Split of Sino-Tibetan languages in Yellow River basin, associated bearers of O-M175: O-M134,O-L127.1

According to “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4000 years”:

“In the network analysis, we observed that several ancient Tibetans and Yellow River populations shared a common ancestor and separated into different branches (such as M9a1a, M9a1b, D4g2, G2a'c, and D4i) (Figs. 3B, 3E, S3). The phylogeny of some haplotypes (M9a1a, M9a1b, D4g2, and G2a'c) showed ancient Tibetans and Middle YR Han-related populations (Shimao, Qingtai, and Taosi) formed two distinct clades and shared a common ancestor around 12517 BP–9385 BP, based on a molecular clock-based method BEAST (Figs. 3A and S5). It can be linked to the Han-Tibetan split during early Holocene, as suggested before (Lu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019, 2021).”

References, mentioned in the article, as well as other articles supported the differentiation of Sino-Tibetan languages into Sinitic (Han) and Tibetan languages in the Yellow River Basin.

In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” as well as in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the ancient Yellow River samples, belonging to old yDNA O-M122>O-M134 and old yDNA O-M122>O-L127.1, clustered close to each other and occupied the central position on the PCAs in the matter of joining modern Tibetan-speaking populations and Sinitic(Han)-speaking populations.

On the other hand, yDNA O-M122>O-F871 has a rather young branch, distributed among the Austronesians, but some Austronesian populations have 100% yDNA O-M175. mtDNA M9a1a, M9a1b, characteristic of the Sino-Tibetan split, are also of a very southern origin, but their homeland in Southern China is not associated with the Austronesians. In order to understand the reasons behind these facts, it is necessary to take into account the multi-stepped process of the formation of population in China since the Palaeolithic.

In “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, the homeland of ancient East Asians in Eastern China, mostly in the eastern part of the Yangtze River basin is mentioned, and it should have been also characteristic of ancestors of yDNA O-M122 individuals.

However, the Last Glacial Maximum caused some population movements. Small flake tools, made on flint, characteristic of the homeland of ancient East Asians, started to appear in the areas far to the south in Southern China, because some populations retreated to the south because of the Last Glacial Maximum. Small flake tools, made on flint, even started to appear in the Bailiandong cave site of Guangxi, which is an area, associated with the split of mtDNA M9a. Nonetheless, small flake tool assemblages, made on flint, were also reported from more northerly areas, that is, areas in the western part of the Yangtze River basin, including areas, adjacent to the western part of the Yellow River Basin, where small flake tool industries were distributed during the period, when microblade industries started to dominate areas of Central Plains in the eastern part of the Yellow River Basin.

The described area in the western part of the Yellow River basin, where microblade industries were absent, but flint small flake tool industries of yDNA O-M122 individuals appeared, is the area, from where the Yellow River ancestry distributed all over the Yellow River basin since the Late Palaeolithic, being slightly older in its age than the younger yDNA O-M188-related Southern East Asian ancestry and the Yellow River ancestry’s yDNA O-P164*-related precedecessor in the Yellow River Basin (that is, the younger Northern East Asian ancestry), which both separated from each other and from the yDNA O-M122-dominated Yellow River ancestry 18000-19000 years ago.

For example, the Yellow River ancestry haplogroup, which reached the territory of the Lower Yellow River, where the Houli culture was later formed, is yDNA O-M134>O-F114 in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Since the distribution of ancestors of the Yellow River ancestry in some parts of the Yangtze River Basin during the Last Glacial Maximum was secondary, it left room for the existence of some earlier yDNA N-M231-related populations, living in the Yangtze River basin, interacting with yDNA F individuals and with the preceding waves of mtDNA B5b-related yDNA O2a-L465*(found in ancient DNA in Poland)/O1b(O1b*/O1b1*)-related populations (whereas mtDNA B5a is shared by Han Chinese, Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatics, some Austronesians, etc) and bypassing the “former” East Asian homeland, when distributing through the Yangtze River basin as far as the Lower Yangtze River basin and beyond, also distributing as far as the Huai River basing, Shandong and beyond, and the ancestry of these earlier inhabitants of the western part of the Yangtze River basin should not have been too distant from the ancestry of inhabitants of the East Asian homeland in the eastern part of the Yangtze River basin on the verge of the Last Glacial Maximum, at least individuals, related to them, were not placed too far on the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Update
In China, yDNA F(xGHIJK) is maximized in the Lahu people of Southern China:
https://i.ibb.co/pxvWbY1/phpsg-Bsa-X.png

