Alexander Vovin: A linguistic contact between Tai-Kadai language family and Japonic language family

[Oasis]

- the O-MF241901+ man could be Hmu
In the meantime, a second member has been added to O-MF241901: a certain Mr. Li (李), Yi-zu from Qianxi, Bijie, Guizhou.

The previously registered member, Mr. Liu (刘), Miao-zu is now indicated to be more precisely from Rongjiang County, Qiandongnan Miao & Dong Autonomous Prefecture, Guizhou. So, yes, he quite possibly may be a Hmu person.

The TMRCA of O-MF241901 is currently estimated to be 1,360 ybp.

An overwhelming majority (484/512 = 94.53%) of members of O-N5 in 23mofang's database have been assigned to the O-F15848 subclade, whose TMRCA is currently estimated to be 2,820 ybp.

O-Y37855 Y-DNA among various populations (O-Y37855 [TMRCA 9200 ybp] is a superclade of O-N5)
36/329 = 10.94% Miao-zu (23mofang; 14/329 = 4.26% have been classified under O-N5 > O-F15848 > O-F22246 > O-F16501, 8/329 = 2.43% have been classified under O-N5 > O-F15848 > O-F22246(xF16501), 13/329 = 3.95% have been classified under O-N5(xF22246), and 1/329 = 0.30% has been classified under O-Y37855(xN5).)
14/594 = 2.36% Tujia-zu (23mofang)
18/801 = 2.25% O-Y37861 [TMRCA 10520 ybp] Zhuang (23mofang; O-Y37861 is a superclade of O-Y37855; 8/801 = 1.00% of these Zhuang have been confirmed to belong to O-Y37861 > O-Y37855 > O-FGC71370, which is immediately upstream of O-N5.)
3/175 = 1.7% Menggu-zu (Guang-Lin He et al. 2022) [1/10 Heilongjiang, 1/12 Hinggan League, 1/22 Chifeng]
3/277 = 1.1% Yi-zu (23mofang; all three of these individuals are from Yunnan; one other Yi individual from Yunnan has been classified under O-Y37861(xY37855).)
9/2553 = 0.35% Hui-zu (23mofang; only three of these nine individuals have been confirmed to belong to a subclade of O-N5, with one of those having been confirmed as far as O-F22246.)
5/1521 = 0.33% Menggu-zu (23mofang; only one of these five individuals has been confirmed to belong to a subclade of O-N5 [O-F15848 > O-F22246 > O-F16501, to be precise].)
9/2938 = 0.31% Man-zu (23mofang; only one of these nine individuals has been confirmed to belong to a subclade of O-N5 [O-F15848 > O-F22246, to be precise].)
0/671 Uyghur (23mofang)

However, we already know from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" that a more basal ancient sample Dushan (yDNA O-M7 ancestral to yDNA O-Y37855>O-N5) interacted with yDNA N-M231 Boshan-related population and contributed some ancestry to them. This does not mean that the affected yDNA N-M231 Boshan-related population could not contribute some of their ancestry and linguistic features to the very nearest yDNA O-M7 Dushan-like population, which contributed ancestry to them. At least the Boshan-like contribution to some Dushan-related Hmong/Miao-related ancients was discovered in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Judging by the approach of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it is more likely that Boshan-Dushan interaction was not direct because of the distance, but was instead mediated by some yDNA F* population, whose yDNA F* bearers were generously reported from Japan instead of yDNA N-M231. As for mtDNA M7b2, which seems to be a rice-farmer-related lineage important for Japonic-speaking Ryukyuans in Tanaka et al, 2004, this M7b2 was placed to Tai-Kadai (Kra-Dai) speakers in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. However, one should bear in mind that mtDNA M7b2 in China shares lots of mutations with different sorts of Western Eurasians, according to the Chinese data. Then the yDNA F-related population, which admixed with Boshan and Dushan populations, should interact with possibly Japonic Ryukyuan-related mtDNA M7b2-rich population which also got included into Tai-Kadai speakers. It is a way for possibly Japonic Ryukyuan-related mtDNA M7b2-rich population to obtain linguistic features found in yDNA O-M7 Dushan-like populations and yDNA N-M231 Boshan-like populations.

UPDATE0 As was already mentioned, yDNA C2-M217-related and yDNA Q-related ancestries were likely to unite in the ancient 19000-year-old AR19K sample in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. “Three major lineages of Asian Y chromosomes: implications for the peopling of east and southeast Asia” (2002), "Genetic origins of the Ainu inferred from combined DNA analyses
of maternal and paternal lineages" (2004), that is, Japanese genetic articles of the early 2000s placed an “Uzbekistan Jew”-related Western Eurasian lineage in the Kyushu island of Japan and yDNa Q-related lineage was placed to the Ryukyuans, as if it were the Ryukyuans that should have been blamed for Western Eurasian elements in the Japanese as a sort of the outlier population. In “Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes” American authors appeared and slightly reshaped the picture: it was hinted by the tiny reduction in the “counting of humans” percentage that non-East Asian (possibly Near East-related) lineages in Japan may harbor admixture from archaic humans, thus, they probably should not be considered to be related to ancestral Near Eastern populations. It was shown that two cases of C2-M217 in Japan harbor some admixture related to non-Japanese lineages (0,1%), likely Near Eastern; thus, this sort of admixture may indicate the Western Eurasian influence on “Altaic” populations. However, the same selection of Ryukyuans remained in the American-influenced article, thus, the Rykyuans could still be blamed for being the source of yDNA Q in the Japanese. However, the union of yDNA C2-M217-related and yDNA Q-related ancestries in the ancient 19000-year-old AR19K sample (who clustered the closest to the Japanese) in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” possibly shows that yDNA Q lineage came to the Ryukyuans from the mainland Japanese, and a Western Eurasian-influenced C2-M217 lineage also appeared from the population related to the mainland Japanese. As there was a certain degree of genetic isolation between the Ryukyuans and the Japanese, one may suppose that this genetic difference between two populations has lasted since the Neolithic period. The Ryukyuan M7b2-rich population might have been the initial rice farmers to a certain degree related to the Tai-Kadai, while the Western Eurasian influenced population was ancestral to the mainland Japanese and provided the Western Eurasian influence detected in more East Asian-related mtDNA M7b2-rich Ryukyuans. This vision is approaching from “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".

D4a3a*-15412C:
- Shandong: 4/1844=0,22%
- Shaanxi: 1/562=0,178%


D4a3a1*-3866T (no information about the 228 locus as for the Han Chinese samples of Li et al. 2019):
- Shandong: 2/1844=0,108%

D4a3a1a-13401C
- Shandong: 2/1844=0,108%

However, the D4a3 lineage was not observed in Neolithic Shandong (along with some other northern-related lineages which were also absent) which is already quite well studied (“Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”), and it is relevant for the reconstruction of ethnogenetic processes as well. In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” , the related mtDNA D4a5 lineage first appeared in Yangshao Qingtai_Middle Neolithic and was only found in Shandong Late Neolithic. In case of other lineages, which were absent in Shandong Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic, were present in Yangshao Qingtai Middle Neolithic, but appeared in Shandong Late Neolithic, the only conclusion to be drawn is the diffusion of such lineages from Qingtai to Shandong. Thus, the same conclusion should be drawn for mtDNA D4a5 lineage which is also likely to have come to Shandong from Qingtai in the Late Neolithic.


UPDATE yDNA N-L666 branch shares an L666 mutations with the deep Indian yDNA K2a-Y28299 branch, and yDNA N-M231 uniparental is modeled using 0,2% of this deep yDNA K2a*-related ancestry (which was very widely distributed in the world) in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The shared ancient ancestry of the deep Palaeolithic level explains the shared mutations with other Palaeolithic yDNA branches.

[Oasis]

The earliest attested genealogical split within haplogroup O-M117, that between O-M133 and O-M117(xM133), is estimated to have occurred approximately 12,600 [95% CI 11,300 <-> 14,000] ybp.[4] However, members of O-M117(xM133) are quite rare among extant humans. O-M117(xM133) has been observed in 2.2% (1/46) of the CHB (Han Chinese in Beijing, China) sample of the 1000 Genomes Project.[4] In commercial testing, O-MF1380 or O-CTS4960, which belongs to O-M117(xM133), has been found in China (Beijing, Henan, Shandong, Jiangsu, Anhui, Chongqing, Guangdong), Singapore, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.[4][5]

It is already impossible to think that yDNA D-M174 population could have influenced yDNA O-M117 population.

“Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” established that 0,1% of yDNA D-M174 of the “Himalayan-related” Zongri4.5k_outlier2 can be better modeled using 0,1% of the yDNA K2b of the Tianyuan specimen. However, this 0,1% can be slightly worse modeled using 0,1% of yDNA N-M231 of Shandong_EN (likely from this ancient 0,2% DNA of yDNA K2a* discovered in the N-M231 uniparental by “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”). It is known that Tianyuan is the only ancient Basal East Asian to be influenced by BachoKiro, according to “Insights into human history from the first decade of ancient human genomics”, so BachoKiro influence on Tianyuan may be a reason why the model prefers 0,1% Tianyuan yDNA over 0,1% yDNA N-M231 for 0,1% of yDNA D-M174 in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. Ancient BachoKiro IUP also contained specimens with yDNA F. The origin of the IUP culture is in the Near East. There are also other genetic clues that BachoKiro-related populations got to Africa: yDNA F*/mtDNA M* BachoKiro was shown to be related to the Hoabinhian-related Australasians in "Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria" , and it is known from McColl et al, 2018, that Hoabinhian-related populations contributed some ancestry to Africans.

