Japanese-Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda-Totonac clusters in Jager2015,2016,2017: escort of language of O1b2

[Oasis]

The situation mentioned in the name of the topic is extremely difficult, however, numerous genetic models of “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago",“Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” provided the framework to solve it


In Jager, 2015 (“Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment Gerhard Jäger”), the Japanese language clustered with a linguistic cluster, comprising:
[1] Kusunda, a language isolate from Nepal;
[2] Shompen, a language, which is considered a language isolate by some linguists or an Austroasiatic language by other linguists (the Shompens live on the Nicobar Islands, interacting with Austroasiatics). The prominent mtDNA of Shompen population is mtDNA R12, and an affinity to mtDNA R12 was pointed at in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” for mtDNAs, which are shared by other populations with the Kusunda population, making mtDNA R12 affinity one of tracer dyes for the observed Shompen-Kusunda linguistic commonalities.

In Jager, 2016 (“"Inferring the world tree of languages from word lists"”), the Japanese language clustered with a cluster, comprising:
[1] Shompen, the mentioned language, which is considered a language isolate by some linguists or an Austroasiatic language by other linguists;
[2] Munichi, a died-out Native American language isolate from Peru, which is interestingly depicted as a closer relative to Shompen than to the Japanese in Jager, 2016.

It should be noted that the Japanese scientists did not put so much effort to explain the Japanese-Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda affinity (despite showing that one Kusunda representative may participate in a cline with some Native Americans in “Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations”), but they put a lot of effort in claiming the main East Asian-Southeast Asian Siouan-Sino-Tibetan-Hmong-Mien-Austroasiatic-Austronesian-Tai-Kadai cluster from Jager, 2016 (related to to ca. 1 600 000 000 people in East Asia and ca. 700 000 000 people in Southeast Asia), with which Japanese-Shompen-Munichi also clustered as one of the branches of this East Asian/Southeast Asian macrocluster. For example, in “Nuclear DNA Analysis of Human Bones Excavated at Inome Cave Site, Izumo-shi, Shimane Pref.” the Japanese geneticists reconstructed the place of initial origin for ancestors of 2 medieval O1b2-47z Japanese between an isolated Vietnamese and isolated Cambodian, and their Vietnamese-Cambodian "ancestral cline" pierced the body of the cline of the whole East Asia and Southeast Asia, as if all East Asian and Southeast Asian populations had originated from some O1b-related ancestors of the Japanese. Unlike this, the mentioned Chinese articles showed that main clines of the populations, rich in yDNA O-M122 and rich in yDNA O1b1, run in parallel to each other, because both yDNA O-M122 and yDNA O1b1 contributed to the most numerous modern East Asian populations, while O1b2 of the Japanese and Koreans is exteremely rare in East Asia and Southeast Asia (except for Northeast Asian Japanese and Koreans). Also, for the main East Asian-Southeast Asian Siouan-Sino-Tibetan-Hmong-Mien-Austroasiatic-Austronesian-Tai-Kadai cluster from Jager, 2016, the ancient Longlin, to whom some of yDNA O-M175 ancestry allocated during the split of O-M175 ca. 36000 years ago, took the role of the contributor of the most deeply diverged O-M175 ancestry to populations, such as Kolyma-like ancestors the Siouan Native Americans, because the split within O-M175 ca.36000 years ago by far predated the final separation between the East Asians and the East Asian part of ancestors of Native Americans. Thus, the main East Asian-Southeast Asian-Native American Siouan-Sino-Tibetan-Hmong-Mien-Austroasiatic-Austronesian-Tai-Kadai cluster from Jager, 2016 in the genetic terms is united by ca. 36000- year-old yDNA O-M175 populations’ genetic ancestry, reaching Native Americans.

