Japanese allegations of relatedness to foreign archaeological cultures appear to be not very serious

[Oasis]

Shinoda K.-i., Kanzawa-Kiriyama H., Kakuda T., Adachi N., Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu. Anthropol. Sci. (Japanese Series) 127, 25–43 (2019). (西北九州弥生人の遺伝的な特徴
―佐世保市下本山岩陰遺跡出土人骨の核ゲノム解析―)



In the above Japanese article, at least four Japanese scientists seem to be ridiculing at populations living in China and their real connections to real rice farming cultures. This is seen from the fact that, in their analysis, the rice farming Tujia people representatives , who have a layer of ancestry likely related to the rice farming Hemudu culture, somehow joined the cline with Japanese Shimomotoyama hunter-fishers from ca. 2000 years ago. Most importantly, these Shimomotoyama hunter-fishers, who are claimed to partly have the Yayoi ancestry, even clustered closely to the Ainu. One Shimomotoyama3 hunter-fisher belonged to yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713 of modern Japanese, and his closeness to the Ainu means that this particular specimen was likely to be of the same nature as Honshu island’s Emishi barbarians, with whom ancient Japanese fought.

Such an attitude depreciates Chinese rice farming archaeological cultures, to which at least some Japanese would want to be related. Indeed, one of the most ancient rice farming population distributed from the Hemudu culture, a part of it got to the Tujia, but a part of it is only allowed to reach “Emishi Barbarian-related” hunter-fishers, including yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713, in “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. [b] On the one hand, the Japanese Internet is full of claiming rice farming cultures in China as Japanese-related, for which Ebizur is an example. On the other hand, we see in important argument against such claims from “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. According to this study, the Japanese people alledgedly clustered away from populations in China and Austronesia even farther, than 40000-year-old Tianyuan ancient man did and deeply diverged ancient Australasian Hoabinhians did. If Japanese ancestors participated in Yangtze river basin rice farming cultures, then they would be assimilated by Han Chinese, and there would exist intermediate populations between modern Chinese and modern Japanese. According to “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”, this is not the case, and Japanese and Chinese are terribly far from each other. But this also mean that there was no observable participation of Japanese-like populations in archaeological cultures in China, with the ancient DNA samples of which modern diversified Chinese and some minorities in China share uniparentals.

This raises the question: is it possible that serious scientists of a large Japanese state would be involved in wishful thinking to such a degree? On the one hand, some of them want those archaeological cultures. On the other hand, some of them appear to simultaneously want to imagine that the Japanese people was always the same as today, even in the Early Neolithic. Thus, such scientists do not wish to show any serious genetic connections between the modern Japanese population and other populations deriving ffrom the desired cultures in China. For example, the Liangzhu culture, which Ebizur is trying to claim, has lots of yDNA O-M119, a relative of actual Austronesians. As Ebizur always reported, the Japanese people have quite little yDNA O-M119. It is impossible to remove actual populations from their archaeological cultures, even by claim that this or that lineage, reported from ancient DNA, was a sort of a local “subhuman”, while actual masters of the culture were not revealed yet.

It can be observed that even the actual connection with rice farming Tujia was shown in a “funny” way in the Japanese work, signed by four scientists: connecting rice farmers to ancient hunter-gatherer Ainu-like outliers, rather than to Japanese, in order to preserve the alledged “unadmixedness” of the modern Japanese. It is quite obvious that populations from China will not surrender their ancient cultures to such strange views from Japan. It also means that Japanese Internet advertising of belonging to some ancient culture is more a sort of public image-making and does not necessarily imply serious factual connection between Japanese and chosen archaeological cultures, which would be supported by serious and detailed research.

[lei.talk]

We conducted nuclear genome analysis of two Yayoi human bones excavated from the Shimomotoyama Iwakage Ruins in Sasebo City. Based on the geographical location of the ruins and morphological research, these human bones have been determined to be members of the Yayoi population in northwestern Kyushu, which descends from the Jomon people. However, as a result of DNA analysis using a next-generation sequencer, it was revealed that they both have the genomes of both Jomon and Yayoi people. These human bones date back to the end of the Yayoi period. The results of this study revealed that during this period there was considerable interbreeding between native populations and people who had migrated, even in the coastal areas of Kyushu. This shows that there is a need to reconsider the relationship between the immigrant Yayoi people and the northwest Kyushu Yayoi people, which had been viewed in a fixed manner until now. This study also showed that the data obtained by analyzing the nuclear genome of ancient human bones is effective in understanding the situation of mixed blood. As we continue to analyze the genome of Yayoi human bones from northern Kyushu, it is expected that the scenario for the formation of the Japanese people will become even more sophisticated.