UPDATE

a combination which is pretty similar to the genomic affinities of Jōmon specimens, who also appear like some sort of roughly equal mix of pre-proto-Mongol-Tungus and pre-proto-Austronesians, though that may not necessarily reflect their actual population history

No, we should not confuse with continental East Asians this part of undivided Jomon ancestry, which separated prior to the split of Native Americans.
The Japanese Gakuhari et al, 2020 also drew his desirable scheme of population separations in Eastern Eurasia by hand.
Gakuhari’s Native American-Siberian branch would correspond to the (Native American)Ngari2.3K-related/ branch on the Chinese model below from “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. Thus all other branches of the Chinese model such as Sino-Tibetan/Sinitic-related Lajia4K-Shimao_LN branch, yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN-related branch, AR19K branch, Yumin branch correspond to Gakuhari’s East Asian branch. mtDNA D4*/D4 populations which separated to Yangshao, Yumin, Insular Northeast Asia, Shandong_EN/Tai-Kadai which will be discussed below, all separated within East Asians.




The small mtDNA D4*-related connection of yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN to mtDNA D4*-related ancestry contained in Yumin is not an obstacle, even if the American scientists might indirectly connected the whole Yumin ancestry to Dene-Yeniseians. Here is the reason.

In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it was shown that Yumin, the Yangshao culture, Japan Jomon all have a connection to ancient mtDNA D4*, such as the one related to Oakaie1 of Myanmar, and this common mtDNA D4*-related ancestry is highlighted as the Japan Jomon component in the Admixture model of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The Japanese article “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations” tried to differentiate the “true” Jomon ancestry in Japan and this ancient ancestry on the continent. However, “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” showed that the only difference should appear because of the presence of “archaic” AMH “ghost” population on the Japanese islands, which means that ancient mtDNA D4* population in Japan Jomon, Sino-Tibetan Yangshao and Yumin had the same origin.

Actually mtDNA D4* is distributed as far as the Near East. If mtDNA D4 population became mainstream in China and got crystalized into the bearers of Sino-Tibetan languages in China, then in other regions mtDNA D4*-related population could participate in the formation of languages with some Eurasiatic features, such as the Japanese language. Therefore, while mtDNA D4* ancestries of Sino-Tibetan Yangshao, Japan Jomon and Yumin were similar, their participation could have been connected to the formation of separate language families, though there is a certain degree of “lexical” relatedness between Sino-Tibetan and Eurasiatic languages, including Japanese, one of the reasons for these similarities might be related to common archaisms, preserved by mtDNA D4*-related populations.

In fact, Chinese data show that, though Yumin and Shandong_EN might share a small connection based on mtDNA D4*-related populations’ component, the mtDNA D4* population, which contributed to Shandong Bianbian, were also distributing to various peoples such as Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatics. mtDNA D4* amounts to 18% of the Japanese mtDNA pool, according to Tanaka et al, 2004, and at least some of Japanese D4* branches are shared with those whose ancestry influenced Shandong Bianbian and “Yangtzean” yDNA N-M231-related populations as well as Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatics, according to the Chinese data, though there is also a small presence of such mtDNA D4* branches in Northern East Asians.

The common Shandong_EN-AR19K ancestry of mtDNA G2 population contributing to mtDNA Z4 population distributing to Austronesians exists, according to the Chinese data. In fact, Austronesian languages share some minor connections to Eurasiatic language (for example, “Focus case outside of Austronesian: An analysis of Kolyma Yukaghir” https://proceedings.hpsg.xyz/article/view/818 Read this article to compare with the situation in the Japanese language). However, there are no cases of mtDNA Z4 among Shandong_EN and Shandong_MN samples, thus, the influence was unidirectional from mtDNA G2 populations to mtDNA Z4 populations. In the international linguistic work, the Korean language (whose bearers were assigned mtDNA G1 in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”) has a closer linguistic connection to the language of mtDNA G1b-related Yukaghir people, while the Japanese has a more remote connection to the Yukaghir. The Japanese were assigned mtDNA G2 in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. However, it should not be thought that the formation of bearers of these language families was only limited to mtDNA G1/G2 populations. In fact, mtDNA G is common in some parts of Northern China, where there is no Koreanic and Japonic speakers. Languages spoken by ancient mtDNA G bearers could have only added some linguistic features to each of language families.

Y-chromosome analysis of Bronze Age populations from the territory of present-day Poland
The Bronze Age in the area of what in the present-day makes Poland lasted for more than a dozen centuries (2300-700 BC). At that time, this territory was inhabited by various groups of different origins, as well as of different levels of economic and social development. Finally, around 1350 BC, the Lusatian culture emerged amidst this heterogeneous cultural background. Some researchers in the past associate the people of the Lusatian culture with the Proto-Slavs.The aim of this study was to determine the origin and genetic structure of male lineages from the Mierzanowice culture (2300-1600 BC), the Trzciniec culture (1900-1000 BC) and the Lusatian culture (1350-400 BC), which occupied the territory of the present-day Poland using the Y-chromosome-wide SNPs. The analysis of the Y chromosome variation made it possible to test for the continuity of settlement in the mentioned area throughout the Bronze Age and for a possibility of a connection between the Lusatian culture and the younger Iron Age populations. The analysed material consisted of skeletal fragments collected from 46 Bronze Age individuals. The samples with more than 1% of endogenous DNA, after sex determination, were subjected to targeted enrichment with a custom in-house-designed panel of 10k Y-chromosome SNPs and/or with myBaits Expert Human Affinities Prime Plus. The Y-chromosome haplogroup was determined for 25 individuals. Most of the Bronze Age individuals belonged to R1a haplogroup subclades. There were also individuals belonging to haplogroup I2a and O2a-L465. The lack of these Y-chromosome lines identified in the younger Iron Age samples suggests at least some level of discontinuity with the Bronze Age populations. The research is part of the project „Genetic history of Poles”
(2018/31/B/HS3/01464) financed by the National Science Centre, Poland.

Recently it was shown in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” that Palaeolithic Central European samples after 19000 years ago yielded an ancestry which was coloured either as Ancient Southern East Asian (ASEA), or as Ancient Northern East Asian (ANEA) or as Ancient East Asian (ASEA).

In China, the ancient Baojianshan sample is representative of these three ancestries (a part of these ancestries went to Baojianshan and a part of these ancestries reached Western Eurasia).

The sample to represent small traces of these ancestries in Europe is Mesolithic Loschbour. He belonged to yDNA I2a and mtDNA U5b1a which has a mutation T15097C. In China, the T15097C mutation can be observed in basal mtDNA B5b*. In “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” by Melinda Yang it was shown that ancient yDNA N1-Z4762 sample Shandong Bianbian having mtDNA B5b2 had a genetic connection to Loschbour relative to Goyet Q116-1 specimen in Belgium. However, it is unlikely that yDNA N1-Z4762 sample Shandong Bianbian relatives came to Europe during the Mesolithic period. It is more likely that the yDNA N2-Y6503 representatives could do this.

The most interesting ancestry is Ancient Southern East Asian (ASEA). On the graph (https://i.ibb.co/xHGk5dP/13.png) the necessary ancestry for yDNA O2a-L465 (O-M122) is represented by the Dushan specimen (while Liangdao2 represents O1a-M119-related ancestry and Qihe3 represents O1b-M268-related ancestry), and this ancestry is contributed to Baojianshan, thus, it could have reached Europe. O2a-M134 branch is shared by Chinese and Tibetan speakers, while O2a-L465 separated from them well before their split from each other, so it is not impossible that some O2a-L465 contributed to Basque-Caucasians, while some O2a-L465 contributed to other nationalities in China which were also related to Sino-Tibetans (Chinese and Tibetan speakers). The types of populations contributing to Dushan on this graph had their own specific mtDNA lineages.



There are such articles as “Austronesian and Dene-Basque (Dene-Caucasian)” or even

https://otsuma.repo.nii.ac.jp/record...0009126379.pdf

“Japanese and Basque Language Similarities”


Even if Americans assigned some Yumin-related ancestry to Dene-Yeniseians in their article, it would not be correct to think that ancient yDNA N-M231 Shandong Bianbian was a “Dene-Basque”…His mtDNA D4* connection to Yumin and mtDNA G2 connection to AR19K do not imply being a “Dene-Basque”, as was explained above



It is more likely that, apart from “Sino-Tibetan-Dene-Basque similarities” in combination with “Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian similarities”, the connection between “Dene-Basque” and Austronesians, Basque and Japanese should be mediated by languages spoken by mtDNA Z-rich populations.



