okarinaofsteiner's East Eurasian megathread [reposts]

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://www.brownpundits.com/2024/10/04/...y-burmese/ new genetics blog post from Razib Khan on the East Eurasian ancestry in Bangladeshis

Though Burmese are a good donor for the Tibeto-Burman in Burmese [Bangladeshis?], it seems pretty clear now that I have Tibetan samples that the Bangladeshi samples are a bit more Tibetan-skewed than these Burmese samples. It may be that the early admixture into Bengal was from a Burmese population that had admixed less with the Austro-Asiatic substrate of Burma.

Note that this confirms the Austro-Asiatic populations have a totally different (more southern) East Asian ancestry source.

Anthrogenica user CodenameJungle: "I've been saying this for a while based off of some amateur QpAdm runs I did back in February but the actual Asiatic component in Banglas is way more Tibetic than actual Burmese "

---

https://www.brownpundits.com/2024/08/27/...-bengalis/

Doing some reading about the Tibetans for a post for my Substack, and I decide to look around and find some Tibetan genotypes. I went back to a question that has come up before, who contributed the East Asian ancestry into Bengalis? Austro-Asiatics or Tibeto-Burmans?

It’s clearly Tibeto-Burmans.

Show Content

Spoiler

Looking at the spoilered 3-way admixture plot, Orange seems to be something Yellow River Neolithic related, Green is a "southern" outgroup to Orange and Blue is a non-"Core" East Eurasian outgroup (Hoabinhian, AASI, the West Eurasian component in IVC, Indo-Aryan steppe component, West Eurasian admixture among Northern Han, Para-Papuan among Northern East Asians, etc).

The Bengali samples seem to be 85% Other, 9% YR Neolithic-related, and 6% "southern" on average- so that their East Eurasian ancestry seems to be around a 60-40 mix. By contrast, the East Eurasian ancestry of the Burmese (~85% of their total ancestry) seems to be more like a 40-60 split judging from ~50% of their total ancestry being "southern". Han_North seems more like a 45-55 split, Han_South is split into 25-75 and 17-83 clusters. Vietnamese is more of a 7-92 split in terms of East Eurasian ancestry, Dai is maybe 5-95, and Tibetan is maybe 93-6 the other way. So depending on what exactly Orange and Green represent here, the East Eurasian ancestry among Bengalis is either more "northern East Asia", more "pure Tibeto-Burman" or both.

[okarinaofsteiner]

Yeah, the Tibeto-Burman speaking NorthEast Indians also have Tibetic component, not Burmic

What are your references for "Eastern Indo-Aryan", "Austroasiatic", and "Sino-Tibetan" in this chart?

[Light]

Sino-Tibetan:China_Upper_YellowRiver_LN
Sino-Tibetan:China_YellowRiver_LN
Sino-Tibetan:Ancient_Tibetan_simulated1
Sino-Tibetan:Ancient_Tibetan_simulated2
Sino-Tibetan:Russia_UstIshim_IUP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Manang_Kyang_IA_1550BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Mebrak_2125BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Chokhopani_2800BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Lubrak_3200BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Mebrak_2300BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Rhirhi_2700BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Samdzong_1300BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Samdzong_1500BP
Sino-Tibetan:Nepal_Mustang_Suila_3500BP

Austroasiatic:Laos_BA
Austroasiatic:Laos_LN_BA

Eastern_Indo-Aryan:AASI:AASI_North
Eastern_Indo-Aryan:AASI:AASI_South
Eastern_Indo-Aryan:Farmer:Turkmenistan_Parkhai_Anau_En
Eastern_Indo-Aryan:Steppe:Kazakhstan_OyDzhaylau_MLBA
Eastern_Indo-Aryan:Steppe:Uzbekistan_Kashkarchi_BA

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments...rity_from/

I have been researching my ancestry for a few years, I discovered something interesting but mysterious.

Here is my family background:

As far as I know, I am mostly Zhuang (a Kra–Dai speaking ethnic group), my grandmother is Vietnamese Tày (also Kra-dai) and later migrated to a village on the southern border of China because my father told me that her father was killed by the enemy in the Vietnam War, so she and her mother migrated to China as refugees. As for my grandfather's side, he was an orphan, so I don't know much about his family history, but someone told him that he might be from Guangdong Province (which I doubt due to the results of the DNA test). About my mom, all I know about her family is that they are from Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, and I have no doubt that she is pure Zhuang.

