As a Chinese person, it’s so confusing to me how two peoples who look so similar and live next to each other could be so different… I get that china Korea and Japan are also different, but they share significant cultural values, societal and families structures, vocabulary, writing system, and beauty standards. But seems like Mongolia is completely unrelated to these other East Asian cultures
Mongols, Koreans, siberians, and northern Chinese are all in the same north Asian group. Southern chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese share some admixture with them but are ultimately different
Well Japanese and Koreans for example share close to 90% of their genome so if the Japanese are southeast asians then so are Koreans and northen Chinese...
@@shacmg The northern Han people have close relations with the southern Xiongnu, Khitan, Xianbei, and Inner Mongolians. They have nothing to do with the Khalkha people. Did you misunderstand something? Not all Mongolians are Khalkha people
Mongolian and Han Chinese are very different if look closely, Mongolian have bigger face, flatter nose, smaller eyes bigger bones but slightly shorter on the other hand, Han Chinese have round face, sharper nose, slightly bigger eyes, taller but smaller bones structure especially North Han Chinese. But Han Chinese are mixture of many tribes.
@OkOk-qd2nc listen. Chinese or SE Asains have slim body ( they are not tall at all), bigger and flat noses , egg shaped skull. MONGOLS, on the other hand, have smaller noses, smaller eyes, higher cheek bones, bigger skulland wider chests. Chinese have green pale or green darker skin. Mongols have reddish brown, reddish light skin. Also, Mongolian mouth and teeth, jaw is so different than Chinese or SE Asains. To be honest, traditionally, you guys have more deffected face and the jaw structure, I would say, just by watching old historical pictures. Because you guys consumed for 1000s years more sea food , soft food. We Mongols have never had a problem with the jaw until the 20th century when we started eating more produced softer food.
We, Mongols/Mongolia=Mongol/ are NOT RELATED with Chinese Han. We are genetically, culturally completely different from Han, Chinese main ethnic population. Mongol language is totally different from Han, the mandarin speaking Chinese people, China. We are distinct genetically from Japan, Korea and Turk. However there are some similar words between Mongolian language and Turk. The language belongs to Altaic family. Chinggis khan and his grandson ruled today's chinese territory 800 yrs ago for 100 yrs. We were rulers and the mandarin speakers were conquered people by Mongols. It was not chinese dynasty. It called "Ikh Mongol." You can read the historic name from the letter to the emperor of Japan from Khubilai the grandson of Chingis Khaan and the The Great King of Ikh Mongol.
@@kimjongun4634 it’s funny how both Mongolia and Vietnam are remembered for “defeating” Chinese empires when in reality China dominated both areas for millennia. The mongols conquering China was just a small blip in a history of being dominated by Chinese of Han and Nomad origin since the defeat of the Xiongnu, and the mongols only managed to conquer China at its absolute weakest. Even now, Mongolia hates China because they lost most of their usable land (inner mongolia) and there are more Chinese mongols than Mongolian mongols.
The closest brother nations of Han Chinese include Tibetan, Myanmar, Northeast Indian, and some ethnic groups in South China. They share the same origin of somewhere in east Tibetan. The ancestors of Han people left Tibet only 5000 or 6000 years ago.
@@tripplehhh2584 Do you know that tibetan actually have trouble breathing too ? Tibetan born in low latitude areas or live in low latitude areas for too long will suffer the same issue that other people suffer . And Doctor will even suggest old tibetan without very good healthy condition to find a low latitude areas to live . Human body are not build for high altitude naturally .Tibetan are one of the toughest human being which try to adapt this environment , but still they try to find place with altitude as low as possible in Tibet Plateau to build villages . And They can get sick by living in High Altitude Area for too long ,too .
@@tripplehhh2584 And actually Han chinese also have High latitude adaptability gene ,but the ratio is very low compared with tibetan .and droped from west to east . Apart from Sino-tibetan Speaking group , there are some Mongol group living around Qinghai areas also got this type of gene ,which mainly due to the intermarriage with tibetan people .
Also interestingly, the video uses Haplogroup map and still says Mogolians and Han Chinese were separated although the map clearly indicates Mogonlians are C type and Han Chinese are O type. C type haplogroup arrived in Asia far much earlier (probably first human who arrived in Asia and Australia) and O tytp haplogroup arrived far later then pushed C type to the north.
@@jamesshin4549 : Many overseas people, definitely under this 100 years... like from my grandfather's generation to now. So many overseas chinese, calls themselves "Tang people".... "Tang People's Street" is what they described "Chinatown" to be. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Chinese_history#/media/File:Tang_dynasty1.PNG And bearing in mind that, it is only under the last 70 years.. did the PRC was formed. And did the erosion of the Chinese Tang people, were mixed with other races as well... And this has actually destroyed China, finally. Because if you think about it, in those periods, there isn't the existence of trains... and no trains, and no access. Meant that people who is meant to live and exist in a region, will stay in a region. But that is no longer the case. This is why some people dispute the so called "56 ethnic tribes" of China.. I dispute this in reality, cos everybody knows in the chinese media, local or otherwise, how many people stole others' identities, and their heritages as well. i.e. "Invade, someone else's homes... someone else's land etc etc etc".. Cos they often call it "everything is now communal"... So why would it be different ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neolithic_cultures_of_China
Actually genetically speaking haplogroups are just a small part of our genome and don’t represent how we look. That’s why people with the same haplogrouos could look completely different and people with different ones could look identical
Original turks are different then modern day turkey who mixed with anatolics, anceint turks looked like mongols and manchus they came from central asia
the Mongols and the Manchus are feuding. Genghis Khan killed all the Jurchen nobles. The Manchus also committed genocide against the Mongols during the Qing Dynasty. By the end of the Qing Dynasty, the population of Mongolia's Outer Karkh was less than 500,000.
And don't put too much stock in haplogroups. Many people conflate haplogroup with aDNA and they are two different things. Haplogroups are NOT that telling in terms of our full genome. Haplogroups are just isolated markers of mutation. While haplogroups can tell us a lot of things about heritage, aDNA, or autosomal DNA is far more significant and effective in terms of phenotype expression and other traits.
@@jonjonboi3701 Um... what? I stated "And don't put too much stock in haplogroups. Many people conflate haplogroup with aDNA and they are two different things. " And no, Y and mtDNA haplogroups are sex chromosome and mitochondrial dna respectively. Only autosomal DNA is like "aDNA" because that's what "aDNA" means...... which is in the case of humans referring to the recombining X chromosomes. So no, not the same thing.
Northern Chinese are definitely related to Mongols and Koreans, Southern Chinese less so and are more related to SE Asians. The further south you go in China the more SE Asian features you'll see on people. The term "Han Chinese" itself was only coined about 100 years ago by early Republican revolutionaries, "Han Chinese" is more of a geopolitical grouping rather than ethnic grouping. Hence, Han Chinese aren't genetically or culturally homogeneous.
accept the fact ,Han are very much genetically or culturally homogeneous. And indeed an ethnic group with 4000+history , while genetic dose not agree with you that Southern Chinese are more related to SE Asians, actually southern Han do not even close to vietnamese let alone other south east asian . The north and south difference is pretty much exaggerated .
@@kellyma2992 Nope, read some new genetic papers and you'll find out that the so-called "Han Chinese" isn't genetically homogeneous at all, but can be subdivided into at least 7 more or less distinct subgroups. Especially people from Guangdong and Guangxi, they're very close to Viets and to Tai-Kradai genetically.
@@weifan9533 People's appearance is often determined by maternal genes. Ancient Han people just slaughtered local men and raped women! Therefore, the patrilineal lineage is very stable, and the genealogy of most southern families is also very complete, which is not a naturalized other ethnic group.🤣
@@weifan9533 China is the only country with hundreds of millions of people and strong culture and military power in ancient times!The period when the Mongolians and Manchus have the largest population is less than one million. How can we keep the northern Han people with hundreds of millions of people with their bloodlines?
@@weifan9533 the whole chinese group are quite close genetically towards Viets and Tai speaking groups due to historical reasons . not only guangxi and guangdong , i strongly guggest you to serach the hanging coffin ritual. yes, there are seven groups ,but why you only tell partial facts , the actual fact is all of them are overlapped , and plus the genetic difference is so small almost neglectable , it's much smaller than the difference between different mongol tribes ,and also much smaller than genetic difference between west/east germany , So you are imply that the mongol and germany are more of a geopolitical grouping rather than ethnic grouping
I am mongolian and haplogroup or Y dna is only good at finding where we came from and migration but not our ethnicity or genes. Its basically one gene so its not really accurate use it as a genetic similarity this "Quantitating and Dating Recent Gene Flow between European and East Asian Populations" study took random SNPs from 34 Eurasian populations basically in total of 1,132 Eurasian samples with 186,506 SNPs and what they found was that Mongolians are clustered together with east asians basically proving that we are indeed east asian than turkic(they formed another cluster)
Of course mongols are not Turkic since Turkic is linguistic term but we aren’t neither East Asian like Han Chinese. We don’t share same ancestry with them
Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodia are the same ethnicity but they’re different from Mongolia. Karen mangols, mangolian, Korean are the same ethnicity. And they’re far from China.