The ancestry, the “male” part of which (34%) is stemming from the common ancestral node with yDNA O-M122 Dushan (the “male” part 49%), is separating into:
[1] Ancestry prior to the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians which goes to Baojianshan and is likely related to East Asian-like ancestry in some ancient Europeans, potential “Basque-Caucasians”. This ancestry in Baojianshan acquires 8% likely related to mtDNA Z (mtDNA Z3) (because mtDNA M7c1b2b sample sharing a mutation with mtDNA Z3 is modeled in the same Chinese article as deriving 8% from the northern source such as Devil’s Gate). This ancestry prior to separation of SEA and NEA came from yDNA O-M122-related population, but 8% mtDNA Z-related did not. As this 8% mtDNA Z-related are not in yDNA N1-Z4762 Boshan(Bianbian-related) it is likely that yDNA N2-Y6503 bearer (who separated from yDNA N1-Z4762 Shandong_EN 25000 years ago) contacted mtDNA Z3-related poplation close to the period of the initial separation of mtDNA Z branches slightly more than 20000 years ago. After that yDNA N2-Y6503 bearers having mtDNA Z3 ancestry mixed with the Baojianshan-related yDNA O-M122-related population having ancestry prior to separation of SEA and NEA and this O-M122-related Baojianshan people acquired 8% of mtDNA Z3 ancestry, while yDNA N2-Y6503 people acquire basal mtDNA M75* from Baojianshan, which is observed on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which means that yDNA N2-Y6503 people later migrated to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau . The fact that there is no alien ancestry in the model except for 92% prior to the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians and 8% mtDNA Z3-related ancestry means that yDNA N2-Y6503 people already lived not far from the northern homeland of Baojianshan (from where Baojianshan-related distributed to southern Guangxi) and can also become a bearer of the similar non-separated SEA+NEA ancestry. The fact that there is no 8% of mtDNA Z3-related in yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN Boshan and in Qihe, Liangdao means that there was no this “Yeniseian-like Xiongnu”/Mongol Z3 lineage in the initial yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN population (to whom yDNA N-L729 was also connected) and mtDNA Z3 independently came to the coastal Shandong Beiqian Middle Neolithic (a settlement isolated from the inland Houli-related populations according to the Chinese article), which is consistent with the appearance of Transeurasian/”Altaic”-related Xiongnu-like populations in coastal Shandong according to Whitman.

[2] Northern East Asian ancestry which goes to yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN Boshan, a relative of yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN Bianbian. It is clearly seen in the model above that Shandong_EN-related do not have this Baojianshan-related “Dene-Basque” ancestry prior to the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians, and the same was independently supported by “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” by Melinda Yang, who however established the connection between Shandong_EN Bianbian and Loschbour. Thus, this connection might only be supported by two cases: if Loschobour really harbors some DNA from yDNA N2-Y6503 population which separated from yDNA N1-Y6503 Bianbian 25000 years ago, or if Loschobour really harbors some DNA from mtDNA B5b* population as mtDNA U5b1a of Loschbour has a mutation T15097C, which can be observed in basal mtDNA B5b* in China. mtDNA B5b came to yDNA N-M231 peoples from yDNA O-M175-related populations, and a basal mtDNA B5b* lineage would be old enough to be related to both yDNA N1-Z4762 and yDNA N2-Y6503. Indeed, cases of mtDNA B5b collected in China show that, unlike mtDNA B5a, its sister mtDNA B5b has cases which share numerous mutations with various mtDNA D4* lineages in China which would be expected in inland areas of Northwest China, which is not so for a more southern mtDNA B5a lineage, hence the placement of mtDNA B5b closer to Northwestern China in “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”. Apart from 25000-year-old connection to N2-Y6503 or B5b*, there can be no autosomal connection of Bianbian to Loschbour, as Bianbian did not have “Dene-Basque” ancestry prior to the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians, which ancient Baojianshan had.

[3] Actual “Southern East Asian ancestry” (but not the one which separated from East Asians prior to 36000 years ago) of Qihe and Liangdao.

It is clear from the above that yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN could hardly have 25000-year-old linguistic connection to Basque or “Dene-Basque”. Also, it is clear from the above model that Shandong_EN (Boshan) did not have at all any ancestry related to mtDNA Z which should have stemmed from the similar position as 8% of the mtDNA Z3-related ancestry to Baojianshan did.

So, taking into account that mtDNA Z3 related ancestry probably distributed to Western Eurasia (including Europe) along with yDNA O-M122-related ancestry of Baojianshan-related populations in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" and “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”, it is likely that, independently from yDNA O-M122-related ancestry, there was mtDNA Z connection between mtDNA Z4-influenced Austronesians and mtDNA Z3-influenced autosomally East Asian part of ancestors of “Basque-Caucasians” or “Dene-Basques”, and this connection might also be enhanced to the Japanese people, who have mtDNA Z4 and mtDNA Z3 (that is, a lineage “having become proto-Xiongnu” in East Asia) as well as unique Japanese branches of mtDNA Z2 and even mtDNA Z5, which is only found in Japan.

Thus, it is becoming clear that the most basal ancestry which connected “Dene-Yeniseian”,“Basque-Caucasian” and Sino-Tibetan was yDNA O-M122 ancestry separating prior to the split of Southern and Northern East Asians and going to Baojianshan, from where this ancestry proceeded to Western Eurasia in compliance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" and “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”

What is then “Yumin-related ancestries” separating from yDNA O-M122-rich ancient Sino-Tibetans ancestral to Han Chinese in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”? These were ancestries which later enriched connections between Sino-Tibetans and Dene-Yeniseians. In fact, according to linguistists, Yeniseian languages already even bear some similarities to Sinitic languages, that is, to Chinese, rather than to some abstract deep Palaeolithic “Sino-Caucasian”. Thus, the Japanese people should not search for “Basque” in Shandong_EN, but the Japanese people should search for Sinitic-like linguistic features at least in languages of yDNA O-M122-related populations included in Shandong_EN, but also they might search for some other linguistic features not alien to the Japanese in Shandong_EN-related languages.

[Oasis]

Major "southern" hgs only:
Q-M120

In “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, a Q-M242 sample likely related to deep yDNA Q-M242 lineages, including Q-L275 and Q-L472, showed an affinity to the territory of Bactria-Margiana in Uzbekistan. Thus, it may be an indication of the territory of the early differentiation of Q-M242 lineages.

As for yDNA Q-M120, its sample has the component maximized in Bedoiun B population in "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years". "Late Antiquity Syrians and Bedouin B are such exceptions to the general genetic pattern as they show an extremely high Neolithic Levant ancestry, which is higher than most neighbouring Middle Eastern groups." However, yDNA N-M231 ancient samples (including Shandong Xiaojingshan, Boshan, Bianbian and also including Zongri samples and also including WLR_BA yDNA N1c-related sample who is 100% East Asian-related at K=2, which implies that such sample had ancestries which contributed to non-East Asian populations) do not have this Q-M120-related Bedoiun B ancestry in "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years", that is, yDNA N-M231 ancient samples do not have this Q-M120-related ancestry.

As for the Yoruba-related populations, harbouring the Yoruba component, their Yoruba-like ancestry was observed in one of the samples of the Devil’s Cave population in "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years".

a combination which is pretty similar to the genomic affinities of Jōmon specimens, who also appear like some sort of roughly equal mix of pre-proto-Mongol-Tungus and pre-proto-Austronesians, though that may not necessarily reflect their actual population history

It is necessary to write more about this.
In Japanese Gakuhari et al, 2020, there exists yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian> yDNA K2b Tianyuan > Himalayan Kusunda> Native American cline, which was already discussed. In Chinese works it was shown that mtDNA R12 people influencing both Kusunda ancestors and Japan Jomon ancestors was behind the separation between yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian> yDNA K2b Tianyuan > Himalayan Kusunda> Native American cline and yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian> yDNA K2b Tianyuan > Himalayan Kusunda> Japan Jomon cline in the Japanese work of Gakuhari et al, 2020.

In Japanese Gakuhari et al, 2020, there exists yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian> yDNA K2b Tianyuan > Himalayan Kusunda> yDNA D-M174 Japan Jomon cline, and the ancient “Himalayan” case of yDNA O-M117 Chokhopani and one Himalayan Sherpa also belonged to this cline. One should bear in mind that in the international article "The Genomic Formation of Human Populations in East Asia", it was shown that the Chinese share a certain common genetic drift with Chokhopani, whereas the Japanese can be described as a mixture of Chokhopani-like Northern East Asian ancestry and Chokhopani-like Onge ancestry, but the Japanese do not share common genetic drift with the Chokhopani sample per se; thus, it is possible that the Japanese do not originate from Chokhopani ancestry, but instead originate from a different ancestry similar to Chokhopani. In the discussed Japanese work, the Chokhopani-Sherpa cluster develop into two clines:
[1] A cline that goes from Chokhopani-Sherpa to one of Devil’s Cave samples. In the Japanese work, this cline is not a direct continuation of yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian> yDNA K2b Tianyuan > yDNA D-M174 Japan Jomon cline, thus, it is possible that this cline developed basing on the ancestry distinct from yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian> yDNA K2b Tianyuan > yDNA D-M174 Japan Jomon cline. This “Chokhopani-Sherpa to one of Devil’s Cave samples” cline may correspond to (1) in “A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia”, the Palaeolithic migration to the future homeland of the Amur ancestry from ancient Himalayans harbouring ancestry prior to the split of Northern and Southern East Asians, this sort ancestry can be detected in the Devil’s Cave as well in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”. (2) In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” the later incarnation of this ancestry will be the ancestry which separated from yDNA D-M174 Yushu2.8K to Chamdo2.8K_1 and distributed to the Yellow River basin during the migration of the Rong tribes. This act is more likely to create a cline of modern individuals harbouring this ancestry, while such a new cline should indeed align on the PCA between the Chokhopani sample and an older incarnation of this ancestry as a minor component in the Devil’s Cave, located close to the Amur (Heilongjiang) River basin.

