The situation mentioned in the name of the topic is extremely difficult, however, numerous genetic models of “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago",“Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” provided the framework to solve it
In Jager, 2015 (“Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment Gerhard Jäger”), the Japanese language clustered with a linguistic cluster, comprising:
[1] Kusunda, a language isolate from Nepal;
[2] Shompen, a language, which is considered a language isolate by some linguists or an Austroasiatic language by other linguists (the Shompens live on the Nicobar Islands, interacting with Austroasiatics). The prominent mtDNA of Shompen population is mtDNA R12, and an affinity to mtDNA R12 was pointed at in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” for mtDNAs, which are shared by other populations with the Kusunda population, making mtDNA R12 affinity one of tracer dyes for the observed Shompen-Kusunda linguistic commonalities.
In Jager, 2016 (“"Inferring the world tree of languages from word lists"”), the Japanese language clustered with a cluster, comprising:
[1] Shompen, the mentioned language, which is considered a language isolate by some linguists or an Austroasiatic language by other linguists;
[2] Munichi, a died-out Native American language isolate from Peru, which is interestingly depicted as a closer relative to Shompen than to the Japanese in Jager, 2016.
In Jager, 2017 (“From words to features to trees: Computing a world tree of languages from word lists”) Japanese-Munichi-Totonac cluster as a whole clustered with Native American Algic languages, but the Korean language also clustered with Algic languages. It should be briefly explained that Koreans have C2-F1067 haplogroup and O1b2 haplogroup. C2-F1067 living in North China, Korea and likely also in Palaeolithic Japan, is thought to be a maker of microblades in the Palaeolithic. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” pointed that the ancestry of C2-F1067 populations associated with the region of Shandong, where the Fenghuangling culture (producing wedge-shaped microblades) flourished in the Palaeolithic (later being replaced by small flake tool and middle flake tool makers after the Last Glacial Maximum) was a kind of C2-F1067 populations’ ancestry which was only contributed to Native Americans and their yDNA C2-F1067 branches likely did not survive, while the ancestry of C2-F1067 populations from the Inner Mongolia region is responsible for distributing to both Native Americans and Western Eurasian populations, which means that it followed (as one of the routes in the Palaeolithic) a route leading to Xinjiang, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, from where such an ancestry could reach the territory of India and Indochina, where mtDNA M4’67 and M18 was distributing, and later mtDNA M18 members migrated to Southeast Asia, which should explain the affinity between Native American Algic speakers and speakers of languages in the regions bordering Southeast Asia in Jager, 2017. Thus, yDNA C2-F1067 population, which settled in Korea and Inner Mongolia, was a descendant of migrating microblade makers and should explain the linguistic similarities between the Korean language and Algic Native American languages as well as some dwellers of Southeast Asia in Jager, 2017. Interestingly, there is two other hypotheses, connecting Korean and Nivkh, Nivkh and Algic. Thus, it is possible that the Korean-related yDNA C2-F1067 microblade making population was a mediator: it contributed some ancestry to Native Americans, (influencing the Native American-related mtDNA A2 population in the Palaeolithic), such as ancestors of Algic populations and it contributed some ancestry to the Nivkh people; thus, the Algic similarity of the Nivkh should be considered the result of the ancient Palaeolithic level influence on the Nivkh people from Korea, but not vice versa (that is, not by “a Nivkh substratum in the Korean language hypothesis”).Quote:
It should be noted that the Japanese scientists did not put so much effort to explain the Japanese-Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda affinity (despite showing that one Kusunda representative may participate in a cline with some Native Americans in “Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations”), but they put a lot of effort in claiming the main East Asian-Southeast Asian Siouan-Sino-Tibetan-Hmong-Mien-Austroasiatic-Austronesian-Tai-Kadai cluster from Jager, 2016 (related to to ca. 1 600 000 000 people in East Asia and ca. 700 000 000 people in Southeast Asia), with which Japanese-Shompen-Munichi also clustered as one of the branches of this East Asian/Southeast Asian macrocluster. For example, in “Nuclear DNA Analysis of Human Bones Excavated at Inome Cave Site, Izumo-shi, Shimane Pref.” the Japanese geneticists reconstructed the place of initial origin for ancestors of 2 medieval O1b2-47z Japanese between an isolated Vietnamese and isolated Cambodian, and their Vietnamese-Cambodian "ancestral