In Jager, 2017 (“From words to features to trees: Computing a world tree of languages from word lists”) Japanese-Munichi-Totonac cluster as a whole clustered with Native American Algic languages, but the Korean language also clustered with Algic languages. It should be briefly explained that Koreans have C2-F1067 haplogroup and O1b2 haplogroup. C2-F1067 living in North China, Korea and likely also in Palaeolithic Japan, is thought to be a maker of microblades in the Palaeolithic. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” pointed that the ancestry of C2-F1067 populations associated with the region of Shandong, where the Fenghuangling culture (producing wedge-shaped microblades) flourished in the Palaeolithic (later being replaced by small flake tool and middle flake tool makers after the Last Glacial Maximum) was a kind of C2-F1067 populations’ ancestry which was only contributed to Native Americans and their yDNA C2-F1067 branches likely did not survive, while the ancestry of C2-F1067 populations from the Inner Mongolia region is responsible for distributing to both Native Americans and Western Eurasian populations, which means that it followed (as one of the routes in the Palaeolithic) a route leading to Xinjiang, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, from where such an ancestry could reach the territory of India and Indochina, where mtDNA M4’67 and M18 was distributing, and later mtDNA M18 members migrated to Southeast Asia, which should explain the affinity between Native American Algic speakers and speakers of languages in the regions bordering Southeast Asia in Jager, 2017. Thus, yDNA C2-F1067 population, which settled in Korea and Inner Mongolia, was a descendant of migrating microblade makers and should explain the linguistic similarities between the Korean language and Algic Native American languages as well as some dwellers of Southeast Asia in Jager, 2017. Interestingly, there is two other hypotheses, connecting Korean and Nivkh, Nivkh and Algic. Thus, it is possible that the Korean-related yDNA C2-F1067 microblade making population was a mediator: it contributed some ancestry to Native Americans, (influencing the Native American-related mtDNA A2 population in the Palaeolithic), such as ancestors of Algic populations and it contributed some ancestry to the Nivkh people; thus, the Algic similarity of the Nivkh should be considered the result of the ancient Palaeolithic level influence on the Nivkh people from Korea, but not vice versa (that is, not by “a Nivkh substratum in the Korean language hypothesis”).

The above scenario leaves little room for the separate existence of O1b2 and C2-F1067 in Korea. Thus, populations of some of these bearers likely merged with each other, which is supported by yDNA C2 affinities of some yDNA O lineages experiencing the influence from populations from Korea in genetic models in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Thus, when Chinese geneticists in the above articles want to highlight the Japanese-related nature of some of ancient DNA influences, coming from the Korean peninsula in the broad sense, they additionally highlight the affinity of the relevant ancient samples to Japan Jomon, as mixed populations were already shown to exist in ancient DNA in some regions of Korea.

Thus, in Jager, 2017, Japanese clustered with Algic and Korean due to the Korean-related yDNA C2-F1067 population’s influence on the formation of the Japanese language (it is possible that some yDNA C2-F1067 were also Palaeolithic micoblade makers in Japan).

What needs to be considered from Jager, 2017, is the Japanese-Munichi-Totonac linguistic cluster, which as a whole clustered with the described Korean-Algic cluster. Japanese-Munichi-Totonac linguistic cluster also includes a wide variety of American languages from various American language families, which may mean the linguistic influence of a certain population on several selected members of differing American language families.

The Peruvian Munichi language isolate, a Japanese and Shompen relative from Jager, 2016, was already mentioned. Another more noticieable member is Totonac in Mexico.




The explanation for Jager. 2015, 2016, 2017 “linguistic findings”, that is, relevant population movements, elucidated by the models of the mentioned Chinese genetic articles, is the following. During the Late Palaeolithic>Mesolithic, the ancient yDNA O1b2*, long before the birth of O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 common ancestor, happened to have the Japan Jomon genetic influence in this particular case, but migrated in the direction of the Southeast Chinese sea coastal Fujian province via the territory, bordering the localization of the Devil’s Cave ancient samples , which have some autosomal ancestry of yDNA O1b2-related population, despite being yDNA C2-M217 (the Devil’s Cave is not far from China-Russia-Korea borderland, where there are rivers not far from the sea, flowing in the southern direction). This yDNA O1b2*/Jomon ancestry got landed in the ancient 11356-11747-year-old yDNA O1b*-related Fujianese population of Qihe3. These having O1b*+O1b2-related autosomal ancestry Qihe3-related populations contributed some ancestry to the southern variant of yDNA N Boshan, residing within the reach of the Lower Yangtze River basin. Populations, ancestral to mtDNA M7b1a1a1, one of the rice farming lineages of the Japanese, were being contributed to Qihe-related populations via southern Boshan-related populations, in accordance with the models. It is consistent with the fact that the incipient form of rice farming appeared in the most northern Houli culture, where northern Boshan-related populations lived. The origin of the rice farming as such is considered to be the doing of O-M122 in the Middle Yangtze River Basin in China. The yDNA O1b2*-related ancestry in Qihe3 is different from the O1b2-related ancestry, which was found in the autosomal form in the Late Neolithic Xitoucun from Fujian (which is closer to the level of O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 migrations in terms of time) (thus, it is questionable, whether there could be any continuity of O1b2 from Qihe3 period to Xitoucun period in China, or rather the O1b2-related ancestry closer to the period of the O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 migrations, observed in Xitoucun, migrated as a different later wave from Korea; however, the newer population should have been assimilated by the older population in accordance with those models). In accordance with the models, Xitoucun-related populations had to obtain mtDNA M7b1a1a1 lineages from the earlier Qihe3-related populations, which obtained them via Boshan-related populations. Though their way of migration to Japan is not clear, mtDNA M7b1a1a1 should belong to the mainstream Japonic speakers of the Aoya Yayoi, reported in “DNA Analysis of Human Bones of the Late Yayoi Period Excavated at the Aoya-Kamijichi Site, Tottori, Tottori”


