To mention it here as well, Andamanese Onge, Hoabinhians, and Tianyuan, (as well as the Jōmon samples) seen in the PCA of Carlhoff et al. 2021, represent "Basal-East Asian ancestry, of which northern and southern East Asians diverged off. Oceanians (aka Papuans and Aboriginal Australians) split earlier and form an outgroup to other Eurasians (such as Andamanese or East Asians).
Quote:
Demographic models infer a population split between the ancestors of Oceanian and Eurasian groups approximately 58 kya, whereas Papuan and Aboriginal Australian groups separated around 37 kya5.
Here the results about the Leang_Panninge sample, which is in between East Asians/Andamanese Onge and Papuans:
We initiated our genomic investigation by principal component analyses (PCAs), comparing the Leang Panninge genome with present-day individuals from East Asia, southeast Asia and Near Oceania (comprising Indigenous Australia, Papua New Guinea and Bougainville) genotyped on the Human Origins SNP panel18,32,33,34. The newly generated genome and relevant published genomes from ancient individuals from eastern Eurasia were then projected on the PCA1,34,35,36,37,38. Leang Panninge falls into PCA space not occupied by any present-day or ancient individuals, but is broadly located between Indigenous Australian peoples and the Onge (Fig. 2a, Extended Data Fig. 6). F3-statistics33 of the form f3 (Mbuti; Leang Panninge, X), where X is replaced with present-day Asian-Pacific groups, indicated that the new genome shares most genetic drift with Near Oceanian individuals (Fig. 2b). We confirmed these results with f4-statistics33, suggesting similar affinity of Leang Panninge and Papuan individuals to present-day Asian individuals, despite Near Oceanian groups forming a clade to the exclusion of Leang Panninge (Extended Data Fig. 7a, b). All present-day groups from the region, with the exception of the Mamanwa and the Lebbo26, carry only a minor contribution of Papuan-related ancestry (Supplementary Fig. 4).
So not Hoabinhians, but Leang_Panninge shares drift with Papuans.213.162.73.203 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Where does it say that Negritos are closest to East Asians (let alone "closely related", and closer to them than to Papuans/Melanesians) or that they commonly derive from a "Basal East Asian" group? That does not seem to be in the quote. Thus your addition of this claim looks like WP:OR.
- In the Larena et al. study, the term "Basal East Asian" is used for ancestors of groups like the Cordillerans, not Negritos (who instead are called "Basal Australian"). From study:
- "We show that the Philippine Islands were populated by at least five waves of buman migration: initially by Northern and Southern Negritos (distantly related to Australian and Papuan groups), followed by Manobo, Sama, Papuan, and Cordilleran-related populations. The ancestors of Cordillerans diverged from indigenous peoples of Taiwan at least ∼8,000 y ago,"
- And they also say:
- "There is a clear dichotomy between Negritos and non-Negritos, indicating the deep divergence between Basal East Asian ancestry best represented by Cordillerans and Basal Australasian ancestry represented by Negrito-AustraloPapuans"
- Yet you seem to have edited the article to say the opposite. Skllagyook (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I had copied some references from Peopling of Southeast Asia such as Larena et al., but here I am referring to Carlhoff et al. 2021. Regarding your first point: This is evident through that they are close to Andamanese Onge, which are Basal-East Asian, such as Tianyuan. The paper of Wang regarding the Longlin lineage has another good overview about the split times, in which Onge/Hoabinhian are under the tree of Tianyuan, not under Australasian. (See:https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867421006358-gr2.jpg) But the main concern is here, that they do not drift with Papuans, as you previously insisted, but they authors talked about the Leang_Panninge sample. I will include further quotes here which should help us improving it. Regarding the second point: Larena et al. does differentiate Negritos too, especially Andamanese ancestry, as own lineage.213.162.73.203 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- As mentioned, what you want to add must be e plicitly stated in a reliable source (not extrapolated or interpreted from one by you or I). (Does it explicitly say that Andamanese, Negritos, or Hoabhinians - which are not all the same thing - are closest to East Asians?) What study is the image you linked from, and where in that study can it be found? Also, Papuans/Melaneasians do not seem to be in the trees in the images you linked at all. So I do not see how they show that Andamanese (and/or Negritos) are closer to East Asians than them. Skllagyook (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The whole concept of "Negrito" as a well-defined groups is tenuous. So any study that peripherally discusses only a subset (or even just one) of the many Negrito groups is of little value here. One cannnot take e.g. the Onge as proxy for blanket statements about all "Negrito" populations. Also, many Negrito groups naturally have incoming gene flow from later migrating from continental East Asia (e.g. the Mamanwa). Any model that does not explicit take this into account can again lead to incorrect blanket statements if not read properly. AFAICS, the ancestral component of all Negrito groups that predates the influx of (Basal) East Asian populations in all studies clusters with Australian and Papuan groups. See e.g. McColl et al. (2018). –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be true, as different studies came to different results regarding Negrito subgroups. As example, Catherine Hill et al. and Chaubey et al. suggest that Negritos do not form a single homogeneous people. In this regard, it seems Negritos form a cline between Basal-East Asian (Andamanese) ancestry and Papuan-related ancestry, Negritos being in between this range. (As example see Gakuhari et al. 2020 and Carlhoff et al. 2021, already cited here.213.162.73.203 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Here's another paper by co-authored by Larena:. Although it mainly highlights the Denisovan ancestry component and only discusses Philippine Negrito groups, it contains very detailed insights about the layers of migration and admixture. –Austronesier (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- The bottomline is, we cannot categorize populations into genetic categories and thus reintroduce races through the backdoor. All populations are "mixed", composed of ancestry components which themselves are not rigid categories but reference points for data modelling. Every good and honest model has lots of dotted lines. It is not very helpful to say that Negrito group A is basal East Asian or basal Australasian, but what we actually can extract from the research is e.g. a statement that this group displays partial ancestry of a population that entered into SEA and Oceania at a very early date. –Austronesier (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Very interesting study thank you for sharing! This makes really sense also looking at Carlhoff et al. Basal East Asian and Basal Australasian split already 58,000 years ago, while Andamanese split from East Asians "only" 40,000 to 27,000 years ago, explaining their high affinity towards Tianyuan and other East Asian-related groups. Here is another interesting study:[1]. Yes, especially in the case of Negritos, and the many migrations into (and out of) Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia has probably one of the most complex population histories of all region, except maybe Africa.213.162.73.203 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)