[2] The cline encompassing almost all East Asians including Chinese, Austronesians, Austroasiatics. If one adopted a point of view that the ancient Chokhopani person was a Proto-Japanese, one might think that the whole East Asia deviated from an ancient Proto-Japanese in the direction of some other genetic component (for example, the qpGraph model in the Japanese Gakuhari et al, in the officially published version, revealed “the separate from the Japanese” branching of the Chokhopani-related ancestry to the Austronesians). However, it was reminded that in the international article "The Genomic Formation of Human Populations in East Asia", it was shown that the Chinese share a certain common genetic drift with Chokhopani, whereas the Japanese can be described as a mixture of Chokhopani-like Northern East Asian ancestry and Chokhopani-like Onge ancestry, but the Japanese do not share common genetic drift with the Chokhopani sample per se; thus, it is possible that the Japanese do not originate from Chokhopani ancestry, but instead originate from a different ancestry similar to Chokhopani.

[3] The third cline which only consist of Chokhopani, one Himalayan Sherpa, one Japanese admixed with Koreans deviating in the direction of the most isolated Devil’s Cave sample, one Japanese admixed with the Chinese deviating in the direction of the Chinese, and, finally, the only “pureblood” Japanese whose only distant relatives are the Chokhopani and one Sherpa in the Japanese work. The relationship of this only "pureblood" Japanese should be explained. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the Chinese scientists came to the conclusion that the Himalayan populations are rich in yDNA C1-related ancestry, while yDNA C1a can also be found in Japan. So the Japanese-Sherpa connection may be explained by the ancestry of yDNA C1 populations which preserved in both Japanese and Himalayan Sherpa populations, but is absent in other East Asians. Interestingly, in the discussed Japanese work, the only “pureblood” Japanese is the only human to be considered the actual relative of the yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian=> yDNA K2b Tianyuan => Himalayan Kusunda=>yDNA D-M174 Japan Jomon cline which has a branching “To Native Americans” at the Himalayan Kusunda point. Probably in order to find out whether this cline with poor modern representation (one Himalayan Sherpa and one “pureblood” Japanese) might be considered ancestral to ca. 1 600 000 000 people in East Asia and ca. 700 000 000 people in Southeast Asia, the Chinese scientists tried to replicate this cline in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". It appeared that yDNA C1b Hoabinhian occupied the place of one Sherpa rich in yDNA C1-related ancestry. Unlike the mentioned Rong migration, it appeared that the actual cline between yDNA D-M174 Jomon and yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian, not so closely related to Tianyuan, encompassed some modern Burmese and ancient mtDNA D4*-related Burmese, as well as yDNA N-M231 Huanghe ancient sample predating the Rong and one more Late Neolithic Huanghe ancient sample (apparently they bore yDNA D-M174 ancestry predating the Rong, which means that some yDNA D-M174 members lived in the Huanghe and Yangtze river basins in the Neolithic). The modern Japanese people clustered between Jomon and other East Asians (as in scientific articles by other countries), or clustered between Jomon and yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian=> yDNA K2b Tianyuan part of the discussed cline. In China, only one Tungus from Northeast China clustered exactly on the approximation of this yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian=> yDNA K2b Tianyuan=> yDNA D-M174 Jomon cline, implying that this might have been Japanese admixture into Northeast Asians, and some “Japanese-admixed” Tungus-Manchu may align along the discussed cline if they migrate to Northern China during the historical period and mix with the local population. The mutation discovered in the mentioned Tungus individual is not found in archaic humans, but is extremely rare in anatomically modern humans, which means that the discussed cline cannot be considered directly ancestral to ca. 1 600 000 000 people in East Asia and ca. 700 000 000 people in Southeast Asia.

The findings of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" point that the mutation G16129A! is observed in numerous branches of mtDNA M1’20’51 (yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian-related) and numerous branches of mtDNA B4’5 (Tianyuan-related) as well as in other numerous lineages of East Asians, other Eurasians, Africans. Lineages with this mutation were ancestral to numerous humans.

Unlike this, despite being found in a few of mtDNA branches from the dawn of humanity, the mutation CCCCTCT8273d possibly uniting mtDNA M1’20’51 yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhians and mtDNA B4’5* of Tianyuans in the more narrow sense is observed in East Asia in minor lineages (apart from basal lineages such as B6, B4’5) such as the Japanese-related mtDNA D4b1b2, Himalayan Sherpa-related M62b1a and a Native American Mexican branch of mtDNA A2…

"southern" Vietnamese of Karafet et al. 2010 ("southern" according to a different team if I remember correctly):
n=30/70=42,9%
C-M217+: 3=10%
O-M119+, P203+: 4=13,3%
O-M95+, M111-: 5=16,7%
O-M95+, M111+: 14=46,7%
O-M7+: 4=16,7%

The indication of that sample's having been collected in "Southern Vietnam" is found in Table 1 of Jun-Dong He et al. (2012), "Patrilineal Perspective on the Austronesian Diffusion in Mainland Southeast Asia."


No. / Group / Population / Size / Language / Location / Y-SNP / Y-STR / Reference
5 / MSEA / Vietnam / 70 / Austro-Asiatic / Southern Vietnam / + / + / [27] $

You quoted a small fragment from gigantic posts which shows that some Southern Vietnamese Austroasiatics have yDNA C2-M217 (northern-related) as well as lineages O-M119, O-M95, O-M7 which may be expected to be found in the Lower Yangtze river basin from the rice-farming Majiabang culture, which the Japanese would want to see as “the Japanese culture” despite the fact that lineages such as O-M119, O-M95, O-M7 are quite rare in the Japanese, while the lineage as O1b2-P49>O1b2-47z (Para-Austroasiatic) is an yDNA O lineage observed in the Japanese most often.

You probably put “Southern Vietnam” in the parentheses (as if this O-M119, O-M95, O-M7 sample were not actually Vietnamese, but were initially members of speakers of a different language family, such as Japonic), because, as we know, the Japanese-American theory by Hirofumi Matsumura implies a mixed Siberian-East Asian origin for Austroasiatics. You (and perhaps even Hirofumi Matsumura as well) probably want to exploit this theory in the way that while “Austroasiatic” was caused by a northern lineage (such as C2-M217), other haplogroups, deprived of Austroasiatic affiliation, such as O-M119, O-M95, O-M7, might have been viewed as “Japonic”.

At the first sight, this view might seem to be supported by findings by western linguists that isolating languages were once spoken in Siberia (Austroasiatic Vietnamese is a language with the isolating grammar). Fortunately, the well-known "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”, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, fortunately, these well-known Chinese articles combined their efforts to prove the southern origin (that is, in China) of the linguistic feature such is “isolating grammar” of East Asian languages whose bearers are rich in yDNA O-M175.

There exist Native American Uto-Aztecan languages, whose bearers are rich in mtDNA B4b/B2 of East Asian origin. The Uto-Aztecan language family also includes some languages with isolating grammar, thus, it is not impossible to think that isolating grammar was characteristic of their proto-language. The mentioned Chinese articles showed that populations having migrated to Siberia, to whom isolating linguistic features were also attributed by western linguists, have the genetic connection to the East Asian part of Native American ancestry included in Uto-Aztecan speakers, but they do not have the Western Eurasian part of Native American ancestry included in Uto-Aztecan speakers. Moreover, according to these articles, it is possible to further connect this Uto-Aztecan-related ancestry to some Japanese rich in “Para-Austroasiatic” yDNA O1b2-P49 and having a stronger Native American affinity, and it is possible to further connect this this Uto-Aztecan-related ancestry to some Austroasiatics with deep yDNA O1b-related ancestry. Interestingly, Uto-Aztecan languages clustered with the Japanese language in the last Gerhard Jager’s article from year 2017. Thus, it is possible to think of the linguistic feature “isolating grammar” as the linguistic feature of yDNA O-M175-rich East Asian populations as ancient as the Last Glacial Maximum more than 20000 years ago, and some Native American-related populations such as Uto-Aztecans rich in mtDNA B4b/B2 of East Asian origin, partially preserved this linguistic feature, while remnants of Native Americans (possibly the populations retaining at least some O1b2-P49) brought this linguistic feature to Siberia along with Native American-related genetic drift. It is speculated that an earlier isolating stage may be reconstructed for the Japanese language, however, the existence of this feature during the Native American period makes it difficult to establish, how deeply Palaeolithic this stage might have been for the Pre-Proto-Japonic speakers.

This Uto-Aztecan-related yDNA O1b2-P49-related ancestry should be similar to the East Asian part of Native American ancestry in Admixture models, so this Uto-Aztecan-related yDNA O1b2-P49-related ancestry should not be confused with the newly discovered “Southeast Asian-like” ancestry which separated from other ancient East Asians more than 36000 years ago. As signs of “Papuan” C1b were reported from Northern Eurasia’s ancient DNA, it is more likely that coastal yDNA C1b-related populations might have brought such an ancestry to Siberia, especially when one takes into account archaeological findings of cobble tools in Siberia, which were also characteristic of deeply diverged populations in Southern China.

One should remember that the feature “N-M pronouns” was unlikely to be initial for yDNA O-M175 languages and appeared in Austroasiatic languages and Para-Austroasiatic-related languages (possibly including Japanese) under the influence of mtDNA M74-related populations:

According to the Japanese linguist Katsumi Matsumoto (“Japanese in the World’s Languages: a new perspective on the origin of the Japanese language”) the linguistic feature “N-M pronouns” was characteristic of Austroasiatic, the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language, thus, this “N-M pronouns” feature should have arisen in the languages of mtDNA B4b-related populations as a result of external influence of mtDNA M-related populations, which would also explain some similarities in mythology absent in other groups in East Asia ( “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” lists mtDNA M74b for Austroasiatic Khamu, Blang, Lawa, Mon, Nyahkur populations).