Unlike this, the date of the appearance of pebble tool industries in Korea and its vicinities was detected as early as 100000 years ago by archaeologists. It is disputed by archaeologists whether the appearance of any pebble tool industries should be associated with the Hoabinhian-related populations, whose stone industries have peculiar traits, which are not associated with any pebble tools. Moreover, in the main post, the above-mentioned migrations are not related to to makers of “crudely flaked” pebble tools, but instead are related to small flake tool makers.

Moreover, even the 38100-year-old ancestry of the Dushan cave of Guangxi coincides with earlier layers of representatives, who used small flake tools in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ebizur

Examples of Y-DNA haplogroup O2a1b-IMS-JST002611 from archaeological specimens according to TheYtree as of 2024/4/14:

HuatuyanNL17, Huatuyan, Huatu-tun, Huaili-cun, Lihu Yaozu-xiang, Nandan-xian, Hechi-shi, Guangxi [广西河池市南丹县里湖瑶族乡怀里村化图屯化图岩], 421 ybp, O-IMS-JST002611

M56R1, Tang-era commoner grave [唐代平民墓], Shuangzhao-zhen, Qindu-shi [sic], Xianyang-shi, Shaanxi-sheng [陕西省咸阳市秦都市双照镇], 618-907 CE, O-IMS-JST002611

I0626 [low coverage], Man Bac, Vietnam, Vietnam_Neolithic, 1900-1600 BCE, O-IMS-JST002611

I1137, Man Bac, Vietnam, Vietnam_Neolithic, 1882-1745 calBCE, O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F449

EDM124, Lower Xiajiadian culture, Erdaojingzi site, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia [内蒙古赤峰市二道井子遗址 夏家店下层文化], ~3614-3494 ybp, O2a1b-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F449 > O-F238 [Autosomes appear to be most similar to Koreans among present-day populations]

HuatuyanNL18, Huatuyan, Huatu-tun, Huaili-cun, Lihu Yaozu-xiang, Nandan-xian, Hechi-shi, Guangxi [广西河池市南丹县里湖瑶族乡怀里村化图屯化图岩], 421 ybp, O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-TYT65318

EA1107, Heishuiguo site, Ganzhou-qu, Zhangye-shi, Gansu-sheng [甘肃省张掖市甘州区黑水国遗址], Early Han [汉初], O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325

M1, ancient person from Shandong [山东古人] [low coverage] from the study "Ancient genomes illuminate the spatial genetic continuity between the Middle and Lower Yellow River," O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325

C5156, Longsangquduo site, Nanmulin-xian, Rikaze-shi, Xizang [西藏日喀则市南木林县 Longsangquduo遗址], 900 cal BP,
O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-CTS12877 > O-CTS2884 > O-F16635 > O-Y100880 [TMRCA with KPGP-00216 from South Korea is estimated to be 3610 ybp.]