Most of the imported part of the Aoya Yayoi mtDNA can trace the initial origin in a variety of archaeological cultures in China, and their Chinese counterparts would cluster in the absolutely different positions on the PCA, distant from the modern Japanese, but similar to local cultures from the same region, thus, it is absolutely impossible that the wide variety of archaeological cultures in Neolithic China was ever populated by a uniform population, autosomally similar to the modern Japanese.

Those were the mainstream ”via southern Boshan-related” => “Qihe3-related” M7b1a1a1 lineages of the mainstream Japonic Yayoi rice farming speakers (as considered in China). It is considered in the above Chinese articles that M7b1a1a samples from China have an affinity to mtDNA N10 and N11 samples from China, thus, the mutation T10345C in M7b1a1a1 should be also connected to mtDNA N10 and mtDNA N11 in China.

Now let us return to the non-mainstream branch “To Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda-Totonac” from Jager 2015, 2016, 2017.
Having O1b*+O1b2-related autosomal ancestry, Mesolithic Qihe3 produced an offshoot, which started to distribute in the direction of ancient Baojianshan from the Guangxi province, whose ethnogenetic role was described in other posts. From the location of Baojianshan, this population migrated to the Mekong river basin of Vietnam, were they separated into a branch “To Shompen”, continuing to live in Southeast Asia, and a branch “To Kusunda”. A branch “To Kusunda” migrated along the Mekong River, reaching the Chamdo region of Tibet, where it is already not far from the current localization of modern Kusunda in Nepal. Most importantly, it is already very close to the Xiaonanshan civilization-Hongshan civilization-Boisman cline from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the meaning of which was described in another post:

According to “mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization” funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the most ancient of their studied Sumerian-related specimens TQ 28F 112 (Early Bronze Age, 2650-2450 BC) belonged to the basal mtDNA M49.

It is already much later than dispersals of the so-called “Xiaonanshan civilization”-related populations, the first constructors of stone monuments in Northeast China since Late Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic (https://m.fx361.com/news/2021/0406/8062142.html http://www.soolun.net/periodical/5aa...eff10bfe2.html), who were influenced by “Yangtze River basin”-related populations, who were in turn influenced by the “Yellow River basin”-related populations in accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Nonetheless, the degree of commonalities, observed by Chinese researchers, can be higher or lower, depending on a temporal stratum, during which this or that population may be presumed to be developing.

The “Northeast Chinese continental Jomon yDNA D-M64-related”+“AR7.3K_outlier yDNA N1c Zuojiashan-related”+“ “Sino-Tibetan component of the Hongshan culture”-related” cline from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” reaches the Tibetic Shannan specimens, who can contain mtDNA haplogroups sharing mutations with mtDNA M49 in accordance with “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, and the earlier in time “Xiaonanshan civilization-related” cline, whose members include 33000-year-old Neolithic_Iran-like Amur33K component, also quite closely approached the Tibetic Shannan specimens in the same article. Tibetic Shannan is already bordering Tibetic Nyingchi, which is connected to the territory of Myanmar (Burma) via the Salween River.



According to “Ancient inland human dispersals from Myanmar into interior East Asia since the Late Pleistocene”, “among the basal lineages in Myanmar, haplogroups M49, M72, M83, M55, M90, M91, M54, M84 and M24 show restricted distribution and high diversity in Myanmar and its surrounding areas, such as northeast India, northern Thailand, northern Laos and southwestern China (Figs. 2, ,33 and Supplementary Fig. S3 online), suggesting their origin and differentiation in situ.”

Similarly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” points to cases of basal mtDNA M49, likely related to the local substratum of Tibeto-Burman groups, in the Burmese Irrawaddy River basin.


