What's the origin of the Japanese people ?

[bossel]

Hi
just found an interesting image on jomon (native islander) and yayoi (continental, korean and chinese). Does anyone have more pictures on this?

May I ask what you're trying to prove by flooding this thread with these portraits (& other pics)? Judging from your (Ken?) thread in another forum, there is probably more to come.

Outer appearance (esp. modern) is much too varied to conclude from this on what happened 2000 years ago. Concentrating on "nobility" won't do the trick either, because you don't know how much incest has been going on.

Do you have any source for your idea that Ainu are proto-caucasoid?

It’s just like Germans and French don’t really look the same

Er..., what's the difference? I suppose, there is a greater difference between a French Fleming & a Mediterranean Frenchman than between the Fleming & a Rhinelander.
Both France & Germany have quite a mixed population, anyway.

[Grimmo]

Outer appearance (esp. modern) is much too varied to conclude from this on what happened 2000 years ago. Concentrating on "nobility" won't do the trick either, because you don't know how much incest has been going on.

I don't how much lies in their family tree is in their nobles, but I clustered them in the regions of high ainu gene density and low ainu gene density.

Do you have any source for your idea that Ainu are proto-caucasoid?

To show that Ainu is proto-caucasoid, I cannot merely concern the population in east asia. We know the two types of proto-caucasoid features in tiny minority of native north american and native aborigine. By proto-caucasoid, there has to be one of the three conditions satisfied:

1) Ancestral to the modern caucasoid and mongoloid in central asia
2) Split from both population 30-50k years ago
3) Facial features common to other known proto-caucasoids (either north american or Australian Aborigine)

1) hard to prove by population genetics, as the extensive mutation and speciation makes it diverse even within the same proto-caucasoids cluster. Main problem is extreme environmental variation and the extinction and assiimilation of species so that we no longer have an ideal pure proto-caucasoid reference population. In the north sibelia and Australia, the temperature difference can be a factor. But if you like I can post the genentic connection of Ainu to native northern americans, although at the moment, my institution are not subscribed to that particular journal.

2) This is rather lengthy to show, and still disputed widely. Possibly, another one whole page of this thread. Should I do it? Bossel?

3) Minatogawa man found in Okinawa, Aomori, and Hokkaido was posted above. please refer back to my earlier posts. In principal component analysis, Jomon's morphology is the closest to Australian Aborigine. Ainu and Eskimo forms another cluster in comparison with other population, both are close to Minatogawa man skull, and there may be a possible connection.

[bossel]

By proto-caucasoid, there has to be one of the three conditions satisfied:
1) Ancestral to the modern caucasoid and mongoloid in central asia

Proto-caucasoid as I understand it would mean the population from which the caucasoids evolved. Any evidence that the Ainu actually are direct descendents of that population?

2) Split from both population 30-50k years ago

Do you mean that Ainu were actually predecessors of both caucasoid & mongoloid races? That would mean that they were proto-caucasoid/mongoloid.

3) Facial features common to other known proto-caucasoids (either north american or Australian Aborigine)

Aborigenes are proto-caucasoid, too? Amerindians, as well? Caucasoid ancestry must be very heterogenous, then.

2) This is rather lengthy to show, and still disputed widely. Possibly, another one whole page of this thread. Should I do it? Bossel?

If you think that anyone would read it. I suppose, a link to some peer-reviewed articles would suffice.

Jomon's morphology is the closest to Australian Aborigine. Ainu and Eskimo forms another cluster in comparison with other population,

Morphology, hmm? Not very convincing, esp. since Ainu are said to be derived from Jomon. Skulls give hints, but not more, IMO.

[Grimmo]

Proto-caucasoid as I understand it would mean the population from which the caucasoids evolved. Any evidence that the Ainu actually are direct descendents of that population?

Genetically, the idea of proto-caucasoids are obscure, because the phylogeny of proto-caucasoids would not choose them to be common ancestor of Caucasoids. When I said this term, I confess I don't have much idea except certain skull feature.

I have no proof, either. The idea of grouping ainu/jomon into mongoloid or caucasoid, is rejected many times. I presume that people just made up and use the proto-caucasoid which does not fit in the description of more generic mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid. Ainu/Jomon is unique and does not need to be classed, but because scientist likes to group them up, they invented a few obscure terms. Still, proto-caucasoids are not the best term for any of modern races, because of admixtures, and environmental variation in the population.

Aborigenes are proto-caucasoid, too? Amerindians, as well? Caucasoid ancestry must be very heterogenous, then.

I need to warn you that I assumed too much regarding Australian Aborigines (they also have racial mixtures within). There is a study of comparing the skulls of Kennewick man, and some residents in Oseania (or Australia) showing some proximity. I said I used this result, but as minty pointed out, this is the weakest assumption. I don't have any support evidence backing my assumption that these two share the closer common ancestor either, I mean genetically. So this idea can be rubbish, but more or less an idea I advocate,

Morphology, hmm? Not very convincing, esp. since Ainu are said to be derived from Jomon. Skulls give hints, but not more, IMO.

The field of linking up genotypes with phenotypes in evolutionary setting is new, and there are no serious studies published yet, accoding to the professor I talked to. Morphological results will be useful as there will be findings on the genotyped markers of these facial features, some day. For a moment, it will be a speculation, and stays in the level of social or anthoropological science.