About the results, I expected that I am mostly Zhuang, as I am a Zhuang minority in China, and all my family members grew up speaking our own language, the mystery part is European, which is not common in my hometown, and I have never seen anyone with such a result, my first suspicion is that it could be from Indochina during the French colonial period, but it could also be from another way that I don't know, I did a lot of calculations with the Admixture studio calculators, and most of them tend to point to my partial European ancestry coming from Southern Europe (Basque, Sardinia, Spain, etc.), as well as the results in illustrativeDNA, but 23andme showed me differently, and it made me even more curious.

By the way, my paternal haplogroup is O-M268, which is common in Southeast Asia and South China, and my father's maternal haplogroup is F1a3. My grandparents passed away, my question may last forever, but I will take up research as one of my interests.

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/...n_results/

Ethnic Korean modeled as predominantly Han Chinese in Illustrative DNA mixed mode, also modeled as closer to several of the Han Chinese G25 subgroups than to the Korean G25 population... makes you wonder if they're of partial (recent) Chinese ancestry


76.2% Han Chinese (34.2% Jiangsu, 20.6% Zhejiang, 16.8% Henan, 3.8% Shanghai, 0.8% Shanxi) + 9.6% Korean + 10.6% Qiang + 1.8% Amur Basin


1.68 to Han_Shandong, 1.91 to Han_Henan, 2.13 to Han_Shanxi, 2.48 to Han_Jiangsu, 3.27 to Han_Shanghai,  3.28 to Korean, 3.30 to Han_Zhejiang

---

OP's IllustrativeDNA ancient (hunter-gatherer vs farmer) results


OP's G25 Vahaduo single-population matches- this is closer to what you'd expect for an ethnic Korean (Korean, then Japanese, then Manchu, then Northern Han Chinese)- especially for someone whose parents are from Busan and near-Jeju in the southern Korean peninsula.

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/...se_result/
https://archive.is/O2oxs

Henan ancestry ethnic Chinese person scores enough Jomon across all of the historical period timestamps to be convincingly modeled as 1/4 Japanese.

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/...n_chinese/

Ever since I uploaded the results of my girlfriend who is a Liaoning Han/Manchu with known ancestry from Shandong, I noticed that she was a little bit of an outlier amongst Manchus which she clusters closest with. It seems to be because of this Melanesian admixture trace which seems to appear in quite a few samples in the region (see second picture). I have controlled this admixture by decreasing fits. When removing Vanuatu_2300BP, Sulawesi_HG will replace it. If I remove Sulawesi_HG, Jomon will replace it. If I remove Jomon, Korea_Yokchido will replace it. Lastly, if I remove the Korean ancient sample, Amur_Paleolithic will be the best substitute.

What do you make of it? Is there some form of ghost population in Shandong causing this? Or is it some ghost population that is related to Jomon but more ancient? What could this mean?

Personal observation-
'I have some Manchu ancestry on my mother's side, and I score low levels of Papuan-like ancestry in IllustrativeDNA and certain GEDmatch calculators that my fully (non-Northern) Han father and my paternal grandmother don't seem to have. This would suggest that my Papuan-like ancestry is from my mother, but I would need to order ancestry tests for my maternal grandparents to figure out if it's from her "Han" side or her "Manchu" side.'

[okarinaofsteiner]

https://np.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments...h/lzow0mp/

Chinese Singaporean of nominal Cantonese (Taishanese + Guangxi) and Peranakan ancestry. They have Peranakan ancestry on both parents' sides, and their mother is speculated to have some ethnic Siamese (Thai) ancestors farther back.