[Oasis]

Cờ Lao (Gelao) from Hoàng Su Phì District, Hà Giang Province, Vietnam (Macholdt et al. 2020)
1/34 = 2.9% C1b1a2b-F725
3/34 = 8.8% N1-M2291
2/34 = 5.9% O1a1a1b2-Z23392
10/34 = 29.4% O1b1a1a-M95(xF2758, F2890, FGC19713, CTS651, M1283)
16/34 = 47.1% O1b1a1a1b-M1283(xB426)
1/34 = 2.9% O2a1c1a1-F632(xF793)
1/34 = 2.9% O2a2a1a2a1a2-N5

Unlike the Gelao from Daozhen Gelao and Miao Autonomous County, Guizhou, these Cờ Lao from Hoàng Su Phì District, Vietnam are clearly genetically different from Han Chinese, but they instead seem to share the same paternal ancestry as Austroasiatic-speaking tribes.

Not all of these uniparentals are typical of Austroasiatics.

The Gelao are Tai-Kadai-speaking in general.

Judging by Vietnamese Gelao mtDNA, which is found in Miao-Yao ancient DNA, it might be suspected that those Gelao’s particular case of C1b1a2b-F725 is of the Miao-Yao origin.

O1a1a1b2-Z23392 is related to a Tujia belonging to O1a-M119>M307>F446>Z23392 and may well be related to the Hemudu culture (the “Hemudu culture”-related population is considered to be called “Pu” in Chinese historical sources). In general, some lineages of O1a-M119>M307>F446 became typical of Austroasiatics, some lineages of O1a-M119>M307>F446 became typical of Tai-Kadai, while O1a-M119 in general is maximized in Austronesians.

As for O1b1a1a-M95, Austroasiatic Munda languages were distributed to India via O1b1a1a -M95 bearers, but a basal O1b1a1a-M95* was also observed in 1500-year-old ancient DNA clustering with Tai-Kadai in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", so representatives of both language families (Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic) can have yDNA O1b1a1a -M95.

Similarly, O1b1a1a1b-M1283(xB426) is observed in Austroasiatic speakers, but it was also observed in ancient DNA, related to Tai-Kadai and Miao-Yao populations in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

In Macholdt et al. 2020, (“1/34 = 2.9% O2a1c1a1-F632(xF793)”) a Gelao from a branch which sometimes have M10 as mtDNA, which means that this Gelao is probably distantly related to LaCen, a Tai-Kadai period ancient DNA from Guangxi Province of China, thus, he is also an “initial Tai-Kadai” in Vietnam.

O2a2a1a2a1a2-N5 is observed in Miao-Yao-related ancient DNA in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", which is his initial distribution, but it is observed in Tai-Kadai and Tujia as well.

3/34 = 8.8% N1-M2291


Most importantly, it is known, to which branch Gelao lineages belong.


So the Vietnamese Tai-Kadai-speaking Gelao branch is yDNA N-CTS4714, which is not related to Austroasiatics.



In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, it is exactly the yDNA N-CTS4714-related Naxi people that was modeled using Chamdo2.8K_1, which was described on the above picture and had mtDNA B4d123, whose meaning was mentioned in another post for 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 leading to Himalayas in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

However, Chamdo2.8K_1 cannot be modeled using Huanghe-related Zongri5.1K in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, and 32% of Chamdo2.8K_1 is related to yDNA O-M117 Shannan3k (thus, giving the Naxi the Tibeto-Burman language), which means that N-CTS4714 is old enough for part of its branches, including Naxi and Gelao branches, to be modeled as Yangtzean68% Chamdo2.8K_1, which means that N-CTS4714 is a lineage which got split between Yangtze and Huanghe river basins (from Yangtze, possibly via the Jialing river basin):

The Jialing River (the Yangtze River basin):



The Huanghe River Basin, which is adjacent to the Yangtze’s Jialing River basing in Sichuan and Gansu :



The interaction of 68%-Chamdo2.8K_1-related N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) with Tai-Kadai populations in Southern China