M72-1, Lafuqueke site, Hami [哈密-拉甫却克LFQK遗址; 新疆哈密市伊州区拉甫却克古城遗址], Tang Dynasty and Gaochang-Uyghur period [唐代及高昌回鹘时期], O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365

G30703, Heishuiguo site, Ganzhou-qu, Zhangye-shi, Gansu-sheng [甘肃省张掖市甘州区黑水国遗址], Late Han [汉末], O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365 > O-FGC54486 > O-TYT13013 > O-TYT130130 > O-TYT182051 > O-TY139418

DA43 ERS2374315, Bayan Bulag, Ömnögovi Province, Mongolia [蒙古南戈壁省巴彦布拉格], Han-era capitulated fortress Han military remains [汉代受降城汉军遗骨], 1994 ybp, O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365 > O-FGC54486 > O-TYT13013 > O-TYT130130 > O-TYT185266

M60-3 [low coverage], Lafuqueke site, Hami [哈密-拉甫却克LFQK遗址], Tang Dynasty and Gaochang-Uyghur period [唐代及高昌回鹘时期], O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365 > O-F26105 > O-Y15976

G30808, ancient person from Shandong [山东古人] from "Genome-wide data from 24 individuals dating to 3600 BCE~317 CE in Shandong, China," O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365 > O-F26105 > O-Y15976 > O-TYT18261 > O-TYT194663 > O-Y110187 > O-Y179847 > O-Y167854

TUK002, Late Xiongnu, Tamiryn Ulaan Khoshuu (Burkhan Tolgoi) - Arkhangai Province, Mongolia [蒙古后杭爱省Arkhangai 塔米尔乌兰和硕遗址 匈奴晚期] 2160-1909 ybp O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365 > O-Y15976 > O-Y16154 > O-TYT29959 > O-BY106216

KNN001, Khalgan Khoshuu (Zamyn Khashat- Khanan bor) - Sukhbaatar, Mongolia, Late Medieval Mongol O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F921 > O-F1365 > O-Y15976 > O-Y16154 > O-FTA42700 > O-TYT19360 > O-FGC65107

M1106, ancient person from Shandong [山东古人] from "Ancient genomes illuminate the spatial genetic continuity between the Middle and Lower Yellow River," O-IMS-JST002611 > O-F18 > O-FGC12511 > O-F117 > O-CTS4598 > O-F13 > O-F11 > O-F325 > O-F632 > O-Z25061 > O-F110 > O-F489 > O-FT75796 > O-TYT143068 > O-ZS7294 > O-FTA96573

---

The Paleolithic yDNA O2a-L465* (O2a-L127.1*) and basal mtDNA B5b*-related population, mentioned in the first post of this topic, is different from populations, carrying modern Chinese and broadly East Asian mtDNA B5b branches and yDNA O2a-L465 (including yDNA O-IMS-JST002611). The mentioned Lower Xiajiadian EDM124 (yDNA O-L127.1>O-IMS-JST002611>O-F18>O-FGC12511>O-F449>O-F238/ mtDNA B5b1a) did not cluster precisely with the yDNA Q* specimen in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, because the Paleolithic yDNA O2a-L465*/mtDNA B5b*-related ancestry is slightly different from the modern component in East Asian populations, though the presence of the derived yDNA O-L127.1-related ancestry in East Asian populations excludes the possibility that yDNA F(F*)-related populations could influence ancestors of the proto-Sino-Tibetans: it could not, because it did not have the derived yDNA O-L127.1-related ancestry, only having acquired the Paleolithic yDNA O2a-L465*/mtDNA B5b*-related ancestry via some ancient East Asians,mostly married to female representatives of an mtDNA B5b-related population. Despite the fact that one of ancient specimens, clustering not far from ancient Shandong yDNA N-M231-related individuals in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, produced a call of yDNA F, the degree of interaction between different yDNA N-M231-related populations and different yDNA F-related populations was also different, leading to different ethnogenetic results for populations, related to yDNA F individuals and their relatives, having been preserved in the vicinity of the Tibetan Plateau, and leading to different and differing ethnogenetic results for other more distantly related populations, including those that preserved in the eastern part of the Yangtze River basin and reached ancient Shandong.