Pre-update results:
92.2% Chinese [Guangdong et al], 4.2% Chinese Dai, 1.9% Indo/Thai/Khmer/Myanmar, 1.1% Korean
0.2% Bengali & NE Indian, 0.2% Broadly Central-South Asian, 0.2% Iranian, Caucasian, Mesopotamian

[okarinaofsteiner]

Updated Illustrative DNA ancient models for the G25 Han Chinese province (capital city) subgroups:

Han (Shanxi): 91.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI, 0.6% E_Siberian HG, 0.0% Caucasus HG, 1.4% Anatolian Neolithic, 6.6% Mongolian HG, 0.2% Melanesian
Han (Henan): 94.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 0.0% AASI, 0.6% E_Siberian HG, 1.4% Caucasus HG, 3.2% Mongolian HG
Han (Shandong): 97.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 1.2% AASI, 1.6% E_Siberian HG

Han (Shanghai): 93.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.4% AASI, 0.2% Caucasus HG
Han (Beijing): 92.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 7.4% SEA Neolithic, 0.6% E_Siberian HG

Han (Jiangsu): 94.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.8% SEA Neolithic
Han (Zhejiang): 87.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 12.4% SEA Neolithic
Han (Hubei): 85.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 14.2% SEA Neolithic
Han (Sichuan): 81.4% Yellow River Neolithic, 18.6% SEA Neolithic
Han (Chongqing): 77.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 23.0% SEA Neolithic
Han (Fujian): 74.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 25.2% SEA Neolithic
Han (Guangdong): 62.5% Yellow River Neolithic, 37.5% SEA Neolithic

The northern Chinese reference population models all lack SEA Neolithic, while the southern Chinese reference population models are all 2-way admixture models between Yellow River Neolithic (Neolithic Northern China) and SEA Neolithic (Bronze Age Vietnam). The Shanghai G25 sample resembles the Jiangsu G25 sample autosomally but shows similar signs of "Silk Road" admixture as the Northern Han G25 samples, albeit to a much lower degree. Oddly enough, the Beijing G25 sample is both more southern-shifted than the Shanghai sample due to being more cosmopolitan, but without the signs of Silk Road admixture that you'd expect considering Beijing's location in northern China and history as a capital during long periods of non-Han rule. This makes me think "Beijing" is really CHB from 1000 Genomes- the sample of university students in Beijing who generally aren't Beijing natives.

Other Illustrative DNA modern sample ancient models:

Manchu (Liaoning): 94.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI, 3.8% E_Siberian HG, 0.6% Anatolian Neolithic
Korean: 87.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 9.4% Mongolia HG, 2.2% E_Siberian HG, 1.4% Jomon
Japanese: 73.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 13.0% Mongolia HG, 0.4% E_Siberian HG, 13.4% Jomon
Kinh (Vietnam): 39.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 60.4% SEA Neolithic
Tagalog (Philippines): 23.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 74.0% SEA Neolithic, 1.4% Jomon, 1.0% S_American HG

Mongol (Mongolia): 24.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 57.8% Mongolia HG, 4.4% E_Siberian HG, 3.2% Anatolian Neolithic, 7.4% Caucasus HG, 3.2% Euro HG
Burmese: 54.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 21.8% SEA Neolithic, 15.6% AASI, 1.6% Anatolian Neolithic, 4.8% Caucasus HG, 1.0% N_American HG, 0.6% Mongolian HG, 0.4% Australian
Thai (Thailand): 24.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 62.4% SEA Neolithic, 8.8% AASI, 2.4% Anatolian Neolithic, 0.8% Caucasus HG, 1.0% S_American HG
Lao (Laos): 15.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 84.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI
Khmer (Thailand): 0.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 92.8% SEA Neolithic, 6.4% AASI, 0.8% S_American HG
Cambodian: 10.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 82.4% SEA Neolithic, 5.8% AASI, 1.0% S_American HG
Malay (Singapore): 2.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 88.4% SEA Neolithic, 6.6% AASI, 1.4% Melanesian, 0.8% S_American HG
Javanese (Indonesia): 0.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 96.6% SEA Neolithic, 2.8% AASI, 0.6% S_American HG

Mlabri (Thailand): 5.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 92.8% SEA Neolithic, 2.0% AASI
Igorot (Philippines): 15.4% Yellow River Neolithic, 85.6% SEA Neolithic
Lahu (Yunnan): 48.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 51.4% SEA Neolithic
Dai (China): 34.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 66.0% SEA Neolithic
Tujia (Chongqing): 79.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 20.4% SEA Neolithic
Miao (Guizhou): 70.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 29.2% SEA Neolithic
Hmong (Thailand): 59.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 40.4% SEA Neolithic

[okarinaofsteiner]

Updated Illustrative DNA ancient models for the G25 Han Chinese province (capital city) subgroups:

Han (Shanxi): 91.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI, 0.6% E_Siberian HG, 0.0% Caucasus HG, 1.4% Anatolian Neolithic, 6.6% Mongolian HG, 0.2% Melanesian
Han (Henan): 94.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 0.0% AASI, 0.6% E_Siberian HG, 1.4% Caucasus HG, 3.2% Mongolian HG
Han (Shandong): 97.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 1.2% AASI, 1.6% E_Siberian HG

Han (Shanghai): 93.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.4% AASI, 0.2% Caucasus HG
Han (Beijing): 92.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 7.4% SEA Neolithic, 0.6% E_Siberian HG

Han (Jiangsu): 94.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.8% SEA Neolithic
Han (Zhejiang): 87.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 12.4% SEA Neolithic
Han (Hubei): 85.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 14.2% SEA Neolithic
Han (Sichuan): 81.4% Yellow River Neolithic, 18.6% SEA Neolithic
Han (Chongqing): 77.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 23.0% SEA Neolithic
Han (Fujian): 74.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 25.2% SEA Neolithic
Han (Guangdong): 62.5% Yellow River Neolithic, 37.5% SEA Neolithic

The northern Chinese reference population models all lack SEA Neolithic, while the southern Chinese reference population models are all 2-way admixture models between Yellow River Neolithic (Neolithic Northern China) and SEA Neolithic (Bronze Age Vietnam). The Shanghai G25 sample resembles the Jiangsu G25 sample autosomally but shows similar signs of "Silk Road" admixture as the Northern Han G25 samples, albeit to a much lower degree. Oddly enough, the Beijing G25 sample is both more southern-shifted than the Shanghai sample due to being more cosmopolitan, but without the signs of Silk Road admixture that you'd expect considering Beijing's location in northern China and history as a capital during long periods of non-Han rule. This makes me think "Beijing" is really CHB from 1000 Genomes- the sample of university students in Beijing who generally aren't Beijing natives.

Other Illustrative DNA modern sample ancient models:

Manchu (Liaoning): 94.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI, 3.8% E_Siberian HG, 0.6% Anatolian Neolithic
Korean: 87.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 9.4% Mongolia HG, 2.2% E_Siberian HG, 1.4% Jomon
Japanese: 73.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 13.0% Mongolia HG, 0.4% E_Siberian HG, 13.4% Jomon
Kinh (Vietnam): 39.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 60.4% SEA Neolithic
Tagalog (Philippines): 23.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 74.0% SEA Neolithic, 1.4% Jomon, 1.0% S_American HG

-snip-

Posted a better-formatted version of this quoted post on r/IllustrativeDNA.

---

Updated Illustrative DNA ancient models for the G25 Han Chinese province (capital city) subgroups, taken directly from the Illustrative DNA website

First, some footnotes and clarification on what these ancient populations represent:

* Yellow River Neolithic = northern China 4000-4500 years ago. Millet farmer-related
* SEA Neolithic = North Vietnam 4000 years ago. "First rice farmers" of Southeast Asia
* Mongolian HG = prehistoric Mongolia from several thousands of years ago
* E_Siberian HG = Central Siberia from 4000 years ago, believed to resemble modern-day East Siberians
* AASI = "indigenous" hunter-gatherer component from Indian subcontinent. Hoabinhian hunter-gatherer ancestry among Southeast Asians not contained in "SEA Neolithic" seems to get modeled as this. Though many Burmese and Thais have actual Indian ancestry.
* Anatolian Neolithic = farmer related ancestry found across Europe and West Asia. Proxy for the "European-like" component among Indians
* Caucasus HG = prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestry from the Caucasus Mountains in West Asia. Proxy for the "European-like" component among Indians
* Jomon = "indigenous" hunter-gatherers of Japan

Pretty sure the Chinese provincial samples are from the province capitals and might not be representative of each province as a whole.