Interestingly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” also points that, along with mtDNA M49, one of the mentioned Irrawaddy Tibeto-Burman populations contains mtDNA M30c as well as mtDNA M1’20’51 with mutation connected to some other branches of mtDNA M30. It means that there was a local center of mtDNA M30 dispersal from the Irrawaddy River basin in Myanmar (Burma). mtDNA M30c popped up in post-‘Indus Valley civilization’ Indo-European-led Gandhara (the Swat Valley). Nevertheless, much more cases of mtDNA M30 from the inland Indian populations (including non-Indo-European ones) along the route from Myanmar to Northeast India, where ancient Magadha later developed, and farther to the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan was reported by “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. However, one case of mtDNA M30 from Jenu Kuruba gatherers of honey (which was a popular product in the Near East), living not to far from the Indian sea coast along the route used by the Indus Valley Civilization seafarers to connect the territory of the Indus Valley and the territory of Myanmar, was reported in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. It means that some of mtDNA M30 bearers might have bordered the Indus Valley civilization ships and might have been brought as non-Indo-Europeans to both heartland of the Indus Valley civilization and to Mesopotamian Sumer (as a part of Sumer-Meluhha (Indus Valley civilization) contacts). Nevertheless, mtDNA M30 as a whole is a relative of mtDNA M4’67, which is often found in Onge-related populations as well as in aboriginal Indian AASI populations, so mtDNA M30 is one of the lineages, which fit the description of being a Hoabinhian/AASI-related lineage, which had been influenced by much more developed Neolithic Baojianshan from China and was being distributed by land as far as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (according to “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”), forming a certain hypothetical link between the Sino-Tibetan language bearers and the populations, influencing the formation of the Caucasians (by the way, it is speculated by some western researchers that the Hurro-Urartian languages should be included in the list of languages alledgedly sharing some connections with Sino-Tibetan speakers).


Such an mtDNA lineage as mtDNA M49, which is found in Myanmar (Burma), interacted with Hongshan-affiliated populations, who reached Tibet, and was reported in Sumer-related ancient DNA, might have taken a somewhat similar sea voyage route as the case of mtDNA M30, described above, might have done (the territory of Myanmar having an independent contact with the Indus Valley civilization). It is supported by the fact that “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” found connections between much older Myanmar-specific haplogroups and much younger haplogroups reported from populations deriving from the current region of “Sumerian Dilmun” localization, while Dilmun was considered a homeland of at least some of ancient Sumerian gods. The chosen current localization of the part of Dilmun on the Bahrain sea island does not well reflect the achievements of the Sumerian civilization, which may be influenced by the fact that western researchers, such as an American researcher Samuel Noah Kramer, consider the Sumerians a population migrating to Mesopotamia and acquiring the achievements of the local population, which had lived in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians. However, Kramer’s view of a mountainous component of the Sumerian ethnogenesis (quote: “in Kramer’s reconstruction Mesopotamia was first settled by immigrants from Iran who had painted their pottery. Somewhat later they mixed with the Semites who came from the west. Both ethnic groups created a civilisation, which expanded and eventually came into contact with early Sumerians, the nomadic tribes from Transcaucasia or Transcaspia”) matches the CHG-like populations, while Kramer’s view cannot account for populations arriving by sea, whose “Sumerian Dilmun Paradise” was not even universally accepted by all Sumerian-speaking populations. The search for a more precise localization of an inspiration for the Sumerian Dilmun continues.

The archaeology of Northeast India, to which Myanmar-related populations migrated and which used to be a non-Indo-Aryan stronghold in the distant past, is still obscure. Similarly, the compilation of results of archaeological research in Myanmar is still in its infancy as well.

According to the Indologist Johannes Bronkhorst (the author of “Greater Magadha”), even during the period of 150 year befire Christ (150 BC), the grammarian Patanjali did not include the territory ofMagadha located in Northeast India (adjacent to the sea), into “the land of the Aryas”. However, according to Johannes Bronkhorst, it does not mean that there were no Aryans in Northeast India, but it means that there was no systematic presence of Brahmanism in Northeast India, whereas Brahmanism originated basing on the Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans. Therefore, Johannes Bronkhorst notes the importance of Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika for the rulers of Magadha and early rulers of the Maurya Empire, based in Magadha. It is believed that Shakyamuni Buddha taught in Magadha.

Johannes Bronkhorst acknowledges that the design of the Buddhist stupa (“a hemispherical structure containing relics that is used as a place of meditation”) is rooted in the ancient architecture of Magadha. However, the early Buddhist temples in Magadha also contained a tower in the shape of a stepped truncated pyramid. The origin of such a tower in the shape of a stepped truncated pyramid in Buddhist temples is considered to be unclear. No pyramids and no truncated pyramids was observed in the architecture of the Indus Valley civilization, the western neighbor of the Northeast Indian territory, where Magadha later developed, despite the fact that the Indus Valley civilization was in constant contact with ziggurat-building Near Eastern populations.