Research results show that among the DNA test results of modern Koreans, more than 70% of the samples are close relatives of ancient Cambodians. Through historical comparative analysis, this means that the ancestors of modern Koreans migrated north from Southeast Asia from 12,000 BC to 4,000 BC. After 200 years, they came to the Korean Peninsula and successfully replaced the local people. Aboriginal people have set their feet.
If you only count the recent ancestors, then it is clear that crimean tatars are more related to Mognolians than the Han chinese are. However if you count all the ancient ancestors tha tis probably not the case. Because the crimean tatars have overall a lot of ancestors that split of from east asians’ ancestors long time ago and a few percentage of recent mongolian ancestors is not enough to make them more simialr
@@GeoPol01 : They were not "Chinese"... Cos in the Qing's Imperial official scripts, they used the Mongolian alphabets. They also killed the Hans bannermen as well, and also killed those Hans who would not act like a Manchu.... The reason why the current day DNA, and so forth... why Tibetan is closer to Hans chinese, is because at one twisted point in time.. a Hans Princess.. married the Tibetan King. I do not know whether, up until this point, whether Tibet was really a Mongolian state. This is why if you test the DNA of those people today. They are more related to Hans. In reverse, the so called (fake) Hans... migrants today.. who moved from the Northern China part.. into Tibetan plains... by policy from PRC.... I think , THOSE... citizens... were more from manchu/mongolian DNAs instead. So does that mean, the PRC's policy is to try and convert, or reconvert the entire Tibetan region back into a Mongolian state ??? Because if you read Tibetan scripts.. they were all mongolian alphabets...
@@MeiinUK wait ? how can one princess change the whole entire ethnicity? are you serious? are international recognised reputable scientist dumber than you?
@@DanielYi-cl8sc : Because in those days, tribuary systems existed. i.e. "Your daughter is married into the in-laws. Let's celebrate each others' best things. This is why.. In Tibetan culture, they revere the Princess.. and made many things comfortable for her. I wondered whether the peacefulness.. or what people call "Budhism"... was a homage to her. It is in latter years.. that people see this kind of "tribute" as a part of a "worship". But in reality, it is a kind of... like..."Celebratory memorial". Kind of like... how Princess Diana married Prince Charles. A lot of people kept their souvenirs... But what went wrong is... Some of the cultural clash happened. Because.. in Tibet.. Those kind of palaces.. were real palaces.. where the living King and Queen lived. But.. the "temples" in Hans regions.. were actually family-homes... Whereby the deceased ancestor's were buried, or kept enshrined in those buildings. Some people call it "temples". But in truth.. They are family homes, with a section for a family grave. Mostly.. only descendents of that family tree by surname. Gets to allow and worship and stays in those buildings. Especially if one, never managed to marry out to another male family. (Because some "imperial system" had a concubine system... ) upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png
Very interesting and also very confusing, leaving me wondering if the similarities are to do with convergent evolution, as the two groups are from the same environment.
@@enkhzayazundui1063 China has systematic records on pronunciation. Unlike mongols, who have no history records and have to prison Han Chinese and ask them to record history for them
@@yeshiyangzom8532we don't care what you have, really. We have our way of telling history to tell to our new generation. We don't need you, to be honest.
Just look at their face. It’s obvious Northern Han, Mongolians and Koreans are of the same stock while Southern Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesians of another stock.
There are still many southern Chinese who have very typical East Asians features that are indistinguishable from that of Koreans and northern Asians. Southern Chinese are a hybrid of northern mongoloid and southern mongoloid. Some look very northern while others look very southern. Most look somewhere in between. They are very similar to the Japanese in that sense
hell no ...cantonese is indeed closer to vietnamase than to northern chinese but definetely closer to northern han compared to indonesian . indonesian look different to vietnamase. vietnamese is SE asia + EA hybrid
Southern Chinese are originally of mixed race. Look at the Terracotta Warriors and Horses of Qin Shihuang, they are not what Southern Chinese look like. The south was an area conquered by the Chinese
Mongolian language belongs to Altaic language group. Mongols are culturally connected with Turkey, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Kalmuck and Buriads. Mongols are sharing the exact genetic traits and DNA with Altaian Oirats, some Tuvans, all Kalmucks and Buriads. Even Mongols share same genetic traits with Hazara Afgans in Afganistan. Sart Kalmuck from Kyrgyz can be considered as Mongols. In conclusion, Mongols are NOT han chinese. They are nomadic race.
Way too different ethnics. Han Chinese is south east Asian ethnic who has haplogroup O. Mongolians are north east Asian ethnic who has haplogroup C. Plus language, culture and lifestyle is completely different. Historical border between China and Mongolian or Nomadic states were Great wall. Now China occupies Inner Mongolia and east Asian land called Manjuria which were formerly part of Mongol or other Nomadic states.
Haplogroup C is the gene of brown people and belongs to the Austronesian people. Haplogroup O is the East Asian haplogroup. When did it become the Southeast Asian haplogroup?
Just a quick correction. Technically, the first Homo-Sapiens of Asia are in part from an earlier migration and became the Australasiatics. The predecessors of Aboriginal Australian, Papuan, and so on. Or at least there is some evidence to suggest that H. Sapiens, prior to the "main" migration, mixed with H. Sapiens from the main migration to some extent in the evolution of these populations. The "main" wave of migration out of Africa is where Western and Eastern Eurasians descend from, all though Eastern Eurasians admixed with that first wave of migration, the Australasiatics, as they migrated through East Asia. The ancestors of Western and Eastern Eurasians first intermixed with Neanderthals PRIOR to their divergence, likely somewhere in the Levant to Iran. When they split off from one another, both groups continued to mix to some degree with Neanderthals in both Western and Eastern Eurasia. And then in the East, they also intermixed with Denisovans. But this is difficult to wholly gauge, because the Austroasiatic peoples, the first migration out of Africa, also mixed with both Neanderthal and Denisovan, and then those of the 2nd migration that headed East towards Eastern Eurasia, merged in various places with the Austroasiatic peoples. Thus there are various Neanderthal-Sapien mixing events, both prior to and after the divergence between Western and Eastern Eurasians. Eastern Eurasians have MORE Neanderthal admixture than Western Eurasians.
@@johnadams5245 No, it's a hypothesis based on SOME findings. The only real "consensus" in terms of population genetics, the only running "theories" are that H. Sapiens mostly evolved within Africa and that the majority of the modern, non-sub-Saharan genome derive from one main migration. Much is still just "hypothesis" because of how complex this phenomenon is and how limited we are in our genetic sampling, with a heavy regional bias towards Eurasia and modern North America. I want to clarify and correct here, after reading my first post. I did not accurately convey what I meant and upon rereading it made it sound like Papuans and Australasians are entirely from a prior migration. So I want to apologize for that firstly. That was my error. There is evidence to suggest that those of Australasian descent, so Aboriginal Australians and Papuans let's say, have SOME genetic traces from a previous H. Sapien migration in their genome. Similar to how H. Sapiens, even within sub-Saharan Africa have differing amounts of Neanderthal DNA and many Asian groups carry Denisovan DNA. Meaning what is hypothesized is that SOME groups, branching off from our "main" migration out of Africa, plausibly encountered H.. Sapiens from a previous migration, already living in Southeast Asia and Oceania and intermixed, much like we intermixed with Neanderthal and Denisovan. So the majority of all modern non sub-Saharan H. Sapiens derive the majority of their genome from one migration, there is some evidence to suggest that certain groups carry some dna from a previous migration. So it is not that they are branched off from a wholly different migration completely, just that they carry some aDNA from an earlier migration. We know that there were numerous migrations of H. Sapiens out of Africa and that H. Sapiens were in Eurasia prior to the "main" migration. What we don't fully know or understand is to what extent those previous migrations effect todays populations. And the only evidence so far of admixture from those previous migrations can be found in Australasians. Washington Post and Cambridge university both wrote articles about this study, which is considered a unique study based on it's ability to sample Oceanic populations specifically. For some reason I can not post these articles or studies though in text on YT and when I try the post gets automatically deleted. And I was incorrect originally, they are now suggesting it is about 2% of that genome, which would make sense given the time that has passed and the differences in size of the various migrations. Really, I regret wording it the way I did and have now corrected what I could. But yes, the research is available if you search for it. I would avoid making any study making any absolute claims about these migrations or genomes. Which I myself am guilty of in the way I worded the original post. The actual study I am referencing can be found, main researcher, Pagani:2016, titled "Genomic analysis informs on migration events during the peopling of Eurasia." For some reason I can not post links or articles. And it's plausible that much of the prior-migration genetics, if the population was small, would have, over time, been lost due to the drastic size difference between those previous migrations and the "main" migration. Also, since genome wide sampling of Papuans and Aboriginal Australians is very limited, we do not have broad data to truly determine the extent of such admixture. But it's mostly likely within the range of error, about 2%. The Cambridge article is titled "ancient-trace-in-papuan-genomes-suggests-previously-unknown-expansion-out-of-africa"
As a Mongolian scholar who conducts genetic research of Mongolians, Koreans, and Turks, and Northern Japanese, I can responsibly state that the Chinese and Mongols/Mongolians have nothing to do with each other. The Chinese originated from South-East Asian Malays, Pacific Polynesians and Micronesians, and other Pacific pygmy-type tribes. The Mongols have originated from proto-Mongolic and proto-Turkic tribes in the Northern Eurasia! The Mongolians and Chinese have nothing to do with each other, period.