* Han (Shanxi): 91.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI, 0.6% E_Siberian HG, 0.0% Caucasus HG, 1.4% Anatolian Neolithic, 6.6% Mongolian HG, 0.2% Melanesian
* Han (Henan): 94.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 0.0% AASI, 0.6% E_Siberian HG, 1.4% Caucasus HG, 3.2% Mongolian HG
* Han (Shandong): 97.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.0% SEA Neolithic, 1.2% AASI, 1.6% E_Siberian HG

* Han (Shanghai): 93.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.4% AASI, 0.2% Caucasus HG
* Han (Beijing): 92.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 7.4% SEA Neolithic, 0.6% E_Siberian HG

* Han (Jiangsu): 94.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 5.8% SEA Neolithic
* Han (Zhejiang): 87.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 12.4% SEA Neolithic
* Han (Hubei): 85.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 14.2% SEA Neolithic
* Han (Sichuan): 81.4% Yellow River Neolithic, 18.6% SEA Neolithic
* Han (Chongqing): 77.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 23.0% SEA Neolithic
* Han (Fujian): 74.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 25.2% SEA Neolithic
* Han (Guangdong): 62.5% Yellow River Neolithic, 37.5% SEA Neolithic

The northern Chinese reference population models all lack SEA Neolithic, while the southern Chinese reference population models are all 2-way admixture models between Yellow River Neolithic (Neolithic Northern China) and SEA Neolithic (Bronze Age Vietnam). The Shanghai G25 sample resembles the Jiangsu G25 sample autosomally but shows similar signs of "Silk Road" admixture as the Northern Han G25 samples, albeit to a much lower degree. Oddly enough, the Beijing G25 sample is both more southern-shifted than the Shanghai sample due to being more cosmopolitan, but without the signs of Silk Road admixture that you'd expect considering Beijing's location in northern China and history as a capital during long periods of non-Han rule. This makes me think "Beijing" is really CHB from 1000 Genomes- the sample of university students in Beijing who generally aren't Beijing natives.

Here are some more Illustrative DNA ancient models for non-Chinese G25 populations for some context on the North-South variation among Han Chinese.

"Central-East Asia"
* Mongol (Mongolia): 24.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 57.8% Mongolia HG, 4.4% E_Siberian HG, 3.2% Anatolian Neolithic, 7.4% Caucasus HG, 3.2% Euro HG
* Tibetan (Lhasa): 69.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 21.4% Mongolia HG, 5.4% AASI, 1.2% Anatolia Neolithic, 1.8% Caucasus HG, 0.6% Australian

"North-East Asia"
* Japanese: 73.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 13.0% Mongolia HG, 0.4% E_Siberian HG, 13.4% Jomon
* Korean: 87.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 9.4% Mongolia HG, 2.2% E_Siberian HG, 1.4% Jomon
* Manchu (Liaoning): 94.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 0.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI, 3.8% E_Siberian HG, 0.6% Anatolian Neolithic
* Tujia (Chongqing): 79.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 20.4% SEA Neolithic

"Southern East Asia 1"
* Miao (Guizhou): 70.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 29.2% SEA Neolithic
* Hmong (Thailand): 59.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 40.4% SEA Neolithic
* Lahu (Yunnan): 48.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 51.4% SEA Neolithic
* Kinh (Vietnamese): 39.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 60.4% SEA Neolithic
* Dai (China): 34.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 66.0% SEA Neolithic

"Southern East Asia 2"
* Burmese: 54.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 21.8% SEA Neolithic, 15.6% AASI, 1.6% Anatolian Neolithic, 4.8% Caucasus HG, 1.0% N_American HG, 0.6% Mongolian HG, 0.4% Australian
* Thai (Thailand): 24.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 62.4% SEA Neolithic, 8.8% AASI, 2.4% Anatolian Neolithic, 0.8% Caucasus HG, 1.0% S_American HG
* Tagalog (Philippines): 23.6% Yellow River Neolithic, 74.0% SEA Neolithic, 1.4% Jomon, 1.0% S_American HG
* Lao (Laos): 15.2% Yellow River Neolithic, 84.6% SEA Neolithic, 0.2% AASI
* Cambodian: 10.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 82.4% SEA Neolithic, 5.8% AASI, 1.0% S_American HG
* Malay (Singapore): 2.8% Yellow River Neolithic, 88.4% SEA Neolithic, 6.6% AASI, 1.4% Melanesian, 0.8% S_American HG
* Javanese (Indonesia): 0.0% Yellow River Neolithic, 96.6% SEA Neolithic, 2.8% AASI, 0.6% S_American HG

[Tomenable]

Hey okarinaofsteiner, what can you tell me about the following 15 ethnic groups, where do these ethnic groups live?:

CoLao
Dao
Ede
Giarai
HaNhi
HMong
LaChi
LoLo
Mang
Nung
PaThen
PhuLa
SiLa
Tay
LaHu

I have BAM files of these ethnic groups and I converted all of them to plink format and to 23andMe format, but I can't check their K23b results because admix.py script which I'm using does not include the K23b calculator. I can check their results for example in HarappaWorld calculator if you are interested.