Thus, there is no need to think that speakers having yDNA C2-M217 brought any typical linguistic features of Austroasiatic languages from Siberia. Austroasiatic languages started to originate in China, and Austroasiatic O1b1 and Para-Austroasiatic O1b2 were initially speakers of isolating languages (unlike the agglutinating Japanese language today). This would be in accordance with "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”, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Thinking of Para-Austroasiatic yDNA O1b2-P49-related ancestry as of the ancestry related to Native Americans is consistent with placing Native American-related ancestry on the territory of the Japanese Archipelago in the previous article by Qiaomei Fu and Melinda Yang.

[Oasis]

Alexander Vovin
Conclusion
I must start with a general note, that Benedict’s idea that Japanese and Tai-K(r)adai are related (1989), should not be rejected out of hand, as I did twenty years ago (Vovin 1994), although I still disagree with Benedict that the relationship is genetic, as I think that although the realationship does exist, it is a contact one.
1) Given the regular correspondences on both segmental and supra-segmental levels between pJ and pTK, the relationship does not seem to be accidental.
2) It does not look like a genuine genetic relationship because of obvious distributional gaps, such as, e.g.:
2a) lack of ‘cognates’ in pronominal systems,
2b) conspicuous near-absence of words with B tones in Tai-K(r)adai comparisons.
3) This leaves us with a contact relationship, which must be:
3a) Quite old, because not too much remains,
3b) Quite intense, because borrowing includes some very basic vocabulary items.
4) The recognition of this areal relationship brings mutual benefits to the internal histories of both Tai- K(r)adai and Japonic language families by:
4a) Providing an independent external piece of evidence for dissyllabic nature of several pTK roots including also the information on the quality of a vowel in first syllables
4b) Providing possible external evidence for the reconstruction of syllable-final consonants in pre-pJ, otherwise unrecoverable either by the comparative method or by the internal reconstruction.
4c) Providing further evidence that H/L register in pJ may reflect earlier voiced-voiceless distinctions.
5a) Helping to localize the Urheimat of the Japonic language family.
5b) And finally driving the last nail to the coffin of the ‘Altaic’ hypothesis.

According to the models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, these “more southern” “Yangtzean” 68% of Chamdo_2.8K_1 DNA (which were also related to yDNA-M231 bearers and which were unadmixed with Western Eurasians) were the DNA of the population which interacted with the Tai-K(r)adai speakers, and the possibility to connect both yDNA N-CTS582 and some yDNA N-CTS12473 to this “Yangtzean” 68% DNA (and, thus, the possibility to connect some other southern branches of yDNA N-F2905 to this “Yangtzean” 68% DNA) is shown in the article “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.
In the model above, it is shown that the female side of the discussed yDNA N-M231 individuals was formed using “female” 51% Tianyuan (mtDNA R), thus, it would not be possible to say that East Asian languages (including Japonic) originated from yDNA D-M174 Onge-related mtDNA M populations which separated closer to African-related mtDNA L3 than the ancestor of mtDNA R in some articles (including "A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes"). UPDATE: The Onge specimens in the model above are in fact women, so they cannot have yDNA D-M174. The La368 is an yDNA C1b Hoabinhian, but he was influenced by male yDNA F-related lineages in accordance with different Chinese articles.

In the model shown in Figure 1 in "A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes", the female mtDNA N separated slightly before other mtDNA L3 branches (including mtDNA M), and some authors who sometimes think that any mutation, unobserved in Africa, should be connected to Neanderthals, might treat this fact as a sign of Neanderthal introgression into the whole of mtDNA N. However, the main author such as Qiaomei Fu mentions that Neanderthals had lower mutation rate than Homo Sapiens, and there is an example of “quickly mutating” ancient East Asian Boshan in the main text, thus, it is possible to think that Eurasian female mtDNA N was a “quickly developing” haplogroup, and mutations, unobserved in Africa, quickly formed in Eurasia within the species of Homo Sapiens. So the shape of mtDNA tree in Figure 1 might have been caused by the fact that mtDNA L3 in (including mtDNA M branch)-related populations had a slower mutation rate than mtDNA N-related populations.

The mutation CCCCTCT8273d, discussed in the previous post, appeared in both mtDNA B4’5 (Tianyuan-related branch) and mtDNA L3e branch. Indeed, in Vyas at el, female mtDNA N separated from a common mtDNA L3e/L3i/L3i/L3x branch, whereas female mtDNA M separated from mtDNA L3h. It would be much more reasonable to think that the mutation CCCCTCT8273d was characteristic of the mtDNA L3 population as a whole, and some cases of CCCCTCT8273d are present in mtDNA L3e and mtDNA N as well as in some branches of mtDNA M because of the natural course of human evolution. Thus, the population having CCCCTCT8273d may be thought to be related to “female” 51% of Tianyuan, as Tianyuan should have this mutation being an mtDNA B4’5* representative. The search for the root of this CCCCTCT8273d mutation in mtDNA M-related yDNA D-M174 Onge, as the Japanese-American researchers seemed to suggest, might have led to the conclusion that CCCCTCT8273d, which is also found in mtDNA L2 (Yoruba-related) was such a mutation that it accompanied yDNA D-M174 (if they would have been related to Yoruba), introgressed into a Denisovan, introgressed from a Denisovan to B4’5 and its bearer migrated to Africa, where such a sort of CCCCTCT8273d would introgress into L3e. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", they showed the unreality of such an approach. The much stronger alternative that remains is to think that CCCCTCT8273d developed in the ancestral population for mtDNA L3e/mtDNA N and was present in Tianyuan-related mtDNA B4’5 because of the natural course of human evolution.

[Oasis]

Currently, I think the most plausible scenario regarding the prehistory of Shandong may be as follows:

(1) A NE Asian (related most closely to the "Mongol-Tungus" autosomal component, but also having some "Austronesian" admixture) population inhabited Shandong when ceramics first appeared in the region

Unlike what you have just written, the yDNA N-M231 samples related to Chamdo2.8K_1 and Zongri5.1K do not have actual Mongol-Tungus (Amur) component in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The Yangtzean yDNA N-M231-related 68% ancestry going to Chamdo2.8K_1 interact with the Tai-K(r)adai-related individuals in accordance with “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

The model for Chamdo2.8K_1 and Zongri5.1K for better understanding once again:

[Oasis]

ハプログループ O1b2 (Y染色体)
推定発生時期 31,108（95% CI 22,844～34,893）年前[1]
推定発生地 朝鮮半島またはその近くにある北東アジアの一部地域[2]
現存下位系統の
分岐開始年代 28,240年前[3]
26,650 (99% CI 33,045 - 21,160) 年前[4]
25,800（95% CI 28,400 <-> 23,300）年前[5] （但し帰属人口の大半を占める下位系統のO-K10のTMRCAは約7,900 (95% CI 5,624～9,449)年前[1]）
親系統 O1b
定義づけられる変異 M176, SRY465, P49, 022454[6]
高頻度民族・地域 日本人(大和民族、琉球民族)、朝鮮民族

It might appear quite realistic to confine the origin of Ebizur’s O1b2-P49 to Korea and nearby (the Koreans occupying a unique cline having deep ancestry in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”), because Ebizur’s O1b2-P49 shares some at least 31108-year-old DNA sequences (O1b2-P49 originated 31108 years ago), e.g. "tg…aggacagtaagtacaca", etc, with some Western Eurasian haplogroups, but also simultaneously with African yDNA A and African yDNA B. Since yDNA A and yDNA B are too ancient, it would be impossible to explain O1b2-P49’s shared DNA sequencies with yDNA A and yDNA B by some ancestry shared with ancient yDNA K2a*-related ancestry (which was very widely distributed in the world) (that is, we cannot say for the sake of Ebizur’s O1b2-P49 that ancient K2a* was surrounded by yDNA A and yDNA B). Therefore, the search for relevant ancient Homo Sapiens populations is being conducted in East Asia, for example:

Lithic miniaturization and hafted tools in early Late Pleistocene Salawusu, North China
Nai-Ru Lin, Han Wang, Fa-Xiang Huan, Ya-Mei Hou, Wei-Wen Huang, a Korean Christopher J. Bae, Shi-Xia Yang
Volume 48, April 2023

Since its discovery in the 1920s, Salawusu (Sjara-osso-gol), located on the southern edge of the Mongolian Plateau, has been one of the most important Paleolithic findings in East Asia. Unfortunately, because of the miniaturized sizes of the Salawusu artifacts that have traditionally been considered too small to study, little has been known about the lithic technology and tool making skills of these hominins. Here we reexamined the lithic assemblage from the Fanjiagouwan Locality at Salawusu, that has been tentatively dated by Optically Stimulated Luminescence to between 100 ka and 90 ka(…) It is possible this technology originated in the Salawusu area and then later spread across northern China, Korea, and Japan (…) Artifacts were made on quartz and agate in smaller numbers, representing 4% of the total assemblage.

In any case, yDNA NO-M214, that is, yDNA O-M175 and yDNA N-M231, do not share connections with yDNA A and yDNA B, which connections Ebizur’s yDNA O1b2-P49 has. This means that Ebizur’s yDNA O1b2-P49 did not significantly contribute to mainland China, which is supported by extreme rarity of O1b2-P49 on the territory of China. Thus, it is impossible to support claims that East Asian-related languages in China originated from yDNA O1b2-P49-related people .