The ancient localization of yDNA O2a-L127.1 (that is, yDNA O2a-L465) and its derived lineage yDNA O2a-M122>O2a-L127.1>O2a-IMS-JST002611 was already sometimes mentioned in other posts on this forum. After the Last Glacial Maximum migrations and perturbations, it should have become the Middle Yellow River basin for yDNA O2a-M134, yDNA O2a-L127.1, O2a-IMS-JST002611, whose relevant modern and ancient representatives clustered not far from each other in both “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Some yDNA O2a-M134 (both yDNA O-M117 and yDNA O-Y20 (also known as yDNA O-F114)) and O2a-IMS-JST002611 tightly cluster with the Han Chinese side by side on the part of the PCA, relevant for the Middle Yellow river basin, in these two articles. One basal O2a-IMS-JST002611* individual included an ancient representative from the Shaanxi Province from the Tang Dynasty period

The PCAs of the above-mentioned two articles incude all necessary specimens to understand the distribution of yDNA O2a-IMS-JST002611. At first, basal yDNA O2a-IMS-JST002611* should have separated from the Middle Yellow River basin to contribute to ancestors of the Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao)-related populations, where the basal yDNA O2a-IMS-JST002611* (having migrated “along relevant genetic clines” from the Middle Yellow River basin to the south via the area of the future Hubei Province) was observed in the HuatuyanNL17 of GaoHuaHua, the “ancient DNA population”, and related to some ancestors of the Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao). These Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) peoples are considered to be relatives of Sino-Tibetans in China. And later as well, the area of the Hubei Province of China should have become the important center for accumulation and distribution of younger yDNA O2a-IMS-JST002611-related branches of O-CTS10573 (O-FGC3750 on theytree.com) and O-F18, and some of representatives of branches of yDNA O2a-IMS-JST002611 started to backmigrate to the Yellow River basin as early as the Early Neolithic.

As for the Japanese representatives HGDP00751 O-IMS-JST002611>O-F18>O-FGC12511>O-F449>O-F238>O-F271>O-F134>O-CTS10846>O-CTS6279>O-F3256>O-F25545>O-TYT107373>O-TYT89049>O-SK1698 AS WELL AS HGDP00764 O-IMS-JST002611>O-F18>O-FGC12511>O-F117>O-CTS4598>O-F13>O-F11, they were shown to interact with Late Neolithic Pingliangtai population, or even their ancestors might be considered parts of the Pingliangtai-related population, so, in accordance with the ancient Chinese history, they should have migrated from the Yangtze River basin as a part of the Late Neolithic demographic process, which was a result of the competition between civilizations of the Yangtze River basin and the Yellow River’s ancient cultures, and ancestors of male members of the Pingliangtai population and female mtDNA F2h specimen migrated from the Yangtze River basin as well. The difference of one more Japanese case of O-IMS-JST002611 such as O-MF7367 https://www.yfull.com/tree/O-MF7367/ is such that, though a representative of his O2a- CTS10573 still forming a cline with ancient Pingliangtai, this cline farther passes through a Chinese-derived Korean in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, which is quite consistent with the domination of the Korean representatives of the O-MF7367 branch (https://www.theytree.com/tree/O-Z41792) on theytree.com. One case EDM124 (yDNA O-L127.1>O-IMS-JST002611>O-F18>O-FGC12511>O-F449>O-F238/ mtDNA B5b1a) proceded to the Lower Xiajiadian population: this Lower Xiajiadian case of yDNA O-IMS-JST002611 formed a cline, which only passed through one female Korean, but also passed through several Japanese males, which points to the interaction of ancestors of the Koreans and Japanese with populations, which aligned themselves with the Lower Xiajiadian culture’s population, having become enemies of the Shang Dynasty. The Ryukyuan branch O-FGC54505 https://www.yfull.com/tree/O-FGC54505/ is probably also related to this population, contributing to the Lower Xiajiadian culture, but also related to Pingliangtai. An yDNA O-IMS-JST002611 from Shandong, who did not cluster with the late Lower Xiajiadian, survived in Shandong.