@@temujin260 Turks as a nation emerged in the Eurasian steppes, i.e., Mongolia and Central Eurasia, and therefore, they have genetic and anthropological links with Mongolia and Mongolians! I do not know the links with Arabs and Iranians but I know that they were ruled by Mongol Khans for several centuries!
@@bbatjargal1549 Mongols aren't Euroasians you are uneducated, ancient Mongols emerged from ancient Manchuria Asadal their ancestor is said to be Dangun>Tungus. Mongols are eastasians and Central Asians were Germanic Iranian and indo-aryan peoples. Mong and Gor tribes formed the Mongol nation, Hmong, San Miao are descendants of Dangun as they are descendants of Dongyi > Dongye > Donghui > Donghu > Dongqayit / Dongkhoid in Mongolian sources
@@bbatjargal1549 Mongols and Chinese have same ancestors, Dangun Joseon is old Han dynasty and Mongol is continuition of Maekguryeo > Makgoryeo or Goryeo > Gori kingdom, Mohe, Malgal people are ancestors of Mongolic and Turkic peoples, Turkic peoples didnt exist but anatolian pan-turkism created turkic race becoz Ashkenazi Jews are antagonists to Ottoman-Seljuks and want to claim their history by turkification > Turk derives from Torah and People of Torah Torakach written in Stalinist made Orkhon inscriptions refers to people of Torah
just see the difference between how the Manchu people treat Mongolian, Korean and han peoples. we let Mongolian to join our Qing Dynasty nobles and we only ask Korean to surrender to us and we didn’t force korean to follow our costume and haircut. For han peoples, if you don’t follow our haircut, and you will lose your head😂😢 the reason is we are Altaic people and han are Sino-Tibetan.
The Manchus wanted to assimilate the Han and Mongolians. But they don't care about Koreans. Koreans are considered foreigners. Nor does it pose any threat. Stop pretending that you are Manchu and don’t even understand basic history. Most of the nobility of the Qing Dynasty were Han , and the mother of Emperor Kangxi was also Han , named Tong Jia. Only by assimilating the Han and Mongolians could the Manchus continue to maintain their rule. 🤣
When did the Manchus let the Mongols in? The Manchus did not even allow private contact between different Mongolian tribes. The Han people lived in the most developed areas, and the Manchus also converted to Han culture. The largest number of military nobles in the Qing Dynasty were Han, more than the Manchus and Mongols. Reaching 430,000 people. Are you really Manchu? You don't understand history at all
No matter how many years have passed, nomads on the grasslands still exist. The Huns, Turks, and Mongols are actually the same kind of people. According to legend, the ancestors of the Huns and Han people (the ancient Han people in the north) established a dynasty called "Xia", which consisted of multiple tribal alliances or complex chiefdom forms. This is the origin of China (the Chinese nation). (About 2070 BC to 1600 BC) is the first hereditary dynasty recorded in Chinese history books. It is generally believed that the Xia Dynasty lasted for 14 generations, which lasted about 471 years, and was eventually destroyed by the Shang Dynasty. Part of the Xia nobles were exiled to the northern grasslands. They are the ancestors of the Huns. Are English-speaking Pakistani and Indians of British descent? Are you also of British descent?
@@tripplehhh2584 why do Mongols don't speak Chinese and more related to the altaic in Turkish family? Why did the Mongols conquered China if it's our brother? The Chinese also conquered the Mongols in the qing dynasty if China is our brother why did China and Mongolia become 1 big country? And Mongols were nomadic people from the steppe Mongols are a northern countries like Korea , Japan they are altaic there some state in the Russia who's altaic Even in dna it's different th-cam.com/video/fW-tlFD2LgM/w-d-xo.html
the guy that was shown in 3:22 is actually not han chinese ethnicity-wise, he is the Manchu king who is more closely related to the Mongols rather than han chinese. otherwise, this video is brilliant whereas Mongols will never ever want to share anything with the han chinese historically and culturally.
@@barguttobed Why are incompetent Mongolians so proud? The Han people have established a world-class civilization, but Mongolia can only herd sheep now🤣🤣🤣
The Manchus are more closely related to the Mongols? No kidding, the Manchus were much smarter than the Mongols, so they completely converted to Han culture because the Mongols had nothing worth sharing
we looks very different.can't western peoples recognize big difference between asian?actually both between chinese korean japanese mongolian manchurian vietnamese are big difference,at least i can know where they from through their face
The Karen have nothing to do with Mongolia. The Karen speak Tibeto-Burman and are typical Burmese people. Your ancestors come from the Tibeto-Burman region.
@@GeoPol01 Manchu and Mongols ! We are almost same people my friend. Check our DNA test bro. She is Mongolian and her DNA test result is 36.3% Manchurian&Mongolian. th-cam.com/video/iJYyNhQ0yMI/w-d-xo.html
@@purevjargalpuujee4845 : It is classed as "siberian"... cos Siberean dna has links to the Tarim Mummy.... who was some kind of Finnish or Scandinavian heritage. From many years ago... When you see a so called "Northern Hans".... chinese, their cheek bones are high and round. This is a trait of their ancestors. Also due to the cold Northern climates... Their facial bones structures are different.
@@kellyma2992 your clearly racist this our history we are the nomads who were fighting against chinese for centuries Also who cares about South, or East asians they are just saying mongolia is close to China let's be honest "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RELATED " also we speak totally different languages to the Chinese We may look similar but we aren't same genetic group
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r it seem like mongol at least those speak english are really insecure ，they try very hard to link with Siberian who does not even belong to the same language group and genetically very differnet form mongol , i only see this in korean ,some korean have the same issue .They seems have no idea how diverse that siberian and southeast asian are ,in term of language and genetic .
Linguistically Chinese and Mongolian languages are not in a same category in terms of the way the languages are organized but actually mandarin dialect of Chinese which is official language of China today is heavily influenced by Altaic language like Mongolian and Manchurian in pronunciation and vocabulary.
@@ZhangLee. because of the trade there could be some words must have borrowed like food names. But not the whole language had effected. Nope. Because it is just too different languages.
I suppose it is true that North Chinese are shifted "north" towards Mongol on a PCA plot.. That is due to centuries of gene flow.. But you also see that some Mongol DNA is shifted towards Beijing Han.. Still, it isnt inaccurate to say that centuries of mutual invasions and contact have resulted in modern-day Mongolian, North Chinese, and Koreans all being very closely related and cluster very closely almost blending together.
No.....Chinese are related to southeast Asian, Song and Ming Dynasties are located in Southeast Asia. Han is political term, and does not refer to ethnic, as land called China today were ruled by 56 ethnics which ruled longer than so called Han Chinese.
Autosomal DNA analysis is still not perfect, PCA charts are not a definitive proof of relatedness. Most 2 dimensional PCA's are oversimplified (why 2 dimensions instead of 3, and which 2 principal components did you choose?). For example, a recent PCA showed a large number of Mongolians shifted towards Beijing Han, but not the other way around. This cannot be true since it was Mongolia who conquered North China. So some North Chinese should be shifted towards Mongol populations, not the other way around.. unless they samples mongols from INNER Mongolia I don't see how this PCA can be taken seriously. Despite Qing ruling Mongolia for 300 years, Han Chinese males did not extensively settle outer Mongolia and father children with Mongolian women. Therefore we have to take autosomal PC analysis with a grain of salt just as with haplogroups..
This is all speculation since the term Han Chinese can not even be clearly defined, yes most are classed or even claim to be han Chinese , but there are clear distinctions between the Han from the north to the south of China, China is a huge country and it's history with present day Mongolia is explained away in a less than 4 minute video? By the way FYI there are more Mongolians in China Than the nation of Mongolia
True but then again Mongols living in inner Mongolia are under cruel duress and the land is seized not by force of china or historical claim but deal between CCP and USSR. Historical Han and Mongolian border is the Great wall. You can see Inner Mongolian resistance from their persistence to use Mongolian Script and Mongolian language even today. Also Inner Mongolians are not the only ethnics who are trapped behind the might of CCP, there are many other unwilling ethnics who pursue separation from Han people once for all. Imho , china is pretty similar to old USSR, just a forced united name under which many ethnics are prisoned.
@@bataabagi5969 Not accurate. At least middle part of mongolia is part of our shanxi province in long history even before unifying china. It was then divided into inner mongolia after 1949.