As has been mentioned before, according to Chinese researchers, the Zhaobaogou culture (ca. 7350–6420 BP) was a culture important for yDNA N1c haplogroups. The Zhaobaogou influence is observed on the Zuojiashan culture of the Jilin Province (in this Province, the Kingdom of Puyo later developed (the “Para-Japonic” Kingdom, according to Christopher Beckwith; however, the population ancestral to it develop under the influence of the genetically Shandong Bianbian-related Machengzi culture), which is already much closer to the place where AR7.3K and AR3.4K were later found as outliers. The yDNA N-M231-related ancestry migrating in Northeast China was related to the Shandong Xiaojingshan population.

吉林农安左家山遗址新石器时代遗存的再认识
The Re-understanding of the Neolithic Remains at the Zuojiashan Site in Nong'an,Jilin
The remains of the Zuojiashan Site contained that of the Lower Zuojiashan Culture and the Upper Zuojiashan Culture.The north border of the Lower Zuojiashan Culture is roughly distributed along the watershed between the Songhua River and Liaohe River,and reached nearby the Meihe River in the south.The Lower Zuojiashan Culture could be divided into the early and late phases.Around the 6th to the 5th millennia BC,the cultures represented by Shuangta PhaseⅠCulture or its descendants exerted influences to the Lower Zuojiashan Culture.In the early period,the Lower Zuojiashan Culture has developed simultaneously with the Xinglongwa Culture for a time, and the Lower Zuojiashan Culture had communication with Zhaobaogou Culture in the Meihe River valley. In 4500–3500 BC,the influence of the Hongshan Culture reached the presentday Tongyu,and might have had communications with the Lower Zuojiashan Culture. Around 3500 BC,the Upper Zuojiashan Culture emerged in the west-flowing Songhua River valley under the influence of the Middle Xiaozhushan Culture;the north expansion of the Upper Zuojiashan Culture roughly reached the south side of the watershed between the Songhua and Liaohe Rivers,where it had niteractions with the Shuangta PhaseⅡCulture.

Interestingly, according to some Chinese researchers, the Zhaobaogou culture exerted influence on the territory of Shimao on the territory the Shaanxi Province. This probably caused the appearance of yDNA N1c branches specific to Tibeto-Burman populations:

Genetic Structure of Qiangic Populations Residing in the Western Sichuan Corridor
Chuan-Chao Wang,Ling-Xiang Wang,Rukesh Shrestha,Manfei Zhang,Xiu-Yuan Huang,Kang Hu,Li Jin,Hui Li
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...one.0103772#s5

N1c1a-M178 has also been detected in Horpa-Daofu and Tibetan-Xinlong at 12.50% and 2.17%, respectively. The 17-STR haplotype of N1c1a individuals in Horpa-Daofu is exactly the same with some Komi people in Russia [79], [80]. However, the haplotype of N1c1a individual in Xinlong shows more similarity with samples of its surrounding populations (unpublished data).



The Shimao City is famous for its stone constructions which appeared during the later Neolithic period.

An Ancient Portrait of a Mystery King Has Been Unearthed at the Foot of a 4,300-Year-Old Pyramid in China
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/an...-china-2158819

It should be mentioned that the Chinese archaeology no longer supports the old theory, and the yDNA N-M231(N1c)-related Zhaobaogou culture is not treated in China as the direct continuation of the “Altaic-related” “Transeurasian-related“ Xinglongwa culture. In fact, the appearance of the Zhaobaogou culture (∼7350–6420 BP) led to the demise of the Xinglongwa culture (∼8200–7400 BP) according to contemporary views in China. It was shown in the Chinese article that lineages of Xinglongwa-related Transeurasian-speaking populations were used for human sacrifices by Zhaobaogou-related populations. The “Transeurasian” Mongol and Korean researchers financed by the Japanese have shown in response that the representative of the interesting female mtDNA G1’L3e’i’k’x’M62'68 lineage found in ancient DNA and likely related to yDNA N-M231-related populations was used for the human sacrifice by ancestors of the Mongol. Thus, in the Neolithic and later, there should be a considerable level of enmity between and the yDNA N-M231(N1c)-related Zhaobaogou culture-related populations and ancestors of the Mongol (the “Altaic” Transeurasian-speaking population).
The cultural role of the Zuojiashan culture which was influenced by the offshoot of the Zhaobaogou culture, related to the European N1c, was such that the Zuojiashan culture was also a jade-processing culture and one of the first jade “proto-Dragons” was found in the Zuojiashan culture, and later the image of the Dragon was further developed in the Hongshan culture and transmitted as far as the rice farming Liangzhu culture (via the Lingjiatan culture, as was already written in this topic) which is claimed to have participated in the formation of the Japanese population.

红山文化龙纹玉器研究
Study on Dragon-shaped Jades in Hongshan Culture

http://61.181.120.82:8081/kcms/detai...bname=CMFD2018
【Abstract】 Beast heads,meandering and footless are characteristic of early dragons.According to that criteria,dragon-shaped jades in Hongshan Culture includes"C"-shaped jade dragons,jue-shaped jade dragons and other jade dragons."C"-shaped Jade dragons and Hongshan Culture Jades are more similar and it is the development of Zhaobaogou Cultural statues.Lower Xiajiadian Culture does not have the economic and social conditions for producing "C-"shaped jade dragons.The two collected "C" jade dragons have the same buried environmenIt.They are funeraryies object in the tomb and has a nature of sacrifice.Without age-dating,they are more appropriate to set the age of Hongshan Culture in the early and mid-term.Jue-shaped jade dragons are divided into type A and type B according to the characteristics of morphology and craftsmanship.A types’ openings are connected,facial features is characterized by lines and more flat.B types’ openings are separated,facial features portray more complex.Jue-shaped stone dragon from Zuojiashan site pushes the age of jue-shaped jade dragons to the middle of Hongshan Culture and Type A is generally earlier than Type B.The jue-shaped jade dragons handed down and collected in the museum fill the gaps in archaeological excavations and enrich their forms.Other dragon-shaped jades include many types which can be divided into double-headed dragon-shaped jades,straight body dragon-shaped jades and Silkworm-shaped jades.The cultural connotation of the double-headed dragon jades are not only in conformity with the ancient Chinese mythology but also the embodiment of cultural exchange between the East and the West.The beast face "丫"-shaped jades are deformation of the snake jade earring,so the snake body is the dragon’s torso.The Dragon head-shaped scepterheads reflect the long history of the scepter in western part of Liaoning Province and their influence reaches Liangzhu Culture.Silkworm-shaped jades are one of the sources of the beast face "丫"-shaped jades.The "mutual infiltration rate" of hominid thinking caused the recognization of Hongshan Culture ancestors that silkworms were equivalent to snakes.In ancient literature,they were not only similar in shape and font but often placed in the same category by the ancients.In this sense,silkworms should also be dragons.The appearance of dragon-shaped jades were reflection of the fishing and hunting economy.Their head shape includes deer,pig and bear while the torso contains snake and silkworm.Dragon-shaped jades appeared about in 6,000 years ago of which "C-"shaped jade dragons and jue-shaped jade dragons appeared earliest.The other dragon-shaped jades are generally in the late stage of Hongshan Culture and basically one type has only one jade,so the age of the tombs is the jades’ that about 5500-5000 years ago.The dragon-shaped jades can be divided into two regions which include Xar Moron River basin and Daling River and Xiaoling River basins according to Nuluerhu Mountain.The "C"-shaped jade dragons distributed in the Xar Moron River basin.The jue-shaped jade dragons are distributed in both areas.The other dragon-shaped jades basically distributed in Daling river and Xiaoling river basin.After the"C"-shaped jade dragons emerged,the jue-shaped jade dragons developed in Daling River and Xiaoling River basins and gradually giving birth to other dragon-shaped jades.

Alexander Vovin
Conclusion
I must start with a general note, that Benedict’s idea that Japanese and Tai-K(r)adai are related (1989), should not be rejected out of hand, as I did twenty years ago (Vovin 1994), although I still disagree with Benedict that the relationship is genetic, as I think that although the realationship does exist, it is a contact one.
1) Given the regular correspondences on both segmental and supra-segmental levels between pJ and pTK, the relationship does not seem to be accidental.
2) It does not look like a genuine genetic relationship because of obvious distributional gaps, such as, e.g.:
2a) lack of ‘cognates’ in pronominal systems,
2b) conspicuous near-absence of words with B tones in Tai-K(r)adai comparisons.
3) This leaves us with a contact relationship, which must be:
3a) Quite old, because not too much remains,
3b) Quite intense, because borrowing includes some very basic vocabulary items.
4) The recognition of this areal relationship brings mutual benefits to the internal histories of both Tai- K(r)adai and Japonic language families by:
4a) Providing an independent external piece of evidence for dissyllabic nature of several pTK roots including also the information on the quality of a vowel in first syllables
4b) Providing possible external evidence for the reconstruction of syllable-final consonants in pre-pJ, otherwise unrecoverable either by the comparative method or by the internal reconstruction.
4c) Providing further evidence that H/L register in pJ may reflect earlier voiced-voiceless distinctions.
5a) Helping to localize the Urheimat of the Japonic language family.
5b) And finally driving the last nail to the coffin of the ‘Altaic’ hypothesis.