It can be seen that both N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) have Tai-Kadai members (Thai, Dai and so on). Genetic model of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” discovered that this interaction happened already at the stage of the formation of “Yangtzean” 68% of ancestry. As 32% are related to O-M134 speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages, it can be said that N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) became the part of Tai-Kadai-related populations before their “Tibeto-Burmanization”, therefore, N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) members preserved their intial non-Sino-Tibetan language, when they interacted with the Tai-Kadai. The second part of the equation is that because the interaction of N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) members with Tai-Kadai-related lineages was scientifically established in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, it should be considered that all younger N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) who arrived to Southeast Asia not being a part of Tibeto-Burmans, should have been parts of Tai-Kadai-related populations. Thus, Southeast Asian non-Tibeto-Burman-speaking young N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) branches could only enter the gene pool of Austroasiatic speakers, being Tai-Kadai speakers before becoming Austroasiatic-speaking individuals. The initial culture of such Southeast Asian non-Tibeto-Burman-speaking young N-CTS582 and N-M1819(>CTS4714) found in modern Austroasiatics should be considered to initially be Tai-Kadai-related culture before they adopted Austroasiatic languages.


As for the way the Naxi-related Yangtzean-related N-CTS4714 appread in Chamdo2.8K_1-related populations, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" shows that the basic Naxi autosomal cline leads to the Yangtzean Tujia individuals, who may be suspected to harbour the ancestry of the mysterious Yangtzean Pu nationality, which probably interacted with a died-out Sinitic language, adopted a Tibeto-Burman language (Tujia), dissolved in Han Chinese or entered the gene pool of other nationalities in Southern China.

Interestingly, the infamous Pingliangtai PLTM312 N-M1819 individual and one more N-CTS582 ancient individual (who clustered in the Yellow River Basin) formed a cline in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, which led to the vicinity of the same Tujia representation as in the case of the origin of the Yangtzean Naxi-related Yangtzean-related N-CTS4714. The mtDNA of Pngliangtai is not relevant for the origin of this Pingliangtai PLTM312 N-M1819, because this mtDNA came from the Neolithic Beiqian settlement, which is important for the Chinese branch of O1b2-47z. Thus, a certain area in the Yangtze River basin was a birthplace of the ancestor of Pingliangtai PLTM312 N-M1819, Naxi N-CTS4714 and some Yangtzean-derived N-CTS582, who participated in the kind of ancestry, which was used to model Japanese ancient samples in Western European-related pieces of research.

Indeed, we see that there is a gap within Han Chinese cline in the discussed Japanese “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”:



The meaning of this gap is such that there alledgedly used to be some autosomally Han Chinese-like individuals in the past, they did not preserve in China, but appeared capable of migrating to ancient Japan, and it is because of them the true Japanese formed a small cline , which is stretched in the direction from Japan Jomon to this “Gap in the Han Chinese”.

FORTUNATELY, IN “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” Pingliangtai, such as Pingliangtai PLTM312 N-M1819, helped to fill in the gap of autosomally Han Chinese-like ancestors of mainstream Japanese, though the Jomon-relatedness of modern Japanese still makes them seem very distant from China in Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. Naxi and Yi were located near the gap in “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”, and it was explained in this post that Naxi and Yi were “Yangtzean-derived” distant relatives of “Yangtzean-derived” N-M1819 Pingliangtai. The ca. 4000-year-old Pingliangtai settlement is famous, because the Pingliangtai network of ceramic water pipes is the oldest complete drainage system discovered in China so far.


Unlike this, the Chinese part of Tujia – Ainu-like M7a1a4 - O-47z>CTS713 cline should be related to the southern branch of mtDNA B5b*-related population which neighboured the rice farming Majiabang culture of the Lower Yangtze and interacted with rice farming Majiabang culture, because Chinese researchers discovered that the “Majiabang F1a1’4”-related mutation in mtDNA M7a1a4 also most often occurs in mtDNA B5b* branch in Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Hubei provinces in China. mtDNA B5b* populations were not coastal dwellers, so the coastal part, which Ebizur thinks is relevant, might have been relevant for O1b2-47z>CTS713, but not for mtDNA B5b* populations of Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Hubei provinces in China. mtDNA B5b* is not observed in modern and ancient Ainu, mtDNA B5b was found in mainland Japanese and Okinawa Islander Japonic speakers



P.S. The views on the ancient Pu nationality are controversial in China, and the ancient Pu nationality is poorly understood in the western world. Below is the Chinese article about the Pu nationality. What is worth mentioning is that, according to the author, the Pu and the Yue, mentioned in the Chinese sources, should be considered different distinct populations.