@@goojxue1971 Sunshine PRC is found in October 1, 1949 before that the land belonged to totally different country called Republic of China and it still exist today. This new china is just about 7 decades old.
@@goojxue1971 mate you make me feel sad for people like you. Stop getting too deluded with CCP propaganda and pretend patriotism. You and everyone else knows that CCP is not good for Chinese people, or rest of the World. Slave labor, food shortages, Internal extreme power struggle, CCP is about to get what's coming for them and i hope Chine people would manage to distance themselves before that or they'll face same the consequence.
His first wife was from Nepal. His second wife was Hans Chinese. "The history of a unified Tibet begins with the rule of Songtsen Gampo (604-650 CE), who united parts of the Yarlung River Valley and founded the Tibetan Empire. He also brought in many reforms, and Tibetan power spread rapidly, creating a large and powerful empire. It is traditionally considered that his first wife was the Princess of Nepal, Bhrikuti, and that she played a great role in the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet. In 640 he married Princess Wencheng, the niece of the Chinese emperor Taizong of Tang China.[24]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
@@darkkinglimbo6601 : Don't think so.. what really happened is his kids, would have been integrated into "mainstream Hans" society. By name. Cos there was a period whereby Tibetan names were "converted".. How do you think that their DNAs survive to today ?!
North Chinese most related to mongolian，include East and northern Uyghurs East Kazakhs and south Qinghai Ttbetians，although their language different，really Chinese Han are plain Han people in coastal areas of China，like Canton city，they retain more than2000 years words，such like Chinese ancient poems，岁既晏兮孰华予，既and晏 are Cantonese ，既=Mandarin 的，晏=Mandarin 晚，real Chinese not taiwan or beijing，Han Chinese=Han Qiang people and Han mongolian and Han Baiyue，and Han Hui，like Cantonese are Han Qiang people who from Xi an，this is according to the historical records
Not Your Northern Chinese are! Your Northern Chinese or Han Chinese you called, are pure Chinese people. Yugurs , Kazakh are yes, related Mongols pretty much. Because we are cousins.
@@yeshiyangzom8532 Those were not technically Mongols. Those were several northern nomadic tribes that had their own identities. But most of them invaded and settled in Northern China and became the ancestors for lots of northern Chinese today.
Just because we look similar doesn’t mean anything, we Mongolians are not related to the Han at all, nor are we related to any other populations in east Asia. Except for the Manchus who basically just assimilated to Chinese culture to the point where there is no return
You are off by miles. Mongols are turkit people whereas Chinese sinitic people are hamatic. That's why you can't get your logic right. Mongols are closer to Caucasian, but Chinese are closer to Egyptians and blacks. Be careful what public schools teach you. Their narrative is deceptive and flawed. The slant eye so much associated with Chinese Asian people came from the Turks or Caucasians.
Are Turks close to white people? Are you joking? Turks are closer to Southeast Asians. Central Asia is the communication channel between the East and the West in ancient times and the Middle Ages, and Southeast Asia is the communication channel between the East and the West in modern times. There are a large number of mixed-race people in these two places. Both places accepted Muslim culture. It has also been controlled by many large empires around it. The Chinese are closer to the white people and have a civilization and tributary system that dominates Asia. The Mongols were closer to Nordic civilization, plundering along the way and occasionally threatening and conquering Germanic countries.
The Mongols are similar to the Germanic peoples of Europe. Koreans and Japanese are the same group as Mongolia. On the other hand, China is people from the south. North Chinese people are more closely related by blood to the Mongols, but they believe they are Han Chinese. Koreans call themselves Han, which has nothing to do with Han Chinese. The Korean word for Han is the dialect of Khan. It means great.
Germanic? Where did u get that, from your ass? The original Han people were from the north. Now being a Han Chinese is a political term. There are generally 2 civilizations in China, there are the northern Chinese like the Han and then the southern Chinese like the Song and the Ming but now they all call themselves Han. Also, the Koreans are cousins of Tungusic people and the Japanese are descendants of the Yayoi and Jomon mix, not Mongols
@@user-kk1iv3xq1i That's not true. DNA analysis around Hubei Province, They are actually descended from the Chinese-speaking Mongol/Jurchen people. These days, Cantonese users are closer to traditional Chinese. In fact, cantonise is similar to ancient Chinese.
As a Chinese person, it’s so confusing to me how two peoples who look so similar and live next to each other could be so different… I get that china Korea and Japan are also different, but they share significant cultural values, societal and families structures, vocabulary, writing system, and beauty standards. But seems like Mongolia is completely unrelated to these other East Asian cultures
Mongols, Koreans, siberians, and northern Chinese are all in the same north Asian group. Southern chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese share some admixture with them but are ultimately different
Yeah I always felt that northern Chinese look more like Korean and mongolians while Southern Chinese/Taiwanese look more Japanese and southeast Asian.
Well Japanese and Koreans for example share close to 90% of their genome so if the Japanese are southeast asians then so are Koreans and northen Chinese...
@@mitonaarea5856 The Japanese have the dwarf black gene, which the Chinese and Koreans do not have
The ancient Han people were an agricultural people living in the Yellow River basin and had nothing to do with the nomadic peoples in the north.
@@shacmg The northern Han people have close relations with the southern Xiongnu, Khitan, Xianbei, and Inner Mongolians. They have nothing to do with the Khalkha people. Did you misunderstand something? Not all Mongolians are Khalkha people
I wonder what ancient humans looked like when they split in Iran
Probably more like Africans
Jet Kahuna what do you mean by „like african“ ? Do you mean like egyptian? Ethiopian? South african? Or like west african?
they looked like present day Dravidians in india
@@sabhrestman6644 Thx. I needed that. I have been trying to understand for so long how we all are related on earth.
more likely similar to modern native americans
Mongolian and Han Chinese are very different if look closely, Mongolian have bigger face, flatter nose, smaller eyes bigger bones but slightly shorter on the other hand, Han Chinese have round face, sharper nose, slightly bigger eyes, taller but smaller bones structure especially North Han Chinese. But Han Chinese are mixture of many tribes.
Koreans and mongolians look very similar both have small eyes, big bones and flatter nose. I think they are closely related to eachother.
@OkOk-qd2nc listen. Chinese or SE Asains have slim body ( they are not tall at all), bigger and flat noses , egg shaped skull. MONGOLS, on the other hand, have smaller noses, smaller eyes, higher cheek bones, bigger skulland wider chests. Chinese have green pale or green darker skin. Mongols have reddish brown, reddish light skin. Also, Mongolian mouth and teeth, jaw is so different than Chinese or SE Asains. To be honest, traditionally, you guys have more deffected face and the jaw structure, I would say, just by watching old historical pictures. Because you guys consumed for 1000s years more sea food , soft food. We Mongols have never had a problem with the jaw until the 20th century when we started eating more produced softer food.
We, Mongols/Mongolia=Mongol/ are NOT RELATED with Chinese Han. We are genetically, culturally completely different from Han, Chinese main ethnic population. Mongol language is totally different from Han, the mandarin speaking Chinese people, China. We are distinct genetically from Japan, Korea and Turk. However there are some similar words between Mongolian language and Turk. The language belongs to Altaic family. Chinggis khan and his grandson ruled today's chinese territory 800 yrs ago for 100 yrs. We were rulers and the mandarin speakers were conquered people by Mongols. It was not chinese dynasty. It called "Ikh Mongol." You can read the historic name from the letter to the emperor of Japan from Khubilai the grandson of Chingis Khaan and the The Great King of Ikh Mongol.
you are right.
We Chinese don't have a lot of relations with mongols. But some ancestors of mongols nowadays had been assimilated into us thousand years ago.
Mongols territories were also conquered by the Han Chinese for thousands of years ,
@@kimjongun4634 it’s funny how both Mongolia and Vietnam are remembered for “defeating” Chinese empires when in reality China dominated both areas for millennia. The mongols conquering China was just a small blip in a history of being dominated by Chinese of Han and Nomad origin since the defeat of the Xiongnu, and the mongols only managed to conquer China at its absolute weakest. Even now, Mongolia hates China because they lost most of their usable land (inner mongolia) and there are more Chinese mongols than Mongolian mongols.
@Ahno lol. You are joke
The closest brother nations of Han Chinese include Tibetan, Myanmar, Northeast Indian, and some ethnic groups in South China. They share the same origin of somewhere in east Tibetan. The ancestors of Han people left Tibet only 5000 or 6000 years ago.
Only in linguistic term not in genetically
@@barguttobed spot an envy mongol here ,so sorry you are linked with on one .
Yet they come to Tibet and have trouble breathing 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@tripplehhh2584 Do you know that tibetan actually have trouble breathing too ? Tibetan born in low latitude areas or live in low latitude areas for too long will suffer the same issue that other people suffer . And Doctor will even suggest old tibetan without very good healthy condition to find a low latitude areas to live . Human body are not build for high altitude naturally .Tibetan are one of the toughest human being which try to adapt this environment , but still they try to find place with altitude as low as possible in Tibet Plateau to build villages . And They can get sick by living in High Altitude Area for too long ,too .