According to the models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, these “more southern” “Yangtzean” 68% of Chamdo_2.8K_1 DNA (which were also related to yDNA-M231 bearers and which were unadmixed with Western Eurasians) were the DNA of the population which interacted with the Tai-K(r)adai speakers, and the possibility to connect both yDNA N-CTS582 and some yDNA N-CTS12473 to this “Yangtzean” 68% DNA (and, thus, the possibility to connect some other southern branches of yDNA N-F2905 to this “Yangtzean” 68% DNA) is shown in the article “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

The yDNA N-M231 samples related to Chamdo2.8K_1 and Zongri5.1K do not have actual Mongol-Tungus (Amur) component in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The Yangtzean yDNA N-M231-related 68% ancestry going to Chamdo2.8K_1 interact with the Tai-K(r)adai-related individuals in accordance with “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

It would be the most interesting to find out from where these “Yangtzean” yDNA N-M231 distributed to their homelands. There is such an answer.



Once the Japanese scientist Keiichi Takahashi issued the work titled “The Relationship between Culture and Environment of the Upper Paleolithic in Southern China” in 2003.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article.../_pdf/-char/ja

There Keiichi Takahashi created the culture most important to them, the Lower Yangtze “Sanshan culture”. However, it was well proven since then, that rice farming in East Asia did not originate on the territory of the Lower Yangtze “Sanshan culture”, but insead of this, rice farming originated in the Middle Yangtze river basin.
Nonetheless, read the brief description of the “Sanshan culture” settlements from Keiichi Takahashi:

“In Lashu village, Huaining County of Anhui Province (Han, 1993) and Jigongshan, Jiangling County of Hubei Province (Wang, 1997), scrapers and points made of quartz, flint stone and agate were present. They are also typical of the small stone tool tradition, which might be seen as one integral feature of the "Sanshan Culture".”

The caveat here is that the Jigongshan site was located on the Yangtze river before the smaller river leading to the Xianrendong settlement with the oldest pottery in the world as well as with very old polished stone tools which were necessary for the origin of agriculture in East Asia, while the Lashu site was located on the Yangtze river after the smaller river leading to the described Xianrendong settlement. Thus, even without knowing which population really created the Xianrendong settlement (it was not known in 2003), the Japanese people “created” such a “Sanshan culture”, that it would be possible to claim that their ancestors, alledgedly deriving from the “Sanshan culture”, were related to to the Xianrendong settlement with the oldest pottery in the world as well as with very old polished stone tools which were necessary for the origin of agriculture in East Asia.

What happened to all of this after the year of 2003?

It appeared that flakes on flint stone were produced by any generic yDNA O-M175 people. Flakes on quartz were prefered by yDNA C2-F1067-related populations and they came to the Jigongshan site from the Xinqiao site in North China. Flakes on agate were quite ancient and were likely related to that 90000-100000-year-old population distantly related to those in Salawusu on the Mongolian Plateau.

Thus, except for the Salawusu connection, any ethnic minority in South China, any East Asian minority language family in South China might be to a certain degree related to this “Sanshan culture”.

Keiichi Takahashi described one more “culture” on the Yangtze river:

“Sichuan Basin, which was represented by the "Tongliang Culture" during this period , is located at 170-270m above sea level. It includes sites such as Zhangertang in Tongliang (Li and Zhang, 1981), Locality B of Ziyang Man (Li and Zhang, 1984), Taohuaxi in Chongqing (Li, 1992) and Migongdong in Wushan of the east basin (Huang and Xu, 2000). The culture was characterized by large-medium sized stone artifacts made of quartzite gravel; flakes made with a hard hammering technique; types of stone artifacts include choppers, scrapers and points (Fig. 3). The quantity of flake stone artifacts is large, displaying an economy centered on food gathering and supplemented by hunting during a period around 40,000-13,000 years ago.”

It appeared in year 2018 that medium sized flakes made of quartzite gravel were characteristic of the locality of the Yi river basin from the Huai river system, whose ancient representative is yDNA N-M231 Bianbian. In fact, the models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” showed that Northern East Asian ancestry in yDNA N-M231 Bianbian is related to mtDNA A populations (there are Northern East Asian branches of mtDNA A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A20, A21, A22, A23 in China). It explains why Bianbian has “Northern East Asian” partially shared with the Amur ancestry, while his yDNA N-M231 brethren who stayed in the Yangtze river basin, did not have this Amur-related ancestry in their ancient DNA. The fact that quartzite stone flakes of yDNA N-M231 were medium-sized makes it unlikely that these yDNA N-M231 populations migrated to Sichuan from Northwestern China, because small flake tool making was practiced in Northwest China, in the Upper Huanghe river basin.

Large-sized stone artifacts made of quartzite gravel appeared to be related to the non-small flake tool (non-O-M175) Guangxi Bailiandong cave inhabitants, by whom one of the oldest polished stone tools in China and in the world were produced.

Thus, the interaction of medium-sized quartzite flake-making people and large-sized quartzite artifact-making people on the Yangtze river possibly helped the yDNA N-M231 populations to get acquainted with stone polishing. This feature was very ancient in Guangxi, it was related to archaic humans there.

Interestingly, it appeared that stone assemblages of the most ancient pottery makers in Xianrendong were dominated by chert. However, there were findings of quartzite stone tools in nearby localities, and crushed quartzite was added as a component to the pottery of Xianrendong. Thus, migrating along the Yangtze river, yDNA N-M231-related populations who specialized in quartzite tools might have served as deliverers of quartzite to the pottery-making populations who specialized in chert tools. Thus, yDNA N-M231 populations might have mastered the pottery making having learnt from the Xianrendong-related populations.

The yDNA N-M231-related Houli culture of Shandong is just one of manifestations of yDNA N-M231-related populations migrating to Shandong and acquiring Northern East Asian ancestry related to mtDNA A there. The situation described above explains the greater similarity of the yDNA N-M231-related Houli culture artifacts to Xianrendong artifacts rather than to the nearby Nanzhuangtou pre-agricultural settlement’s artifacts. Other yDNA N-M231-related populations remained in the Yangtze river basin or migrated to the Huanghe river basin.

Thus, in accordance with the Chinese research, ancient yDNA N-M231 populations in the Yangtze river basin had everything in terms of culture that some representatives of the Japanese people would like to assign to their own Japonic ancestors.

[Oasis]

UPDATE

O-Yl5976* F2253 (…) hypothetical North Chinese ancestors of present-day Menggu-zu, who may have lived immediately adjacent to or interspersed among historical Mongols on the northern fringe of North China

Ebizur, remember (51+5)%Papuan(C1b)+(49-5)%Tianyuan for “100% mtDNA D masters”,such as some of yDNA O1b2-P49 men, from "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia". Ebizur, your own 31108-year-old lineage yDNA O1b2-P49 is by far the oldest yDNA O lineage located near the fringes of North China and possessing the characteristics which you have just chosen.

1/183 D1a1a1a1a1b1-F17409
1/183 D1a1a1a2-F1635
1/183 D1a1a1a2a-F3401
1/183 D1a1a1b2-Z41068 [TMRCA 3640 ybp 23mofang. Derived from D-F1070. Most often observed among Hmong, Mien, Maonan, Zhuang, and other populations in their vicinity.]
4/183 = 2.2% D1a1a1-F849 total

Beatiful population, yDNA D1a. Some of them used core-and-flake industry in the Late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age. However, the material that they used was different from the quartzite which was discussed in the previous post. They used silicious rock as a raw material for their core-and-flake industry. The languages of South Asia whose bearers have yDNA D haplogroups, often use a vigesimal system for counting. Similarly, the Ainu people of Japan (dominated by yDNA D-M64) also uses the vigesimal system for counting. Similarly, the Uto-Aztecan languages (whose bearers’ ancestors in Asia were influenced by the indigenous pre-Jomon-related Japanese mtDNa M7a-related population in accordance with “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”) also contain languages, which use the vigesimal system for counting. Unlike this, the Japanese language uses the decimal system for counting. There is also no mention that any Hmong, Mien, Maonan, Zhuang, and other populations in their vicinity had any group which would use the vigesimal system for counting. If there were such a group, it would mean that such a group were assimilated by Hmong, Mien, Maonan, Zhuang, but ancestors of this group were indigenous speakers of languages spoken by yDNA D-related populations.

1/183 N1a1a1c-F4065 [TMRCA 6970 ybp 23mofang. The most basal known branch of N-M46. Most often found among Koreans, but also present throughout China and in Japan.

This lineages has one of the highest of its frequencies in China among the population of the Chongming Island, Shanghai (4,53%), which is higher than its frequency among the Koreans.

1/183 O2a2a1a1b2b2a-MF15268 [This is the only known sister clade of Jeulmun/Jomon O-MF114497. However, 23mofang currently estimates their TMRCA to be 12750 ybp, so the two sister clades are not particularly closely related to each other.]
4/183 = 2.2% O2a2a-M188 total

Indeed, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the Japanese people clustered the closest to AR19K, who, despite belonging to the northern C2-M217, might have some ancestry related to the ancient yDNA O-M122-related population from China. However, the ancient female lineage in Northeast Asia sharing some ancestry with AR19K is fairly basal in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, while its Chinese counterparts in China belong to more recent branches. Thus, it is unlikely that O2a2a-M188 distributed to Korea and Japan with AR19K. O2a2a-M188 secondarily expanded to Northeast Asia from China.