cline" pierced the body of the cline of the whole East Asia and Southeast Asia, as if all East Asian and Southeast Asian populations had originated from some O1b-related ancestors of the Japanese. Unlike this, the mentioned Chinese articles showed that main clines of the populations, rich in yDNA O-M122 and rich in yDNA O1b1, run in parallel to each other, because both yDNA O-M122 and yDNA O1b1 contributed to the most numerous modern East Asian populations, while O1b2 of the Japanese and Koreans is exteremely rare in East Asia and Southeast Asia (except for Northeast Asian Japanese and Koreans). Also, for the main East Asian-Southeast Asian Siouan-Sino-Tibetan-Hmong-Mien-Austroasiatic-Austronesian-Tai-Kadai cluster from Jager, 2016, the ancient Longlin, to whom some of yDNA O-M175 ancestry allocated during the split of O-M175 ca. 36000 years ago, took the role of the contributor of the most deeply diverged O-M175 ancestry to populations, such as Kolyma-like ancestors the Siouan Native Americans, because the split within O-M175 ca.36000 years ago by far predated the final separation between the East Asians and the East Asian part of ancestors of Native Americans. Thus, the main East Asian-Southeast Asian-Native American Siouan-Sino-Tibetan-Hmong-Mien-Austroasiatic-Austronesian-Tai-Kadai cluster from Jager, 2016 in the genetic terms is united by ca. 36000- year-old yDNA O-M175 populations’ genetic ancestry, reaching Native Americans.
The above scenario leaves little room for the separate existence of O1b2 and C2-F1067 in Korea. Thus, populations of some of these bearers likely merged with each other, which is supported by yDNA C2 affinities of some yDNA O lineages experiencing the influence from populations from Korea in genetic models in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".
Thus, when Chinese geneticists in the above articles want to highlight the Japanese-related nature of some of ancient DNA influences, coming from the Korean peninsula in the broad sense, they additionally highlight the affinity of the relevant ancient samples to Japan Jomon, as mixed populations were already shown to exist in ancient DNA in some regions of Korea.
Thus, in Jager, 2017, Japanese clustered with Algic and Korean due to the Korean-related yDNA C2-F1067 population’s influence on the formation of the Japanese language (it is possible that some yDNA C2-F1067 were also Palaeolithic micoblade makers in Japan).
What needs to be considered from Jager, 2017, is the Japanese-Munichi-Totonac linguistic cluster, which as a whole clustered with the described Korean-Algic cluster. Japanese-Munichi-Totonac linguistic cluster also includes a wide variety of American languages from various American language families, which may mean the linguistic influence of a certain population on several selected members of differing American language families.
The Peruvian Munichi language isolate, a Japanese and Shompen relative from Jager, 2016, was already mentioned. Another more noticieable member is Totonac in Mexico.
https://i.ibb.co/zGHsxQD/30.png
https://i.ibb.co/hVb2syw/31.png
https://i.ibb.co/6WVRM4y/32.png
The explanation for Jager. 2015, 2016, 2017 “linguistic findings”, that is, relevant population movements, elucidated by the models of the mentioned Chinese genetic articles, is the following. During the Late Palaeolithic>Mesolithic, the ancient yDNA O1b2*, long before the birth of O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 common ancestor, happened to have the Japan Jomon genetic influence in this particular case, but migrated in the direction of the Southeast Chinese sea coastal Fujian province via the territory, bordering the localization of the Devil’s Cave ancient samples , which have some autosomal ancestry of yDNA O1b2-related population, despite being yDNA C2-M217 (the Devil’s Cave is not far from China-Russia-Korea borderland, where there are rivers not far from the sea, flowing in the southern direction). This yDNA O1b2*/Jomon ancestry got landed in the ancient 11356-11747-year-old yDNA O1b*-related Fujianese population of Qihe3. These having O1b*+O1b2-related autosomal ancestry Qihe3-related populations contributed some ancestry to the southern variant of yDNA N Boshan, residing within the reach of the Lower Yangtze River basin. Populations, ancestral to mtDNA M7b1a1a1, one of the rice farming lineages of the Japanese, were being contributed to Qihe-related populations via southern Boshan-related populations, in accordance with the models. It is consistent with the fact that the incipient form of rice farming appeared in the most northern Houli culture, where northern Boshan-related populations lived. The origin of the rice farming as such is considered to be the doing of O-M122 in the Middle Yangtze River Basin in China. The yDNA O1b2*-related ancestry in Qihe3 is different from the O1b2-related ancestry, which was found in the autosomal form in the Late Neolithic Xitoucun from Fujian (which is closer to the level of O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 migrations in terms