@@tripplehhh2584 And actually Han chinese also have High latitude adaptability gene ,but the ratio is very low compared with tibetan .and droped from west to east . Apart from Sino-tibetan Speaking group , there are some Mongol group living around Qinghai areas also got this type of gene ,which mainly due to the intermarriage with tibetan people .
The Asians also mixed with the Denisovians
True, but not nearly as much as the Neanderthals mixed with humans
not true, only small portion of the south east Asians are mixed with the Denisovians. Asians have more Neanderthal gene than the White people.
Also interestingly, the video uses Haplogroup map and still says Mogolians and Han Chinese were separated although the map clearly indicates Mogonlians are C type and Han Chinese are O type. C type haplogroup arrived in Asia far much earlier (probably first human who arrived in Asia and Australia) and O tytp haplogroup arrived far later then pushed C type to the north.
Asian ethnicity is far more complex than Eupropeans so a lot of things are unknown still. the video contains old and too simply theory
@@jamesshin4549 : Many overseas people, definitely under this 100 years... like from my grandfather's generation to now. So many overseas chinese, calls themselves "Tang people".... "Tang People's Street" is what they described "Chinatown" to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Chinese_history#/media/File:Tang_dynasty1.PNG
And bearing in mind that, it is only under the last 70 years.. did the PRC was formed. And did the erosion of the Chinese Tang people, were mixed with other races as well... And this has actually destroyed China, finally.
Because if you think about it, in those periods, there isn't the existence of trains... and no trains, and no access. Meant that people who is meant to live and exist in a region, will stay in a region. But that is no longer the case. This is why some people dispute the so called "56 ethnic tribes" of China.. I dispute this in reality, cos everybody knows in the chinese media, local or otherwise, how many people stole others' identities, and their heritages as well. i.e. "Invade, someone else's homes... someone else's land etc etc etc".. Cos they often call it "everything is now communal"... So why would it be different ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neolithic_cultures_of_China
THEY ARE NOT RELATED
You are related to indian.
@GamerGrey林 no Mongolians are central Asian
@@yxb9182 we are not indian
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r mongols are related to brown, white and black race people because mongols look different from chinese
Fire and ice, winter and summer, cold and hot, black and white
Yep. That is how different Chinese and Mongols.
Yag zuv helsen shuu. Yun hujaatai hamaatan be?
Actually genetically speaking haplogroups are just a small part of our genome and don’t represent how we look. That’s why people with the same haplogrouos could look completely different and people with different ones could look identical
Your race has small people :/
I am Manchu, I think we Manchu as a tungusic people is the most related person with Mongolian compared to Turks and Korean
Original turks are different then modern day turkey who mixed with anatolics, anceint turks looked like mongols and manchus they came from central asia
the Mongols and the Manchus are feuding. Genghis Khan killed all the Jurchen nobles. The Manchus also committed genocide against the Mongols during the Qing Dynasty. By the end of the Qing Dynasty, the population of Mongolia's Outer Karkh was less than 500,000.
And don't put too much stock in haplogroups. Many people conflate haplogroup with aDNA and they are two different things. Haplogroups are NOT that telling in terms of our full genome. Haplogroups are just isolated markers of mutation. While haplogroups can tell us a lot of things about heritage, aDNA, or autosomal DNA is far more significant and effective in terms of phenotype expression and other traits.
Haplogroups and DNA aren’t two different things. They are the same thing technically
@@jonjonboi3701 Um... what? I stated "And don't put too much stock in haplogroups. Many people conflate haplogroup with aDNA and they are two different things. "
And no, Y and mtDNA haplogroups are sex chromosome and mitochondrial dna respectively. Only autosomal DNA is like "aDNA" because that's what "aDNA" means...... which is in the case of humans referring to the recombining X chromosomes.
So no, not the same thing.
@@jonjonboi3701😮k
Northern Chinese are definitely related to Mongols and Koreans, Southern Chinese less so and are more related to SE Asians. The further south you go in China the more SE Asian features you'll see on people. The term "Han Chinese" itself was only coined about 100 years ago by early Republican revolutionaries, "Han Chinese" is more of a geopolitical grouping rather than ethnic grouping. Hence, Han Chinese aren't genetically or culturally homogeneous.
accept the fact ,Han are very much genetically or culturally homogeneous. And indeed an ethnic group with 4000+history , while genetic dose not agree with you that Southern Chinese are more related to SE Asians, actually southern Han do not even close to vietnamese let alone other south east asian . The north and south difference is pretty much exaggerated .
@@kellyma2992 Nope, read some new genetic papers and you'll find out that the so-called "Han Chinese" isn't genetically homogeneous at all, but can be subdivided into at least 7 more or less distinct subgroups. Especially people from Guangdong and Guangxi, they're very close to Viets and to Tai-Kradai genetically.
@@weifan9533 People's appearance is often determined by maternal genes. Ancient Han people just slaughtered local men and raped women! Therefore, the patrilineal lineage is very stable, and the genealogy of most southern families is also very complete, which is not a naturalized other ethnic group.🤣
@@weifan9533 China is the only country with hundreds of millions of people and strong culture and military power in ancient times!The period when the Mongolians and Manchus have the largest population is less than one million. How can we keep the northern Han people with hundreds of millions of people with their bloodlines?
@@weifan9533 the whole chinese group are quite close genetically towards Viets and Tai speaking groups due to historical reasons . not only guangxi and guangdong , i strongly guggest you to serach the hanging coffin ritual. yes, there are seven groups ,but why you only tell partial facts , the actual fact is all of them are overlapped , and plus the genetic difference is so small almost neglectable , it's much smaller than the difference between different mongol tribes ,and also much smaller than genetic difference between west/east germany , So you are imply that the mongol and germany are more of a geopolitical grouping rather than ethnic grouping
Actually, a major genetic study of ancient bones revealed the Sami do have Siberian ancestry. So do the Finns.
I am mongolian and haplogroup or Y dna is only good at finding where we came from and migration but not our ethnicity or genes. Its basically one gene so its not really accurate use it as a genetic similarity
this "Quantitating and Dating Recent Gene Flow between European and East Asian Populations" study took random SNPs from 34 Eurasian populations basically in total of 1,132 Eurasian samples with 186,506 SNPs and what they found was that Mongolians are clustered together with east asians basically proving that we are indeed east asian than turkic(they formed another cluster)
Of course mongols are not Turkic since Turkic is linguistic term but we aren’t neither East Asian like Han Chinese. We don’t share same ancestry with them
they both mixed with neanderthals
Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodia are the same ethnicity but they’re different from Mongolia. Karen mangols, mangolian, Korean are the same ethnicity. And they’re far from China.
Probably mostly only Southern Chinese close to Vietnam, my grandfather looks very Southeast Asians but my father looks very different.
Research results show that among the DNA test results of modern Koreans, more than 70% of the samples are close relatives of ancient Cambodians. Through historical comparative analysis, this means that the ancestors of modern Koreans migrated north from Southeast Asia from 12,000 BC to 4,000 BC. After 200 years, they came to the Korean Peninsula and successfully replaced the local people. Aboriginal people have set their feet.
Short answer no
The video contains too many mistakes
If you only count the recent ancestors, then it is clear that crimean tatars are more related to Mognolians than the Han chinese are. However if you count all the ancient ancestors tha tis probably not the case. Because the crimean tatars have overall a lot of ancestors that split of from east asians’ ancestors long time ago and a few percentage of recent mongolian ancestors is not enough to make them more simialr
The Mongolians are Crimean Tatars Ancestors
But The Mongols are still not Turkic like some people say
@@OrgulhosoPortugal false, I’m Mongolian from Turkish tribe…
@@CM-dd1jm prove it
Speak Mongolian
Neg bol chi chadahgui
@@CM-dd1jm Mongol Bolon Turk humuus adilhan heltee mortloo DNA-Aar sall oor
@@OrgulhosoPortugal adilhan DNA
Bi bol Sartuul Ovogin hun bna
3:22 That's a Manchu on the right, not Han Chinese
yeah, but the Qing were the first "chinese" dynasty that took over Mongolia, so I just put it in to show that they both conquered each other
@@GeoPol01 : They were not "Chinese"... Cos in the Qing's Imperial official scripts, they used the Mongolian alphabets. They also killed the Hans bannermen as well, and also killed those Hans who would not act like a Manchu....
The reason why the current day DNA, and so forth... why Tibetan is closer to Hans chinese, is because at one twisted point in time.. a Hans Princess.. married the Tibetan King. I do not know whether, up until this point, whether Tibet was really a Mongolian state. This is why if you test the DNA of those people today. They are more related to Hans. In reverse, the so called (fake) Hans... migrants today.. who moved from the Northern China part.. into Tibetan plains... by policy from PRC.... I think , THOSE... citizens... were more from manchu/mongolian DNAs instead. So does that mean, the PRC's policy is to try and convert, or reconvert the entire Tibetan region back into a Mongolian state ??? Because if you read Tibetan scripts.. they were all mongolian alphabets...