Ａ Ｓｔｕｄｙ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ Ａｃａｄｅｍｉｃ Ｈｉｓｔｏｒｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｃｈｉｎｅｓｅ Ｐｕ Ｐｅｏｐｌｅ
http://cxtc.magtechjournal.com/EN/ab...stract33.shtml

ＬＩ Ｙａｎｆｅｎｇ

（ Ｓｃｈｏｏｌ ｏｆ Ｈｕｍａｎｉｔｉｅｓ， Ｋｕｎｍｉｎｇ Ｕｎｉｖｅｒｓｉｔｙ， Ｋｕｎｍｉｎｇ， Ｙｕｎｎａｎ Ｐｒｏｖｉｎｃｅ ６５０２１４）

Abstract: The Pu, aka the Baipu, was an ancient ethnic group that lived and multiplied in China's south-central and southwestern regions from the Shang and Zhou Dynasties to the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The Pu, the Diqiang, the Baiyue and the Threemiao were the four largest ethnic groups in ancient China, among whom only the Pu people had existed here for a very long time before disappearing. The related research of the academic circle is mainly focused on the origin of the Pu, their relationship with other ancient ethnic groups, their development and changes, and so on. Academic research into the Pu and their historical evolution are far from deep, leaving huge room for further study from fresh perspectives in innovative methods and with broader vision. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct a long-term and comprehensive study on the Pu people.

http://cxtc.magtechjournal.com/EN/ab...stract33.shtml

P.S. Below is the example of the Naxi people’s writing:

[Oasis]

Ebizur,

O-F444 (≈ O-Y20 ≈ O-M134(xM117)) is roughly tied with O-47z to be the third most frequent Y-DNA haplogroup in South Korea.

i.e. O-M117 tends to be found with high frequency in speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages, whereas O-M134(xM117) is often found in speakers of Turkic or Mongolic languages)

Why do we need to tie a rather numerous O-M122>O-Y20 from China (some notes on O-Y20 will be written below) with a rather obscure Japano-Koreanic-specific O1b2-47z, whose presence in Korea is less than 10%?

Tying in such a way would resemble a folk interpretation of a certain view, which led to the creation of the PCA of “Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations”, where a certain continental autosomal component of the most pureblood Japanese, shared with modern East Asians, joins the Eurasian-related cline with the modern Chinese-Austronesian-related cline, independently forms a remote Ust-Ishim, less remote Hoabinhian, slightly less remote Tianyuan, even less remote Kusunda, finally followed by an even less remote Japan Jomon, who becomes just a side branch of the component’s development instead of being the foundation of the component’s development.


Ebizur, when trying to tie Japano-Koreanic-specific O1b2-47z to a haplogroup from China, such as O-M122, you left neglected the connection of another China-related yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related population to the continental part of the Japanese gene pool that has been very recently uncovered.

According to the Japanese article, “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese Population: Insights from a Large-Scale Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis”, the positive selection of ADH1B gene in a certain gene pool, which became a part of the Japanese gene pool, started prior to the Jomon period (that is, more than 10000 years ago), while the positive selection of ALDH2 gene in a certain gene pool, which became a part of the Japanese gene pool, began around 8000 years ago. The Japanese scientists tend to connect these positive selection with gradual initiation and further development of the rice-related agriculture.

Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese Population: Insights from a Large-Scale Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis
Yosuke Kawai, Yusuke Watanabe, Yosuke Omae, Reiko Miyahara, Seik-Soon Khor, Eisei Noiri, Koji Kitajima, Hideyuki Shimanuki, Hiroyuki Gatanaga, Kenichiro Hata, Kotaro Hattori, Aritoshi Iida, Hatsue Ishibashi-Ueda, Tadashi Kaname, Tatsuya Kanto, Ryo Matsumura, Kengo Miyo, Michio Noguchi, Kouichi Ozaki, Masaya Sugiyama, Ayako Takahashi, Haruhiko Tokuda, Tsutomu Tomita, Akihiro Umezawa, Hiroshi Watanabe, Sumiko Yoshida, Yu-ichi Goto, Yutaka Maruoka, Yoichi Matsubara, Shumpei Niida, Masashi Mizokami, Katsushi Tokunaga
“Both the non-synonymous A allele of ALDH2 rs671 and the C allele of ADH1B rs1229984 affect the retention of acetaldehyde in the body and cause alcohol flush in Asians [17,18]. These alleles have been suggested to be associated with Japanese dietary habits and diseases, such as esophageal cancer [34,35]. Previous studies have hypothesized that positive selection may have acted to maintain acetaldehyde in the blood against parasite infection, which correlates with large-scale rice cultivation [36–39]. We also observed that the increase in the frequency of ADH1B occurred earlier than that of ALDH2, indicating that positive selection began to act at different times for these two genes (Fig 6A and 6B). Based on the geographic distribution of haplotype structures around ADH1B and ALDH2, according to Koganebuchi et al., positive selection on ADH1B rs1229984 started before the beginning of the Jomon period, while positive natural selection on ALDH2 began around 8,000 years ago, in association with the beginning of rice cultivation in China [39].”

“Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” pointed that the earlier C allele of ADH1B rs1229984 was already very much distributed in ancient DNA deriving from the yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related Middle Neolithic population, while it was almost absent even in the DNA of the later Late Bronze Age yDNA D-M174 population.


While ancient DNA was uncovered at the Zongri and Yushu sites of the Qinghai province of China, how would it be possible for the ancestry, causing the effect of appearance of the continental C allele of ADH1B rs1229984 in the sea island population, ancestral to Japan Jomon, to appear in Japan?

"Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" point to the Thailand yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) ancient sample, who bears traces of interaction with the ancient yDNA O1b* Qihe3-related population, which contributed to Japan Jomon in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Qihe3 is a Early Neolithic Fujianese, whose ancestry distributed in the direction of the Guangxi province of Southern China in the Neolithic.

Sample name
Th530 ERR2583809 1756±26 年前
AU number
AU46754
Sample Type
Ancient

Y-haplogroup
N-Y125475

MT-haplogroup
G2b1a

Gender
Male
Quality
Coverage: 9.63％ Average Depth: 1
Scientific institution

Country
Thailand

Native place
Long Long Rak
Ancient period
泰国铁器时代
Data contributor
临邑李

So, the presence of some ancient cases of the yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) at the Zongri site on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, should not be deceiving.

The data of the Chinese Academy of Sciences point to the Hubei province in the Yangtze River basin of China as the province of the localization of the homeland of yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) branches ca. 7000 years ago (when yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) started to separate), some of which later migrated to Southeast Asia, including Thailand, while the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau group of yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) has become rare nowadays.
The localization of the Hubei province in China.




The way of the described “Naxi-Yi” yDNA N-Y66001, a Yangtze-derived branch of yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714), to ultimately become a 68% component in Chamdo2.8K_1 was dealt with in detail in the genetic models, PCA and other data of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"
In the Hubei-related localization, the neighbour of the ancestors of yDNA N-Y66001 (a Yangtze-derived branch of yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714)) became yDNA O-M122>O-M134>O-Y20, who was a very close relative of the “historically main” Huanghe-derived Sino-Tibetan branch of yDNA O-M122>O-M134>O-M117/PAGE23. Interestingly, in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” yDNA O-Y20 was shown to be quite well suited to participate in the formation of the so-called “Shandong_EN” ancestry. The presence of a more distantly Sino-Tibetan yDNA O-Y20 in the Yangtze river basin , where the Hubei Province is also located and where rice farming originated in the Middle Yangtze river basin in some important cultures, sheds a different light on the finding of Le Tao et al, 2023 about the presence of the Yellow River-like genetic ancestry in the Yangtze River basin-related ancient DNA.

The Daxi culture was one of the earliest rice farming cultures, which was a predecessor of the rice farming Hubei’s Shijiahe culture, some of whose Shijiahe ancestry was likely to be acquired by the Pingliangtai PLTM312 of another Yangtzean yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", whose Henan province Pingliangtai PLTM312-related Longshan culture population likely managed to contribute some of its ancestry to the Japanese people and to the Lower Xiajiadian culture, but nearly died out in China, leaving the gap in the cline in “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. The more genetically Central Plains-like branch of Lower Xiajiadian located to the south of Northeast China’s Lower Xiajiadian branch of the Liao River basin, became the enemy of the ancient Chinese Shang Dynasty, and representatives of this southern sort of Lower Xiajiadian population were reported from mass burials of the Shang Dynasty period, likely as captives. It should explain the appearance of the migrating from Northern China “Japan Yayoi” “anthropologically rice farmer-affiliated” group, which was additionally craniologically similar to ancient Central Plains populations, including both Shang Dynasty citizens developing on the Longshan-derived population substratum and likely Lower Xiajiadian-related Shang Dynasty slaves developing on the same Longshan-derived population substratum https://i.ibb.co/xqkJLw3/14.png Cranial morphometric analysis of early wet-rice farmers in the Yangtze River Delta of China (KENJI OKAZAKI, HIROFUMI TAKAMUKU, YOSHINORI KAWAKUBO, MARK HUDSON, JIE CHEN). Thus, to this Pingliangtai PLTM312 this Shang Dynasty Yinxu slave and this Kyushyu Japan Yayoi group should be related https://i.ibb.co/xqkJLw3/14.png, while another group of Japan Yayoi (Aoya Yayoi) retains its Jomon-like essence. Such Pingliangtai PLTM312 population, genetically affiliated with advanced Shijiahe rice farmer Yangtze population, should already acquire from initial Yangtze rice farmers necessary genes of rice farming populations, who might have been more autosomally Yellow River-like than expected, which explains the presence of alledgedly rice farming A allele of ALDH2 rs671 in an Yellow River basin-affiliated ancient individual in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