of time) (thus, it is questionable, whether there could be any continuity of O1b2 from Qihe3 period to Xitoucun period in China, or rather the O1b2-related ancestry closer to the period of the O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 migrations, observed in Xitoucun, migrated as a different later wave from Korea; however, the newer population should have been assimilated by the older population in accordance with those models). In accordance with the models, Xitoucun-related populations had to obtain mtDNA M7b1a1a1 lineages from the earlier Qihe3-related populations, which obtained them via Boshan-related populations. Though their way of migration to Japan is not clear, mtDNA M7b1a1a1 should belong to the mainstream Japonic speakers of the Aoya Yayoi, reported in “DNA Analysis of Human Bones of the Late Yayoi Period Excavated at the Aoya-Kamijichi Site, Tottori, Tottori”
https://i.ibb.co/k0NFFpV/33.png
Most of the imported part of the Aoya Yayoi mtDNA can trace the initial origin in a variety of archaeological cultures in China, and their Chinese counterparts would cluster in the absolutely different positions on the PCA, distant from the modern Japanese, but similar to local cultures from the same region, thus, it is absolutely impossible that the wide variety of archaeological cultures in Neolithic China was ever populated by a uniform population, autosomally similar to the modern Japanese.
Those were the mainstream ”via southern Boshan-related” => “Qihe3-related” M7b1a1a1 lineages of the mainstream Japonic Yayoi rice farming speakers (as considered in China). It is considered in the above Chinese articles that M7b1a1a samples from China have an affinity to mtDNA N10 and N11 samples from China, thus, the mutation T10345C in M7b1a1a1 should be also connected to mtDNA N10 and mtDNA N11 in China.
Now let us return to the non-mainstream branch “To Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda-Totonac” from Jager 2015, 2016, 2017.
Having O1b*+O1b2-related autosomal ancestry, Mesolithic Qihe3 produced an offshoot, which started to distribute in the direction of ancient Baojianshan from the Guangxi province, whose ethnogenetic role was described in other posts. From the location of Baojianshan, this population migrated to the Mekong river basin of Vietnam, were they separated into a branch “To Shompen”, continuing to live in Southeast Asia, and a branch “To Kusunda”. A branch “To Kusunda” migrated along the Mekong River, reaching the Chamdo region of Tibet, where it is already not far from the current localization of modern Kusunda in Nepal. Most importantly, it is already very close to the Xiaonanshan civilization-Hongshan civilization-Boisman cline from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the meaning of which was described in another post:
"Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" stressed that the Baojianshan-related branch, which should include the ancestry of the discussed “To Kusunda” branch, is closer to ancient Boisman culture (Neolithic seafarers) relative to Devil’s Cave specimens. Taking into account that Qihe3 and Baojianshan have at least some Devil’s Cave related ancestry, the closeness to Boisman relative to the Devil’s Cave is only possible, if members of the discussed “To Kusunda” population joined the populations migrating along the route, formed by the Xiaonanshan civilization-Hongshan civilization-Boisman cline of populations, which should have been an important cultural group of populations, and some of Kusunda-related individuals reached the yDNA C2-M217-rich Boisman culture in Northeast Asia, and these Boisman Neolithic seafarers distributed their descendants, their languages, their new relatives, acquired in Northeast Asia, to America, were they might have turned into a cultural force, which influenced the formation of Munichi and Totonac societies as well as other mentioned relevant Native American groups, explaining Japanese-Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda-Totonac clusters in Jager,2015,2016,2017: escort of “language of O1b2” in such a beautiful way. This would be in line with the findings of “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago",“Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.Quote:
According to “mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization” funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the most ancient of their studied Sumerian-related specimens TQ 28F 112 (Early Bronze Age, 2650-2450 BC) belonged to the basal mtDNA M49.
It is already much later than dispersals of the so-called “Xiaonanshan civilization”-related populations, the first constructors of stone monuments in Northeast China since Late Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic (https://m.fx361.com/news/2021/0406/8062142.html http://www.soolun.net/periodical/5aa...eff10bfe2.html), who were influenced by “Yangtze River basin”-related populations, who were in turn influenced by the “Yellow River basin”-related populations in accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.