@@MeiinUK wait ? how can one princess change the whole entire ethnicity? are you serious? are international recognised reputable scientist dumber than you?
@@DanielYi-cl8sc : Because in those days, tribuary systems existed. i.e. "Your daughter is married into the in-laws. Let's celebrate each others' best things. This is why.. In Tibetan culture, they revere the Princess.. and made many things comfortable for her. I wondered whether the peacefulness.. or what people call "Budhism"... was a homage to her. It is in latter years.. that people see this kind of "tribute" as a part of a "worship". But in reality, it is a kind of... like..."Celebratory memorial". Kind of like... how Princess Diana married Prince Charles. A lot of people kept their souvenirs... But what went wrong is... Some of the cultural clash happened. Because.. in Tibet.. Those kind of palaces.. were real palaces.. where the living King and Queen lived. But.. the "temples" in Hans regions.. were actually family-homes... Whereby the deceased ancestor's were buried, or kept enshrined in those buildings. Some people call it "temples". But in truth.. They are family homes, with a section for a family grave. Mostly.. only descendents of that family tree by surname. Gets to allow and worship and stays in those buildings. Especially if one, never managed to marry out to another male family.
(Because some "imperial system" had a concubine system... )
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png
@@MeiinUK who are you exactly? Why is white person telling me about my heritage?
Chinese great wall and mongols are nomadic tells the difference
Very interesting and also very confusing, leaving me wondering if the similarities are to do with convergent evolution, as the two groups are from the same environment.
tibetans looks close to kazak, kyrgyz and mongol than han chinese
Ancient chinese say me=ngo. Tibet language me =nga
中古汉语的我是ngra,还没有高化成ngo
@@lgya999 who knows how ancient people talked like. Do you? Have you talked to them?
@@enkhzayazundui1063 China has systematic records on pronunciation. Unlike mongols, who have no history records and have to prison Han Chinese and ask them to record history for them
@@yeshiyangzom8532we don't care what you have, really. We have our way of telling history to tell to our new generation. We don't need you, to be honest.
Just look at their face. It’s obvious Northern Han, Mongolians and Koreans are of the same stock while Southern Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesians of another stock.
There are still many southern Chinese who have very typical East Asians features that are indistinguishable from that of Koreans and northern Asians. Southern Chinese are a hybrid of northern mongoloid and southern mongoloid. Some look very northern while others look very southern. Most look somewhere in between. They are very similar to the Japanese in that sense
@@ganggang2537 Yes, indeed some Southern Chinese retained their original appearance.
@@afasdfas Wrong, as a mongol I can easily tell apart between us. Btw we don’t share same ancestry or genetics with Han Chinese even Northern one
hell no ...cantonese is indeed closer to vietnamase than to northern chinese but definetely closer to northern han compared to indonesian . indonesian look different to vietnamase. vietnamese is SE asia + EA hybrid
Southern Chinese are originally of mixed race. Look at the Terracotta Warriors and Horses of Qin Shihuang, they are not what Southern Chinese look like. The south was an area conquered by the Chinese
This video doesn't even mention that both mongolians and chinese have shovel shape teeth & edar genes even without being mixed...
Thats not correct. The Chinese have shovel shaped small teeth. The Mongols on the other hand have bigger teeth.
Thank you for the video. All Mongols have 1 ancestor Borte Chino from Kiyad tribe
Mongolian language belongs to Altaic language group. Mongols are culturally connected with Turkey, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Kalmuck and Buriads. Mongols are sharing the exact genetic traits and DNA with Altaian Oirats, some Tuvans, all Kalmucks and Buriads. Even Mongols share same genetic traits with Hazara Afgans in Afganistan. Sart Kalmuck from Kyrgyz can be considered as Mongols.
In conclusion, Mongols are NOT han chinese. They are nomadic race.
Way too different ethnics. Han Chinese is south east Asian ethnic who has haplogroup O. Mongolians are north east Asian ethnic who has haplogroup C. Plus language, culture and lifestyle is completely different. Historical border between China and Mongolian or Nomadic states were Great wall. Now China occupies Inner Mongolia and east Asian land called Manjuria which were formerly part of Mongol or other Nomadic states.
Tibetans are nomadic from the plateau and High Himalayas, Han Chinese are low land people. Very different culture.
Haplogroup C is the gene of brown people and belongs to the Austronesian people. Haplogroup O is the East Asian haplogroup. When did it become the Southeast Asian haplogroup?
Just a quick correction. Technically, the first Homo-Sapiens of Asia are in part from an earlier migration and became the Australasiatics. The predecessors of Aboriginal Australian, Papuan, and so on. Or at least there is some evidence to suggest that H. Sapiens, prior to the "main" migration, mixed with H. Sapiens from the main migration to some extent in the evolution of these populations. The "main" wave of migration out of Africa is where Western and Eastern Eurasians descend from, all though Eastern Eurasians admixed with that first wave of migration, the Australasiatics, as they migrated through East Asia. The ancestors of Western and Eastern Eurasians first intermixed with Neanderthals PRIOR to their divergence, likely somewhere in the Levant to Iran. When they split off from one another, both groups continued to mix to some degree with Neanderthals in both Western and Eastern Eurasia. And then in the East, they also intermixed with Denisovans. But this is difficult to wholly gauge, because the Austroasiatic peoples, the first migration out of Africa, also mixed with both Neanderthal and Denisovan, and then those of the 2nd migration that headed East towards Eastern Eurasia, merged in various places with the Austroasiatic peoples. Thus there are various Neanderthal-Sapien mixing events, both prior to and after the divergence between Western and Eastern Eurasians. Eastern Eurasians have MORE Neanderthal admixture than Western Eurasians.
thank you
this is the consensus of paleontologists in 2021? and includes dna/genetic study results too right?
@@johnadams5245 No, it's a hypothesis based on SOME findings. The only real "consensus" in terms of population genetics, the only running "theories" are that H. Sapiens mostly evolved within Africa and that the majority of the modern, non-sub-Saharan genome derive from one main migration. Much is still just "hypothesis" because of how complex this phenomenon is and how limited we are in our genetic sampling, with a heavy regional bias towards Eurasia and modern North America. I want to clarify and correct here, after reading my first post. I did not accurately convey what I meant and upon rereading it made it sound like Papuans and Australasians are entirely from a prior migration. So I want to apologize for that firstly. That was my error. There is evidence to suggest that those of Australasian descent, so Aboriginal Australians and Papuans let's say, have SOME genetic traces from a previous H. Sapien migration in their genome. Similar to how H. Sapiens, even within sub-Saharan Africa have differing amounts of Neanderthal DNA and many Asian groups carry Denisovan DNA. Meaning what is hypothesized is that SOME groups, branching off from our "main" migration out of Africa, plausibly encountered H.. Sapiens from a previous migration, already living in Southeast Asia and Oceania and intermixed, much like we intermixed with Neanderthal and Denisovan. So the majority of all modern non sub-Saharan H. Sapiens derive the majority of their genome from one migration, there is some evidence to suggest that certain groups carry some dna from a previous migration. So it is not that they are branched off from a wholly different migration completely, just that they carry some aDNA from an earlier migration. We know that there were numerous migrations of H. Sapiens out of Africa and that H. Sapiens were in Eurasia prior to the "main" migration. What we don't fully know or understand is to what extent those previous migrations effect todays populations. And the only evidence so far of admixture from those previous migrations can be found in Australasians. Washington Post and Cambridge university both wrote articles about this study, which is considered a unique study based on it's ability to sample Oceanic populations specifically. For some reason I can not post these articles or studies though in text on YT and when I try the post gets automatically deleted. And I was incorrect originally, they are now suggesting it is about 2% of that genome, which would make sense given the time that has passed and the differences in size of the various migrations. Really, I regret wording it the way I did and have now corrected what I could. But yes, the research is available if you search for it. I would avoid making any study making any absolute claims about these migrations or genomes. Which I myself am guilty of in the way I worded the original post. The actual study I am referencing can be found, main researcher, Pagani:2016, titled "Genomic analysis informs on migration events during the peopling of Eurasia." For some reason I can not post links or articles. And it's plausible that much of the prior-migration genetics, if the population was small, would have, over time, been lost due to the drastic size difference between those previous migrations and the "main" migration. Also, since genome wide sampling of Papuans and Aboriginal Australians is very limited, we do not have broad data to truly determine the extent of such admixture. But it's mostly likely within the range of error, about 2%. The Cambridge article is titled "ancient-trace-in-papuan-genomes-suggests-previously-unknown-expansion-out-of-africa"
Sami people originate from proto finns, you have to understand proto finns originated from East Asia, thats why
Qing dynasty not Chinese iyf.
As a Mongolian scholar who conducts genetic research of Mongolians, Koreans, and Turks, and Northern Japanese, I can responsibly state that the Chinese and Mongols/Mongolians have nothing to do with each other. The Chinese originated from South-East Asian Malays, Pacific Polynesians and Micronesians, and other Pacific pygmy-type tribes. The Mongols have originated from proto-Mongolic and proto-Turkic tribes in the Northern Eurasia! The Mongolians and Chinese have nothing to do with each other, period.