The Shijiahe culture’s predecessor (via the Qujialing culture), the rice farming Daxi culture stretching from Western Hubei (where it had some yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related neighbours, including the ancestors of yDNA N-Y66001 branch) to Eastern Sichuan, expanded to the south and even reached the Pearl River in the Guandong Province. It is not surprising that the exploration of new routes by yDNA O-M122>O-Y20-related population provided the basis for the migration of their yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related neighbours from the Yangtze river basin in the southern direction, leading to the Guangxi province of China, and eventually to the Mekong river basin, Thailand. Such movements were detected by the models of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" for ancient samples, where no “Amur-related Mongol-Tungus autosomal component” was observed, , including no ancestry from the mtDNA D4e1a3 branch, which arrived during a different period, being distributed by a different population. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” spotted a few mtDNA lineages, which distributed from a more northerly part of the Yangtze River basin, but made its way to 68%-Chamdo2.8k_1-related populations via the Southeast Asia’s route, via some Tai-Kadai-related populations and Miao-Yao-related populations, including the ancestors of the Miao-Yao-related She Fujian-Guangdong branch, and also these mtDNA lineages were a part of Naxi-Yi yDNA N-Y66001 branch population, being the lineages found in modern Yi and Naxi. In Chamdo2.8k_1, the Tibeto-Burman language was added by 32% Shannan3k (a bearer of yDNA O-M122>M117 related to Sino-Tibetans, who migrated to Chamdo2.8k_1 from the Qinghai province). The bearers of Yangtzean yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) who took the Southeast Asian route directly from the Yangtze River basin, are genetically distinct from the having become rare Huanghe-related Zongri4.5K-related yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714), because “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” showed that the Himalayan yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) can only be modeled using 0,6% of yDNA K2a* 45000-year-od Ust-Ishim, who was speculated to be a relic dweller of some areas related to the Himalayan mountains, in some genetic articles. Unlike this, the yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714) migrating directly from the Yangtze river basin via Southeast Asia, do not require 0,6% of yDNA K2a* from 45000-year-od Ust-Ishim. Some Zomia-related and Qinghai-Tibetan Himalayan O-M122 also acquire a somewhat similar Ust-Ishim property for their yDNA O-M122 unparental in Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. As O-M122 uniparental, which dominated the Chinese people, does not require a contribution from Ust-Ishim, it is a strong evidence against the Himalayan/Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Zomia origin of Sino-Tibetans, who originated from the Yangshao culture of the Yellow River (Huanghe).

The models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” show that yDNA N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related Thailand-related populations, which contributed to the deep yDNA O1b*-related Qihe3 ancestry, which in turn was contributed to Japan Jomon, also followed the similar route to the Southeast Asian route “To 68% Chamdo2.8k_1”, which was used by Naxi-Yi yDNA N-Y66001 branch. Interestingly the Naxi-Yi contain a deeply diverged at least 24000-year-old branch of yDNA O1b1, which is not observed in other populations. Apparently, it was related to Qihe3.

Not only the acquaintance of N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related, migrating towards Southeast Asia, with some Qihe3-related men contributing to Japan Jomon, but also other destinations on their way, such as Late Neolithic Vietnam, Thailand and final coming to Yunnan via 68% Chamdo2.8K_1, very much geographically resembles the Japanese stories about the movements of the alledgedly Japanese-related populations alledgedly migrating from the Yangtze river basin rice farming locations to Southeast Asia, whereas Longshan Pingliangtai PLTM1312 N-M1819(>CTS4714)-related branch of the Yangtzean origin, similarly having connections to Yangtze river rice farming populations (those more Yellow River-like) strongly contributed to the “Han-like” population migrating to Japan as a “Yangtze rice farmer-admixed” Central Plains-like representatives of the Yayoi culture. Such individuals finally contributed to the autosomal DNA of the Japanese, but they had not necessarily directly survived for 4000 years as well, meaning that Japanese uniparentals with actual recent historical connections to some representatives of the Han Chinese people, actually belonged to the historical Han Chinese-related migrants, who autosomally “dissolved” in the Japanese population and did not considerably impact the autosomal Japanese component, observed in some articles, nevertheless enriching the uniparental landscape of Japan.