Nonetheless, the degree of commonalities, observed by Chinese researchers, can be higher or lower, depending on a temporal stratum, during which this or that population may be presumed to be developing.
The “Northeast Chinese continental Jomon yDNA D-M64-related”+“AR7.3K_outlier yDNA N1c Zuojiashan-related”+“ “Sino-Tibetan component of the Hongshan culture”-related” cline from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” reaches the Tibetic Shannan specimens, who can contain mtDNA haplogroups sharing mutations with mtDNA M49 in accordance with “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, and the earlier in time “Xiaonanshan civilization-related” cline, whose members include 33000-year-old Neolithic_Iran-like Amur33K component, also quite closely approached the Tibetic Shannan specimens in the same article. Tibetic Shannan is already bordering Tibetic Nyingchi, which is connected to the territory of Myanmar (Burma) via the Salween River.
According to “Ancient inland human dispersals from Myanmar into interior East Asia since the Late Pleistocene”, “among the basal lineages in Myanmar, haplogroups M49, M72, M83, M55, M90, M91, M54, M84 and M24 show restricted distribution and high diversity in Myanmar and its surrounding areas, such as northeast India, northern Thailand, northern Laos and southwestern China (Figs. 2, ,33 and Supplementary Fig. S3 online), suggesting their origin and differentiation in situ.”
Similarly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” points to cases of basal mtDNA M49, likely related to the local substratum of Tibeto-Burman groups, in the Burmese Irrawaddy River basin.
Interestingly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” also points that, along with mtDNA M49, one of the mentioned Irrawaddy Tibeto-Burman populations contains mtDNA M30c as well as mtDNA M1’20’51 with mutation connected to some other branches of mtDNA M30. It means that there was a local center of mtDNA M30 dispersal from the Irrawaddy River basin in Myanmar (Burma). mtDNA M30c popped up in post-‘Indus Valley civilization’ Indo-European-led Gandhara (the Swat Valley). Nevertheless, much more cases of mtDNA M30 from the inland Indian populations (including non-Indo-European ones) along the route from Myanmar to Northeast India, where ancient Magadha later developed, and farther to the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan was reported by “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. However, one case of mtDNA M30 from Jenu Kuruba gatherers of honey (which was a popular product in the Near East), living not to far from the Indian sea coast along the route used by the Indus Valley Civilization seafarers to connect the territory of the Indus Valley and the territory of Myanmar, was reported in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. It means that some of mtDNA M30 bearers might have bordered the Indus Valley civilization ships and might have been brought as non-Indo-Europeans to both heartland of the Indus Valley civilization and to Mesopotamian Sumer (as a part of Sumer-Meluhha (Indus Valley civilization) contacts). Nevertheless, mtDNA M30 as a whole is a relative of mtDNA M4’67, which is often found in Onge-related populations as well as in aboriginal Indian AASI populations, so mtDNA M30 is one of the lineages, which fit the description of being a Hoabinhian/AASI-related lineage, which had been influenced by much more developed Neolithic Baojianshan from China and was being distributed by land as far as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (according to “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”), forming a certain hypothetical link between the Sino-Tibetan language bearers and the populations, influencing the formation of the Caucasians (by the way, it is speculated by some western researchers that the Hurro-Urartian languages should be included in the list of languages alledgedly sharing some connections with Sino-Tibetan speakers).
Such an mtDNA lineage as mtDNA M49, which is found in Myanmar (Burma), interacted with Hongshan-affiliated populations, who reached Tibet, and was reported in Sumer-related ancient DNA, might have taken a somewhat similar sea voyage route as the case of mtDNA M30, described above, might have done (the territory of Myanmar having an independent contact with the Indus Valley civilization). It is supported by the fact that “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” found connections between much older Myanmar-specific haplogroups and much younger haplogroups reported from populations deriving from the current region of “Sumerian Dilmun” localization, while Dilmun was considered a homeland of at least some of ancient Sumerian gods. The chosen current localization of the part of Dilmun on the Bahrain sea island does not well reflect the achievements of the Sumerian civilization, which may be influenced by the fact that western researchers, such as an American researcher Samuel Noah Kramer, consider the Sumerians a population migrating to Mesopotamia and acquiring the achievements of the local population, which had lived in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians. However, Kramer’s view of a mountainous component of the Sumerian ethnogenesis (quote: “in Kramer’s reconstruction Mesopotamia was first settled by immigrants from Iran who had painted their pottery. Somewhat later they mixed with the Semites who came from the west. Both ethnic groups created a civilisation, which expanded and eventually came into contact with early Sumerians, the nomadic tribes from Transcaucasia or Transcaspia”) matches the CHG-like populations, while Kramer’s view cannot account for populations arriving by sea, whose “Sumerian Dilmun Paradise” was not even universally accepted by all Sumerian-speaking populations. The search for a more precise localization of an inspiration for the Sumerian Dilmun continues.