However, there is no reason to be sad for yDNA O1b2-P49. The connection in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” of yDNA O1b2-P49 to Native American Surui ancestry, which separated to East Asia to create a “Siberian-related” component there, actually helps to precisely elucidate the “global” influence of yDNA O1b2-P49-related population onto the most important haplogroup in East Asia such as O-M122. Indeed, in Gerhard Jager’s work from year 2017, some languages in China shared some words with Surui-related Native Americans. Thanks to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, we now know that this lingustic connection was likely to be mediated by yDNA O1b2-P49-related populations back migrating to China as the second layer: they were likely to contribute some words to the ancestors of the Surui Native Americans, but they also might have contributed these Surui-like words to languages of O-M122-related populations ancestral to Sino-Tibetans when yDNA O1b2-P49-related populations back migrated to China as the second layer population.

By the way, there is a description of Taramsa-1 ancient human from the Lower Nile Valley. The archaeologist Omry Barzilai considers Taramsa-1 to be one of the components of the IUP-related populations, though he doubted whether ancestors of the IUP-related populations were Homo Sapiens or not.

“The apparent absolute dimensions of the teeth would place the child of Taramsa close to the human remains from Temara, Dar-es-Soltan, Mugharat el-Aliya and Jebel Irhoud (Vallois & Roche 1958; Vallois 1951; Ennouchi 1962a; 1962b; Hublin & Tillier 1981). […]On the other hand, the relatively large and apparently prognathic face may set this child closer to the more primitive forms of Jebel Irhoud, rather than the above-mentioned Mechtoid populations.

It was estimated that the Jebel Irhoud lineage might have separated from anatomically modern humans ca. 770 thousand years ago.

Thus, all components of the so called IUP listed by Omry Barzilai, including the Egyptian Taramsa-1 component, were to a smaller or larger degree mixed with a Neanderthal, or with Oldowan-related/Acheulian-related hominins, or possibly with the Jebel Irhoud-related lineage (Taramsa-1). Interestingly, the Jebel Irhoud-related lineage is suspected to contribute an even older ancestry of an unknown hominin to yDNA B-related populations in Africa.

Since East Asians of yDNA C, D, NO do not have DNA which is concentrated in African populations living closer to the Jebel Irhoud side of Africa, it is reasonable to follow the earlier research on this topic and continue to think that East Asian-related populations chose to distribute along the southern route, but not along the northern IUP route of Taramsa-1-related populations bearing some similarities to Jebel Irhoud, and such a southern route for early Homo Sapiens migrations, relatively isolated from the influence of archaic hominins, was formulated by Melinda A. Yang.

[Oasis]

Also, an important topic for ancient DNA research is to investigate a diachronic transect of specimens from Shandong in order to determine when and how Y-DNA haplogroup O2a2b2 has come to attain its maximal frequency on continental Asia in that region (and now also in Northeast China, probably because of recent migration from Shandong and its vicinity). Another hotspot for haplogroup O2a2b2 seems to be the Tujia-inhabited region in central China; like the Liaoning Han of Zhao et al. 2023, 23mofang's Tujia-zu have a great variety of O2a2b2 subclades, with 7/594 = 1.18% belonging to O-AM01822 > O-A16433 (TMRCA 14850 ybp), 7/594 = 1.18% belonging to O-AM01822 > O-AM01856 > O-AM01845 > O-F919 > O-F976 (TMRCA 7760 ybp), and 5/594 = 0.84% belonging to O-AM01822 > O-AM01856 > O-N7 (TMRCA 13580 ybp). However, one also might note that O-N7 appears to be predominant among the subclades of O2a2b2 in Liaoning, whereas O-F976 and the basal O-A16433 appear to be more common than O-N7 among the Tujia. As an aside, the typically Austronesian O2a2b2a2b2-AM01756 (formed 7610 ybp, TMRCA 4650 ybp according to 23mofang, although they have only 8 members of this subclade tabulated on their public Y-DNA tree) is a subclade of O2a2b2a2b-AM01847/B451, which has been found in 1/183 Liaoning Han in the sample of Zhao et al. 2023. O2a2b2a2a-F919, which has been found in 3/183 = 1.6% of the Liaoning Han sample and in 7/594 = 1.18% of the Tujia sample, is the nearest outgroup to O2a2b2a2b-AM01847/B451; however, the TMRCA of O2a2b2a2-AM01845 is currently estimated by 23mofang to be 13130 ybp, so the relationship between the two subclades is quite a distant one in absolute terms.

Tujia is a Sino-Tibetan nationality, while Liaoning is inhabited by another Sino-Tibetan nationality known as Han Chinese. Both branches of O2a2b2 expanded from the Middle Yellow River basin, which is the homeland of Sino-Tibetan languages. The Neolithic settlement of Wadian contains two types of ancestries: one related to O2a2b1 (O-M134) and one related to O2a2b2, and they cluster quite close to each other in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The branch of O2a2b2 going to Austronesians expanded from the Middle Yellow River along with mtDNA D5a2 which is also found in Neolithic Wadian. Wadian is a convenient locality to migrate to. It is considered that mtDNA D5a2-related lineages expanded very quickly. It is not surprising that, in some localities of China, once other haplogroups, such as N, dominated, but today O2a2b1, O2a2b2 and other related branches dominate there: there used to be more non-Sino-Tibetan populations in the Neolithic, while China is dominated by Sino-Tibetan populations today.

[Oasis]

mostly Chinese-derived (…) 1/20 = 5% N-L666

Unlike what you have written, the ca. 11000-year-old low coverage sample AR11K_outlier, related to N-F1360 cline and likely belonging to population ancestral to Shamanka_EN N-L666, got himself placed on the PCA quite closely to the samples mixed with the Neolithic Shandong Beiqian settlement, from where ancestors of yDNA O1b2-47z were passed to yDNA O1a-M119-related Austronesian-related populations (“The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”). We see that one Han_Jiangsu and one Han_Hubei are slightly approaching “O1b2-47z-related” very isolated “cline”. This is consistent with the mention of difficulty of approaching such coastal tattooed populations, described in the ancient Chinese sources. The existence of this isolation is supported by the fact that their “progenitor”, the population contributing to the Austronesian Thao people of Taiwan, still did not experience any shift from the direction of being 100% yDNA O1a-M119 ( their ancient society may not even know that one of pre O1b2-47z was born in their population and later multiplied in one of Austronesian-related populations). However, this may be different from the Chinese-specific branch of O1b2-47z, which apparently chose to break the isolation and mixed with mtDNA N9a1-related populations, which contributed to the Lower Xiajiadian from the Yellow River settlements, which interacted with the rice farming Yangtze River cultures, such as the Shijiahe culture, during that period.

[Oasis]

I see a total of 24/96 = 25.0% G + H1a + J + L + R1a1 + R1b + R2 in the sample of Joo et al. (2022) from Yangon, Myanmar. That does seem pretty high, but I think it is not too much of a deviation from the norm for the more Indian-influenced parts of Southeast Asia.

So, for the presumably "Chinese" (sensu lato)/Eastern Asian/non-Indian/non-Western Eurasian contribution to the Y-DNA of people in Yangon, we would have the following composition:

4/72 = 5.6% D1
5/72 = 6.9% C
1/72 = 1.4% F
1/72 = 1.4% N
6/72 = 8.3% O(xO1b, O2)
21/72 = 29.2% O1b
34/72 = 47.2% O2

I think this should be not too different from the composition of the Y-DNA pool of Han Chinese in Yunnan, whose entire western border abuts Myanmar. The main difference may be that the Bamars seem to have a somewhat greater proportion of O1b, which would be unsurprising. Compared to the Yi, who are linguistically supposed to form a clade with the Bamars vis-à-vis the Han Chinese, the Bamars seem to have greater proportions of especially O1b but also O2 and lesser proportions of especially N and F* but also D1. (However, the distribution of D1 seems to be inhomogeneous even among the Yi themselves, with greater proportions found toward the north e.g. in Sichuan, and less found toward the south e.g. in Yunnan.)

If you have drawn the yDNA N-M231-related Shamanka-Bianbian cline on the PCA above and have noticed that this cline started from one of the Burmese-related/Bamar-related individuals, the explanation is the following: what yDNA N-M231-related individuals contributed to this Burmese/Bamar, who is likely related to yDNA H2 branch, which is observed in the Yue, is indeed not related to Western Eurasians, but to yDNA N-M231. As the Yue-related yDNA H2 shares the mutation FGC28607 with the late D-M64 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/H-Z41291), this is consistent with the possibility to model late yDNA D using yDNA N-M231 in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, thus, it is yDNA N-M231 that should be viewed as the one influencing the late yDNA D-M64 branch. The mtDNA, to which proto-yDNA N-M231 population (contributing to the discussed Burmese/Bamar individual) was related, was not actually M61, nor M33a3a, nor M21b. It was mtDNA pre-N9a'b, that is, a branch of mtDNA N9, which did not manage to split in neither N9a nor in N9b. Such mtDNA pre-N9a'b is very rare today, but it was characteristic of ancestral yDNA N-M231-related populations, which reached Shandong, and is still observed in some yDNA N-M231-related populations in accordance with the data presented in Chinese mtDNA-related articles. The Shamanka-Bianbian-Burmese cline which can be built on the PCA above, will be faithfully joining mtDNAs with a certain mutation characteristic of such yDNA -M231-related mtDNA pre-N9a'b in accordance with the Chinese data.