The above explanation is the minimalist version of various Japanese theories similar to the theory by Kenzaburo Torigoe that some Japanese-related groups lived in Tibeto-Burman areas of Southern China (Yunnan), or to the Western hypothesis by Alexander Vovin that the Japanese language interacted with the Tai-Kadai languages in Southern China.

[Oasis]

Further, Wang et al. 2020 also just refer to three cases of B4a4. According to the yfull tree, all of these samples have the 13834 mutation of the Naxi sample of Sengupta et al. 2006, though. I.e., B4a4a3-13834G could be a rare pre-Qiangic hg.

In the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, they determined that the mutation A13834G belonged to the basal mtDNA N9*
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/N9/

The split of N9 is one of the oldest splits of mtDNA branches in Eurasia.

In the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, they determined that the undivided mtDNA N9* was important for the earliest yDNA N-M231 haplogroups, but later the basal deeply divergent yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli branch, observed in Malaysia and likely related to the N*-M231 from the Philippines (BTQ016 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-); BTQ038 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-)) joined first the mtDNA R23 popuation (mtDNA R23 is observed in Thailand, Vietnam closer to China, but also in Myanmar (closer to India, where “Indian” K2a-Y28299 preserved in India) and Indonesia) and later, from mtDNA R23 population (mtDNA R23’s basal sequence has no apparent Neanderthal or Denisovan mutations), the basal deeply divergent yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli branch joined mtDNA M21a population and some other populations belonging to a few other mtDNA M branches. Since ancestors of these Malaysian ones [BTQ016 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-); BTQ038 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-))] started to coexist with basal yDNA O*-M175 roughly at the time of separation of the deeper layer of the Jomon-related ancestry from ancient East Asians ca. 36000 years ago, as detected by the Chinese research; because of joining of O-M175* (likely pre-Jomon-related) their language should have changed, and their Myanmar-related and Philippines-related Palaeolithic migration routes should have been different from modern N-M231 in China, since the basal deeply divergent yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli branch’s along with yDNA O-M175* branch’s populations autosomally contributed to the Onge-related populations (a substratum for ancient Baojianshan), whose influence was detected at least as far as the BMAC in “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”.

The above is consistent with the splits and connections between linguistic macrogroups in Gerhard Jager's peace of research from the year of 2017.

[Oasis]

We noticed that in Tambets et al, 2018, all Uralic populations, which were modeled using qpGraph, share one divergent Neolithic farmer component, which is not identical to any European Neolithic farmer, but this component has identical genetic drift measured in qpGraph units, for all Uralic populations, which were qpGraph-ed in Tambets et al, 2018. In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, they only listed the following mtDNAs for the Finnish population. Let us consider the first European JX152784 Finn. This case has the mutation C13627T, which is only shared with mtDNA M91b, whose ancestry is participating in the yDNA N-M231-related cline in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", but such an mtDNA M91b ancestry can only be the most important for those “tropical” Hoabinhian-like “Orang Asli-related” yDNA N*-M231, discovered in Peninsular Malaysia by Chinese scientists (BTQ016 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-), BTQ038 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-))).

Ebizur claimed that ancient populations from China assimilated the “Hoabinhians” of yDNA D-M174, residing somewhere on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.

Actually, one of the ancient Qinghai-Tibetan autosomal components was modeled as “Japan Jomon” in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”

In fact, “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” pointed that the yDNA D-M174 population component partially remained in some locations, and they were not entirely assimilated, it is more likely that they were neighbours of yDNA K2a populations from the Huanghe and Yangtze river basins, and the genetic composition of their population was gradually changing because of multiple waves of small-scale migrations onto the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau since the Palaeolithic. Moreover, it was reported by archaeologists from China, that the Qinghai-Tibetan populations from localities, where ancient yDNA D-M174 was reported by geneticists, retained their stone-processing technology since the Palaeolithic. As stone tools were mostly made by males in the ancient world, it means that the core of the “male culture” of yDNA D-M174-related populations preserved on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.

Unlike the yDNA D-M174 population component, modeled as “Japan Jomon” in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, there is one more important ancient autosomal component on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in China. This is the component of the basal yDNA F-M89* population. It is only those “tropical” Hoabinhian-like “Orang Asli-related” yDNA N*-M231, discovered in Peninsular Malaysia by Chinese scientists (BTQ016 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-), BTQ038 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-))) that ended up contributing some ancestry to Hoabinhians, due to which more recent yDNA N-M231 populations, which were not the Hoabinhians, can be approximately modeled as “49% Onge” in qpGraph.