[Ebizur]

Hey okarinaofsteiner, what can you tell me about the following 15 ethnic groups, where do these ethnic groups live?:

CoLao
Dao
Ede
Giarai
HaNhi
HMong
LaChi
LoLo
Mang
Nung
PaThen
PhuLa
SiLa
Tay
LaHu

I have BAM files of these ethnic groups and I converted all of them to plink format and to 23andMe format, but I can't check their K23b results because admix.py script which I'm using does not include the K23b calculator. I can check their results for example in HarappaWorld calculator if you are interested.

Those samples are from ethnic minority populations in Vietnam. Many of them have co-ethnics in China (e.g. Co Lao is nominally the same as China's 仡佬族 Gelao-zu, Dao is nominally the same as China's 瑶族 Yao-zu, Ha Nhi is nominally the same as China's 哈尼族 Hani-zu, La Hu is nominally the same as China's 拉祜族 Lahu-zu). In some other cases, the official ethnic classifications in the two countries do not match up perfectly: for example, H'Mông have their own official classification in Vietnam, whereas they are lumped into a looser 苗族 Miao-zu supraethnicity in China. Pa Then are lumped into the Yao-zu in China. Lo Lo, Phu La, and some of the La Chi are all lumped into a 彝族 Yi-zu supraethnicity in China, while the Nung, Tay, and some others of the La Chi are all lumped into a 壮族 Zhuang-zu supraethnicity in China.

[Tomenable]

Here is how similar these 15 ethnic groups are to other populations:

Dao - they are close to southern Chinese ethnic groups, especially in Guangxi.

Ede - they are close to some Khmers, Proto-Malays, Mlabri and also to Lebbo.

HaNhi - they are close to the Paluang of Malaysia and also a bit to the Jinuo.

Mang - close especially to Laotians, to a lesser extent also to Bahnar people.

HMong - they are close to Maoming, Yao, Dong and Laotians from Phongsaly.

CoLao - close to Dong, Gelao, Zhuang, Yao and some people in Guangdong.

LaHu - close to Lahu from China also to some people in Yunnan province.

Giarai - close to Mlabri, Proto-Malays, Bidayuh and also to Lebbo people.

LaChi - close to the Kinh from Vietnam, Dai, TaiKhuen and TaiLue peoples.

SiLa - distant to everyone but closest to Paluang and Jinuo ethnic groups.

LoLo - close to some Thai people and to TaiYuan, TaiKhuen and TaiLue.

Nung - close to the Dai, Jiamao, Maonan, Zhuang, Li, Kinh and also Mulam.

PaThen - close to the Dong from China and some people from Guangdong.

Tay - close to Zhuang, Maonan, Dai, Mulam, TaiYong, Gelao and Jiamao.

PhuLa - close to TaiLue, TaiKhuen, Kinh, TaiYuan and Lahu from China.

[Ebizur]

Here is how similar these 15 ethnic groups are to other populations:

...

HaNhi - they are close to the Paluang of Malaysia and also a bit to the Jinuo.

...

SiLa - distant to everyone but closest to Paluang and Jinuo ethnic groups.

You mean that the sampled Ha Nhi and Si La of Vietnam appear to be relatively similar to the Palaung of Myanmar, right?

The Si La are a very small ethnic group that inhabits certain villages in northern Laos and northwestern Vietnam. I do not know them to be present anywhere in China, but people who speak languages that belong to the same cluster as the Si La language are classified as Hani-zu (Hani ethnos) in China.

[Tomenable]

Here is how similar these 15 ethnic groups are to other populations:

...

HaNhi - they are close to the Paluang of Malaysia and also a bit to the Jinuo.

...

SiLa - distant to everyone but closest to Paluang and Jinuo ethnic groups.

You mean that the sampled Ha Nhi and Si La of Vietnam appear to be relatively similar to the Palaung of Myanmar, right?

Yes, that's right. I mistakenly wrote Malaysia, it is of course Myanmar.