y-DNA (or mtDNA) studies is more helpful than in autosomal ones. You say:<br /><br />"Autosomal data could corroborate the close genetic relationship of the Mon-Khmer and Hmong-Mien peoples (or confound it), but could not show which population was most likely to have descended from the other".<br /><br />I say that Y-DNA (or mtDNA) can't tell us either. Much less using a mere NJ tree. It may be suggestive (and in this case it is congruent with my idea of South to North general direction of migration) but it is evidence of nothing at all. <br /><br />Much less it is any evidence of linguistic affinity, that's something that only Linguistics can address (if at all). <br /><br />Otherwise:<br /><br />1. It is a pity that C has not been tested for its subclades, specially C3 and C5.<br /><br />2. D(xD1) is found only among the Laven (Southern Laos), and this is IMO quite suggestive of the genetic flow for this haplogroup having gone through (yet unsampled) Burma, rather than the South China Sea's coast. In Hong-Shi 2008, D* appeared to have a Thailand orign and indeed only D1 was reported among Hmong-Mien (no Austroasiatics were sampled then), with D2 and D3 being almost specific of Japan and Tibet respectively. D1 could well be of Indochina origin, as well as D*.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com