In another topic, it was mentioned that, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the cline of yDNA N-Y6503 population (ancestral to N-P189.2) and the cline of N-Z4762 population (ancestral to N-P43 and N-L392) roughly separated on the PCA in the vicinity of the Baojianshan specimen from the Guangxi province, and the yDNA N-Y6503 cline proceded via the populations, genetically akin to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau populations, while another cline more often passes through inhabitants of the Yangtze river basin in China. The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau affinity of yDNA N-Y6503 cline is supported by the independent finding in “The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia” by Ning et al, 2020 that the ancient Botai15 (N-Y6503>P189.2) had a deeply diverged 32000-year-old Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau component from the ancient Nepalese individual. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” determined the characteristics, depicting how the contact between an yDNA N-M231 population and the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau-related basal yDNA F-M89* population should look like in terms of genetic models.

[Petalpusher]

In the above Japanese article, at least four Japanese scientists seem to be ridiculing at populations living in China and their real connections to real rice farming cultures. This is seen from the fact that, in their analysis, the rice farming Tujia people representatives , who have a layer of ancestry likely related to the rice farming Hemudu culture, somehow joined the cline with Japanese Shimomotoyama hunter-fishers from ca. 2000 years ago. Most importantly, these Shimomotoyama hunter-fishers, who are claimed to partly have the Yayoi ancestry, even clustered closely to the Ainu. One Shimomotoyama3 hunter-fisher belonged to yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713 of modern Japanese, and his closeness to the Ainu means that this particular specimen was likely to be of the same nature as Honshu island’s Emishi barbarians, with whom ancient Japanese fought.

Such an attitude depreciates Chinese rice farming archaeological cultures, to which at least some Japanese would want to be related. Indeed, one of the most ancient rice farming population distributed from the Hemudu culture, a part of it got to the Tujia, but a part of it is only allowed to reach “Emishi Barbarian-related” hunter-fishers, including yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713, in “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. [b] On the one hand, the Japanese Internet is full of claiming rice farming cultures in China as Japanese-related, for which Ebizur is an example. On the other hand, we see in important argument against such claims from “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. According to this study, the Japanese people alledgedly clustered away from populations in China and Austronesia even farther, than 40000-year-old Tianyuan ancient man did and deeply diverged ancient Australasian Hoabinhians did. If Japanese ancestors participated in Yangtze river basin rice farming cultures, then they would be assimilated by Han Chinese, and there would exist intermediate populations between modern Chinese and modern Japanese. According to “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”, this is not the case, and Japanese and Chinese are terribly far from each other. But this also mean that there was no observable participation of Japanese-like populations in archaeological cultures in China, with the ancient DNA samples of which modern diversified Chinese and some minorities in China share uniparentals.

This raises the question: is it possible that serious scientists of a large Japanese state would be involved in wishful thinking to such a degree? On the one hand, some of them want those archaeological cultures. On the other hand, some of them appear to simultaneously want to imagine that the Japanese people was always the same as today, even in the Early Neolithic. Thus, such scientists do not wish to show any serious genetic connections between the modern Japanese population and other populations deriving ffrom the desired cultures in China. For example, the Liangzhu culture, which Ebizur is trying to claim, has lots of yDNA O-M119, a relative of actual Austronesians. As Ebizur always reported, the Japanese people have quite little yDNA O-M119. It is impossible to remove actual populations from their archaeological cultures, even by claim that this or that lineage, reported from ancient DNA, was a sort of a local “subhuman”, while actual masters of the culture were not revealed yet.

It can be observed that even the actual connection with rice farming Tujia was shown in a “funny” way in the Japanese work, signed by four scientists: connecting rice farmers to ancient hunter-gatherer Ainu-like outliers, rather than to Japanese, in order to preserve the alledged “unadmixedness” of the modern Japanese. It is quite obvious that populations from China will not surrender their ancient cultures to such strange views from Japan. It also means that Japanese Internet advertising of belonging to some ancient culture is more a sort of public image-making and does not necessarily imply serious factual connection between Japanese and chosen archaeological cultures, which would be supported by serious and detailed research.

I wonder if there's an East Asian forum like Apricity where Koreans, Japaneses and Chineses troll each others too with their own Ainu hunter gatherers, rice farmers and so on (and in what language). I bet Japaneses are the most insufferable.