The archaeology of Northeast India, to which Myanmar-related populations migrated and which used to be a non-Indo-Aryan stronghold in the distant past, is still obscure. Similarly, the compilation of results of archaeological research in Myanmar is still in its infancy as well.
According to the Indologist Johannes Bronkhorst (the author of “Greater Magadha”), even during the period of 150 year befire Christ (150 BC), the grammarian Patanjali did not include the territory ofMagadha located in Northeast India (adjacent to the sea), into “the land of the Aryas”. However, according to Johannes Bronkhorst, it does not mean that there were no Aryans in Northeast India, but it means that there was no systematic presence of Brahmanism in Northeast India, whereas Brahmanism originated basing on the Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans. Therefore, Johannes Bronkhorst notes the importance of Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika for the rulers of Magadha and early rulers of the Maurya Empire, based in Magadha. It is believed that Shakyamuni Buddha taught in Magadha.
Johannes Bronkhorst acknowledges that the design of the Buddhist stupa (“a hemispherical structure containing relics that is used as a place of meditation”) is rooted in the ancient architecture of Magadha. However, the early Buddhist temples in Magadha also contained a tower in the shape of a stepped truncated pyramid. The origin of such a tower in the shape of a stepped truncated pyramid in Buddhist temples is considered to be unclear. No pyramids and no truncated pyramids was observed in the architecture of the Indus Valley civilization, the western neighbor of the Northeast Indian territory, where Magadha later developed, despite the fact that the Indus Valley civilization was in constant contact with ziggurat-building Near Eastern populations.
However, there was also exchange between the mtDNA M49-related population (migrating to the territory of future Magadha from Myanmar) and the Hongshan-affiliated population, mentioned in the beginning of this text, which reached the Tibetic territories adjacent to Myanmar, according to “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. On the territory of China, the first stone cairns were reported from the “Xiaonanshan civilization” (Early Neolithic, rooted in stone monuments reaching the Late Palaeolithic period). More importantly for the origin of “the stepped truncated pyramid” as an element of temple architecture, the development of “the stepped truncated pyramid” in connection to gradual development of the spiritual culture can be traced basing on the Hongshan culture. Indeed, simple stone platforms for civil construction were very ancient in this culture and its earlier relatives. As Chinese archaeologists mention, the three-storeyed stone altar of the Hongshan culture (the most important being related to the Hongshan Niuheliang Temple) was developing between 6000 and 5500 years ago (each storey of the altar alluded to the geometric shape of a symbol, which was accepted as denoting a certain natural or supernatural phenomenon). The three-storeyed truncated pyramid, topped with a temple (the most complete such a pyramid with each storey having smaller dimensions than the previous storey was found one kilometer north of Sijiazi Township in the Aohan Banner, where the Hongshan culture was spread) was developing between 5500 and 5000 years ago. The Nasitai regional center site of the Hongshan culture (roughly contemporaneous to the Niuheliang site and having a scope, which is comparable to the Niuheliang site, but the complete excavation was not finished yet) produced a stone statue of a kneeling/praying man, who had a head, to which a three-storeyed head decoration was tied, signifying an individual spiritual role of the three-storeyed concept.
If similar “stone-made stepped pyramids” from other contemporaneous 5500-5000-year-old Neolithic cultures in China are not reported, then it can be considered that the gradually developing in situ Hongshan concept of a three-stroyed truncated pyramid building, reported by Chinese archaeologists, gave inspiration to other ancient stepped pyramid-shaped constructions in China and adjacent territories (the highest 4300-year-old one reported so far in China being 70 meters high, sporadically decorated with stone carvings).
