Shinoda K.-i., Kanzawa-Kiriyama H., Kakuda T., Adachi N., Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu. Anthropol. Sci. (Japanese Series) 127, 25–43 (2019). (西北九州弥生人の遺伝的な特徴
―佐世保市下本山岩陰遺跡出土人骨の核ゲノム解析―)
https://i.ibb.co/D19pcY6/50.png
In the above Japanese article, at least four Japanese scientists seem to be ridiculing at populations living in China and their real connections to real rice farming cultures. This is seen from the fact that, in their analysis, the rice farming Tujia people representatives , who have a layer of ancestry likely related to the rice farming Hemudu culture, somehow joined the cline with Japanese Shimomotoyama hunter-fishers from ca. 2000 years ago. Most importantly, these Shimomotoyama hunter-fishers, who are claimed to partly have the Yayoi ancestry, even clustered closely to the Ainu. One Shimomotoyama3 hunter-fisher belonged to yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713 of modern Japanese, and his closeness to the Ainu means that this particular specimen was likely to be of the same nature as Honshu island’s Emishi barbarians, with whom ancient Japanese fought.
Such an attitude depreciates Chinese rice farming archaeological cultures, to which at least some Japanese would want to be related. Indeed, one of the most ancient rice farming population distributed from the Hemudu culture, a part of it got to the Tujia, but a part of it is only allowed to reach “Emishi Barbarian-related” hunter-fishers, including yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713, in “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. [b] On the one hand, the Japanese Internet is full of claiming rice farming cultures in China as Japanese-related, for which Ebizur is an example. On the other hand, we see in important argument against such claims from “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. According to this study, the Japanese people alledgedly clustered away from populations in China and Austronesia even farther, than 40000-year-old Tianyuan ancient man did and deeply diverged ancient Australasian Hoabinhians did. If Japanese ancestors participated in Yangtze river basin rice farming cultures, then they would be assimilated by Han Chinese, and there would exist intermediate populations between modern Chinese and modern Japanese. According to “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”, this is not the case, and Japanese and Chinese are terribly far from each other. But this also mean that there was no observable participation of Japanese-like populations in archaeological cultures in China, with the ancient DNA samples of which modern diversified Chinese and some minorities in China share uniparentals.
This raises the question: is it possible that serious scientists of a large Japanese state would be involved in wishful thinking to such a degree? On the one hand, some of them want those archaeological cultures. On the other hand, some of them appear to simultaneously want to imagine that the Japanese people was always the same as today, even in the Early Neolithic. Thus, such scientists do not wish to show any serious genetic connections between the modern Japanese population and other populations deriving ffrom the desired cultures in China. For example, the Liangzhu culture, which Ebizur is trying to claim, has lots of yDNA O-M119, a relative of actual Austronesians. As Ebizur always reported, the Japanese people have quite little yDNA O-M119. It is impossible to remove actual populations from their archaeological cultures, even by claim that this or that lineage, reported from ancient DNA, was a sort of a local “subhuman”, while actual masters of the culture were not revealed yet.
It can be observed that even the actual connection with rice farming Tujia was shown in a “funny” way in the Japanese work, signed by four scientists: connecting rice farmers to ancient hunter-gatherer Ainu-like outliers, rather than to Japanese, in order to preserve the alledged “unadmixedness” of the modern Japanese. It is quite obvious that populations from China will not surrender their ancient cultures to such strange views from Japan. It also means that Japanese Internet advertising of belonging to some ancient culture is more a sort of public image-making and does not necessarily imply serious factual connection between Japanese and chosen archaeological cultures, which would be supported by serious and detailed research.