Northen Japanese? Those from the north are more distantly related to mainlanders than those in the south.
So what you have to do with arabic iranian turks?
@@temujin260 Turks as a nation emerged in the Eurasian steppes, i.e., Mongolia and Central Eurasia, and therefore, they have genetic and anthropological links with Mongolia and Mongolians! I do not know the links with Arabs and Iranians but I know that they were ruled by Mongol Khans for several centuries!
@@bbatjargal1549 Mongols aren't Euroasians you are uneducated, ancient Mongols emerged from ancient Manchuria Asadal their ancestor is said to be Dangun>Tungus. Mongols are eastasians and Central Asians were Germanic Iranian and indo-aryan peoples. Mong and Gor tribes formed the Mongol nation, Hmong, San Miao are descendants of Dangun as they are descendants of Dongyi > Dongye > Donghui > Donghu > Dongqayit / Dongkhoid in Mongolian sources
@@bbatjargal1549 Mongols and Chinese have same ancestors, Dangun Joseon is old Han dynasty and Mongol is continuition of Maekguryeo > Makgoryeo or Goryeo > Gori kingdom, Mohe, Malgal people are ancestors of Mongolic and Turkic peoples, Turkic peoples didnt exist but anatolian pan-turkism created turkic race becoz Ashkenazi Jews are antagonists to Ottoman-Seljuks and want to claim their history by turkification > Turk derives from Torah and People of Torah
Torakach written in Stalinist made Orkhon inscriptions refers to people of Torah
Mongols were least related to Hans and Turks, and r very closely related to Manchus
no, Han Chinese and Moglian are all related to South Korea
just see the difference between how the Manchu people treat Mongolian, Korean and han peoples. we let Mongolian to join our Qing Dynasty nobles and we only ask Korean to surrender to us and we didn’t force korean to follow our costume and haircut. For han peoples, if you don’t follow our haircut, and you will lose your head😂😢
the reason is we are Altaic people and han are Sino-Tibetan.
The Manchus didn't "let" the Mongols in
They literally divided and conquered and destroyed the Mongols because they couldn't take on a United Mongol
The Manchus wanted to assimilate the Han and Mongolians. But they don't care about Koreans. Koreans are considered foreigners. Nor does it pose any threat. Stop pretending that you are Manchu and don’t even understand basic history. Most of the nobility of the Qing Dynasty were Han , and the mother of Emperor Kangxi was also Han , named Tong Jia. Only by assimilating the Han and Mongolians could the Manchus continue to maintain their rule. 🤣
When did the Manchus let the Mongols in? The Manchus did not even allow private contact between different Mongolian tribes. The Han people lived in the most developed areas, and the Manchus also converted to Han culture. The largest number of military nobles in the Qing Dynasty were Han, more than the Manchus and Mongols. Reaching 430,000 people. Are you really Manchu? You don't understand history at all
No matter how many years have passed, nomads on the grasslands still exist. The Huns, Turks, and Mongols are actually the same kind of people. According to legend, the ancestors of the Huns and Han people (the ancient Han people in the north) established a dynasty called "Xia", which consisted of multiple tribal alliances or complex chiefdom forms. This is the origin of China (the Chinese nation). (About 2070 BC to 1600 BC) is the first hereditary dynasty recorded in Chinese history books. It is generally believed that the Xia Dynasty lasted for 14 generations, which lasted about 471 years, and was eventually destroyed by the Shang Dynasty. Part of the Xia nobles were exiled to the northern grasslands. They are the ancestors of the Huns. Are English-speaking Pakistani and Indians of British descent? Are you also of British descent?
Why did the Xiongu attack china or the Mongol empire if there the same people ?? And wdym by legends that can
Be fake
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r that is common in ancient history same with celts they are same people but fought each other
Mongols and Manchus were ethnically more related and they also descended from Manchus.
@@efootballunitedyt.4685 The Manchus are the youngest ethnic group. How could the Mongols be descendants of the Manchus?
Mongolians are more turan siberian then Chinese the Chinese are tibetan
Both came from the same source dumdum
Chinese Mongolian are brother and Tibetans different they are Himalayan people
@@tripplehhh2584 why do Mongols don't speak Chinese and more related to the altaic in Turkish family? Why did the Mongols conquered China if it's our brother? The Chinese also conquered the Mongols in the qing dynasty
if China is our brother why did China and
Mongolia become 1 big country?
And Mongols were nomadic people from the steppe
Mongols are a northern countries like Korea , Japan they are altaic there some state in the Russia who's altaic
Even in dna it's different
th-cam.com/video/fW-tlFD2LgM/w-d-xo.html
@@tripplehhh2584 are you Chinese?
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r I’m tibetan
migration and adaptation of environments is the story of civilization.
No Han are closely related to manchus and tungusic people. Mongols are related to proto Turks, tungusic, etc
the guy that was shown in 3:22 is actually not han chinese ethnicity-wise, he is the Manchu king who is more closely related to the Mongols rather than han chinese. otherwise, this video is brilliant whereas Mongols will never ever want to share anything with the han chinese historically and culturally.
just because you dislike it doesn't mean you can change your genome
@@bokonoo77 I’m agree with you but in this situation he is lucky😂Mongols and Chinese are genetically different from each other
@@barguttobed Why are incompetent Mongolians so proud? The Han people have established a world-class civilization, but Mongolia can only herd sheep now🤣🤣🤣
@@barguttobed Yes, there are differences in IQ too, Mongolians are very lucky and don't need to think about any international affairs😂
The Manchus are more closely related to the Mongols? No kidding, the Manchus were much smarter than the Mongols, so they completely converted to Han culture because the Mongols had nothing worth sharing
we looks very different.can't western peoples recognize big difference between asian?actually both between chinese korean japanese mongolian manchurian vietnamese are big difference,at least i can know where they from through their face
We Karen people are mangolian moving from Mongolia to Myanmar and Thailand.
@@AoibhinnMcCarthyKaren are closer to Sinitic-Tibetan-Burmese. They are like Ancient NorthEast Asian + Indian + small to none Austronesian
The Karen have nothing to do with Mongolia. The Karen speak Tibeto-Burman and are typical Burmese people. Your ancestors come from the Tibeto-Burman region.
2:38 it is very ignorant of you to not notice that this shared characteristic is due to shared ancestry and did not develop independently
Shared with what? There is no East Asian DNA in any of those groups
@@GeoPol01 Qing was nightmare of han chinese people. Few of few foreign people know that the Chinese were a colony of Manchu&Mongolian nomads.
@@GeoPol01 Manchu and Mongols ! We are almost same people my friend. Check our DNA test bro. She is Mongolian and her DNA test result is 36.3% Manchurian&Mongolian. th-cam.com/video/iJYyNhQ0yMI/w-d-xo.html
@@purevjargalpuujee4845 : It is classed as "siberian"... cos Siberean dna has links to the Tarim Mummy.... who was some kind of Finnish or Scandinavian heritage. From many years ago... When you see a so called "Northern Hans".... chinese, their cheek bones are high and round. This is a trait of their ancestors. Also due to the cold Northern climates... Their facial bones structures are different.
@@MeiinUK See her and other DNA test results of Manchu&Mongol people. There is no Chinese DNA.
Han Chinese + European Serbian = Korean + Han Chinese = Japanese + Han Chinese = Mongol
Mongols closest to siberians, Chinese closest to South East asians.
Mongols are closest to Siberian, Tuvan, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz people.
So Mongols are related with Turks. We are not Chinese!
you clearly have never asked the opinion of siberians and south east asians themselves .
@@kellyma2992 your clearly racist this our history we are the nomads who were fighting against chinese for centuries
Also who cares about South, or East asians they are just saying mongolia is close to China let's be honest "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RELATED " also we speak totally different languages to the Chinese We may look similar but we aren't same genetic group
@@kellyma2992 imagine asking random guy on the street who barrely even know what's mongolia
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r it seem like mongol at least those speak english are really insecure ，they try very hard to link with Siberian who does not even belong to the same language group and genetically very differnet form mongol , i only see this in korean ,some korean have the same issue .They seems have no idea how diverse that siberian and southeast asian are ,in term of language and genetic .
Linguistically Chinese and Mongolian languages are not in a same category in terms of the way the languages are organized but actually mandarin dialect of Chinese which is official language of China today is heavily influenced by Altaic language like Mongolian and Manchurian in pronunciation and vocabulary.
Like how?
Mandarin also influence by Tibeto-burman, and Tai-Kadai languages.
@Joe Becker I dont think so.
@Joe Becker not really , but i true that nomadic langauge did influenced mandarin "pronunciation " loosely
@@ZhangLee. because of the trade there could be some words must have borrowed like food names. But not the whole language had effected. Nope. Because it is just too different languages.
I suppose it is true that North Chinese are shifted "north" towards Mongol on a PCA plot.. That is due to centuries of gene flow.. But you also see that some Mongol DNA is shifted towards Beijing Han.. Still, it isnt inaccurate to say that centuries of mutual invasions and contact have resulted in modern-day Mongolian, North Chinese, and Koreans all being very closely related and cluster very closely almost blending together.
Mongols were least similar to Hans n Turks n more closer to Manchus ethnically.
Sami people , "No east asian dna". yet they score like 10% eskimo, and some central asian on dna results
There are older tribes than the hans
In the south
No.....Chinese are related to southeast Asian, Song and Ming Dynasties are located in Southeast Asia. Han is political term, and does not refer to ethnic, as land called China today were ruled by 56 ethnics which ruled longer than so called Han Chinese.
The Song Dynasty and the Ming Dynasty were located in Southeast Asia? Did you learn geography at McDonald's?
Bro samis are from china and Mongolia breh
Autosomal DNA analysis is still not perfect, PCA charts are not a definitive proof of relatedness. Most 2 dimensional PCA's are oversimplified (why 2 dimensions instead of 3, and which 2 principal components did you choose?). For example, a recent PCA showed a large number of Mongolians shifted towards Beijing Han, but not the other way around. This cannot be true since it was Mongolia who conquered North China. So some North Chinese should be shifted towards Mongol populations, not the other way around.. unless they samples mongols from INNER Mongolia I don't see how this PCA can be taken seriously. Despite Qing ruling Mongolia for 300 years, Han Chinese males did not extensively settle outer Mongolia and father children with Mongolian women. Therefore we have to take autosomal PC analysis with a grain of salt just as with haplogroups..
We all Mongoloids are mix of each other so I rather like to identify myself as just Mongoloid than my ethnicity (Chu-Tian).
Wtf are you talking about mongols have beem at war with China for 3000
Brain washed cpp rats do you know anything about history
Where do the small eyes come from then
😂😂😂😂😂ghengis khan fucked millions of Chinese that’s y
Adapting to cold weather, their also african tribe in southern Africa called khoisan who have natural monolid eyes
@@sakurakou2009 but Khoisans don't live in a cold climate.
@@user-ll8ym9or8c but this could be the strong sun 24/7 made the eye shape to them
east asians were closest related to the mongols
Mongols are related to xianbei
I never thought people have sticky...earwax... really non NE asians have that?
Maternal haplogroup connection?
You sound like Boardzy
This is all speculation since the term Han Chinese can not even be clearly defined, yes most are classed or even claim to be han Chinese , but there are clear distinctions between the Han from the north to the south of China, China is a huge country and it's history with present day Mongolia is explained away in a less than 4 minute video? By the way FYI there are more Mongolians in China Than the nation of Mongolia
True but then again Mongols living in inner Mongolia are under cruel duress and the land is seized not by force of china or historical claim but deal between CCP and USSR.
Historical Han and Mongolian border is the Great wall.
You can see Inner Mongolian resistance from their persistence to use Mongolian Script and Mongolian language even today.
Also Inner Mongolians are not the only ethnics who are trapped behind the might of CCP, there are many other unwilling ethnics who pursue separation from Han people once for all.
Imho , china is pretty similar to old USSR, just a forced united name under which many ethnics are prisoned.
@@bataabagi5969 Not accurate. At least middle part of mongolia is part of our shanxi province in long history even before unifying china. It was then divided into inner mongolia after 1949.
@@bataabagi5969 you know nothing about the world but talked too much. Get educated.
@@goojxue1971 Sunshine PRC is found in October 1, 1949 before that the land belonged to totally different country called Republic of China and it still exist today.
This new china is just about 7 decades old.
@@goojxue1971 mate you make me feel sad for people like you. Stop getting too deluded with CCP propaganda and pretend patriotism. You and everyone else knows that CCP is not good for Chinese people, or rest of the World.
Slave labor, food shortages, Internal extreme power struggle, CCP is about to get what's coming for them and i hope Chine people would manage to distance themselves before that or they'll face same the consequence.
Thanks
Switched off at neanderthal
tibetans aren't related with Han
sino tibetan
His first wife was from Nepal. His second wife was Hans Chinese.
"The history of a unified Tibet begins with the rule of Songtsen Gampo (604-650 CE), who united parts of the Yarlung River Valley and founded the Tibetan Empire. He also brought in many reforms, and Tibetan power spread rapidly, creating a large and powerful empire. It is traditionally considered that his first wife was the Princess of Nepal, Bhrikuti, and that she played a great role in the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet. In 640 he married Princess Wencheng, the niece of the Chinese emperor Taizong of Tang China.[24]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
@@MeiinUK but all chinese kids and wifes dead
@@darkkinglimbo6601 : Don't think so.. what really happened is his kids, would have been integrated into "mainstream Hans" society. By name. Cos there was a period whereby Tibetan names were "converted".. How do you think that their DNAs survive to today ?!
Then Tibetan are related to African, European 😂
Chinese Northern Han > Mongols .Period
Genghis khan > china
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r F , u , haha , China >>>Ching is Han, keep on
@@user-xm2cr3ho5r Kim Jung Un >>>>> Chingis Khan
How does he have youtube they dont have democracy 1 little man's rule
@@l2qz711 Chinghis khaan >>>> Kim jong fatty
Very funny video. Haha 🤣🤣😆😆
What is funny??
North Chinese most related to mongolian，include East and northern Uyghurs East Kazakhs and south Qinghai Ttbetians，although their language different，really Chinese Han are plain Han people in coastal areas of China，like Canton city，they retain more than2000 years words，such like Chinese ancient poems，岁既晏兮孰华予，既and晏 are Cantonese ，既=Mandarin 的，晏=Mandarin 晚，real Chinese not taiwan or beijing，Han Chinese=Han Qiang people and Han mongolian and Han Baiyue，and Han Hui，like Cantonese are Han Qiang people who from Xi an，this is according to the historical records
Not Your Northern Chinese are! Your Northern Chinese or Han Chinese you called, are pure Chinese people.
Yugurs , Kazakh are yes, related Mongols pretty much. Because we are cousins.
@@enkhzayazundui1063 Mongols used to eat Chinese people after each battle and name them two feet sheep
@@yeshiyangzom8532 oh, you wish. 🤮
@@yeshiyangzom8532 Those were not technically Mongols. Those were several northern nomadic tribes that had their own identities. But most of them invaded and settled in Northern China and became the ancestors for lots of northern Chinese today.
Enkhzaya Zundui This is your original sin
This video is funny lol 😂 just look at them , how can u see they are not related
Just because we look similar doesn’t mean anything, we Mongolians are not related to the Han at all, nor are we related to any other populations in east Asia. Except for the Manchus who basically just assimilated to Chinese culture to the point where there is no return
The Asian race is created in Siberia
degenerate
Mongols are Turks
No, despite having similar culture, physical appearance is totally different. Mongols and Manchus were very closely related.
Bull crap, no we’re not. We are mongolic
i think we mongolian most close to siberian peoples like yakut.
You are off by miles. Mongols are turkit people whereas Chinese sinitic people are hamatic. That's why you can't get your logic right. Mongols are closer to Caucasian, but Chinese are closer to Egyptians and blacks. Be careful what public schools teach you. Their narrative is deceptive and flawed.
The slant eye so much associated with Chinese Asian people came from the Turks or Caucasians.
The Mongols are not Turkic?? What are you on about? We are mongolic
Are Turks close to white people? Are you joking? Turks are closer to Southeast Asians. Central Asia is the communication channel between the East and the West in ancient times and the Middle Ages, and Southeast Asia is the communication channel between the East and the West in modern times. There are a large number of mixed-race people in these two places. Both places accepted Muslim culture. It has also been controlled by many large empires around it. The Chinese are closer to the white people and have a civilization and tributary system that dominates Asia. The Mongols were closer to Nordic civilization, plundering along the way and occasionally threatening and conquering Germanic countries.
The Mongols are similar to the Germanic peoples of Europe. Koreans and Japanese are the same group as Mongolia. On the other hand, China is people from the south. North Chinese people are more closely related by blood to the Mongols, but they believe they are Han Chinese.
Koreans call themselves Han, which has nothing to do with Han Chinese. The Korean word for Han is the dialect of Khan. It means great.
May I ask how mongols are similar to Germanic people? They live thousands of miles apart.
@@erectilereptile7383 The influence of Mongols in East Asian history is similar to that of Germanic peoples on European history.
Germanic? Where did u get that, from your ass? The original Han people were from the north. Now being a Han Chinese is a political term. There are generally 2 civilizations in China, there are the northern Chinese like the Han and then the southern Chinese like the Song and the Ming but now they all call themselves Han. Also, the Koreans are cousins of Tungusic people and the Japanese are descendants of the Yayoi and Jomon mix, not Mongols
Some people have merged with Mongols, but most of them are pure Han people
@@user-kk1iv3xq1i That's not true. DNA analysis around Hubei Province, They are actually descended from the Chinese-speaking Mongol/Jurchen people. These days, Cantonese users are closer to traditional Chinese. In fact, cantonise is similar to ancient Chinese.