However, there was also exchange between the mtDNA M49-related population (migrating to the territory of future Magadha from Myanmar) and the Hongshan-affiliated population, mentioned in the beginning of this text, which reached the Tibetic territories adjacent to Myanmar, according to “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. On the territory of China, the first stone cairns were reported from the “Xiaonanshan civilization” (Early Neolithic, rooted in stone monuments reaching the Late Palaeolithic period). More importantly for the origin of “the stepped truncated pyramid” as an element of temple architecture, the development of “the stepped truncated pyramid” in connection to gradual development of the spiritual culture can be traced basing on the Hongshan culture. Indeed, simple stone platforms for civil construction were very ancient in this culture and its earlier relatives. As Chinese archaeologists mention, the three-storeyed stone altar of the Hongshan culture (the most important being related to the Hongshan Niuheliang Temple) was developing between 6000 and 5500 years ago (each storey of the altar alluded to the geometric shape of a symbol, which was accepted as denoting a certain natural or supernatural phenomenon). The three-storeyed truncated pyramid, topped with a temple (the most complete such a pyramid with each storey having smaller dimensions than the previous storey was found one kilometer north of Sijiazi Township in the Aohan Banner, where the Hongshan culture was spread) was developing between 5500 and 5000 years ago. The Nasitai regional center site of the Hongshan culture (roughly contemporaneous to the Niuheliang site and having a scope, which is comparable to the Niuheliang site, but the complete excavation was not finished yet) produced a stone statue of a kneeling/praying man, who had a head, to which a three-storeyed head decoration was tied, signifying an individual spiritual role of the three-storeyed concept.


If similar “stone-made stepped pyramids” from other contemporaneous 5500-5000-year-old Neolithic cultures in China are not reported, then it can be considered that the gradually developing in situ Hongshan concept of a three-stroyed truncated pyramid building, reported by Chinese archaeologists, gave inspiration to other ancient stepped pyramid-shaped constructions in China and adjacent territories (the highest 4300-year-old one reported so far in China being 70 meters high, sporadically decorated with stone carvings).

"Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" stressed that the Baojianshan-related branch, which should include the ancestry of the discussed “To Kusunda” branch, is closer to ancient Boisman culture (Neolithic seafarers) relative to Devil’s Cave specimens. Taking into account that Qihe3 and Baojianshan have at least some Devil’s Cave related ancestry, the closeness to Boisman relative to the Devil’s Cave is only possible, if members of the discussed “To Kusunda” population joined the populations migrating along the route, formed by the Xiaonanshan civilization-Hongshan civilization-Boisman cline of populations, which should have been an important cultural group of populations, and some of Kusunda-related individuals reached the yDNA C2-M217-rich Boisman culture in Northeast Asia, and these Boisman Neolithic seafarers distributed their descendants, their languages, their new relatives, acquired in Northeast Asia, to America, were they might have turned into a cultural force, which influenced the formation of Munichi and Totonac societies as well as other mentioned relevant Native American groups, explaining Japanese-Shompen-Munichi-Kusunda-Totonac clusters in Jager,2015,2016,2017: escort of “language of O1b2” in such a beautiful way. This would be in line with the findings of “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago",“Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

[Oasis]

10/139 = 7.19% K2-M526(xO1-M1354, L599, F854, F915, F13, F238, F1266, FGC3750, M188, F450, N7, AM01845, F1150, P1-M45) [These individuals most likely should belong to haplogroup N-M231, but some of them may belong to unusual subclades of haplogroup O2-M122, such as O2b(xO2b1-F1150).]

If we count percentages of mtDNAs of M10, M7b type and other types (observed in the Japanese people, including "mainstream Yayoi" when haplogroup names coincide), with whom Boshan-related populations were involved in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the total amount in the Japanese people will be higher than 7,19%.

In the questionnaire concerning the origin of the Japanese language, presented in Kyoto in 2001, ten Japanese and foreign linguists were asked whether the Japanese language can be considered a language, which originated from a single lineage, that is, from a single ancestral form. Their answers were the following:
[1] Japanese language can be considered a language, which originated from a single lineage: the answer “Yes”, 6 respondents out of 10 (60%).
[2] Japanese language can be considered a language, which originated from a single lineage: the answer “No”, 2 respondents out of 10 (20%).
[3] Japanese language can be considered a language, which originated from a single lineage: the answer “Don’t know”, 2 respondents out of 10 (20%).

Thus, more than a half of the questioned 10 linguists considered in 2001 that the Japanese language can be considered a language, which originated from a single lineage.

However, the list of external comparisons of the Japanese language is really huge. The following list of external comparisons for the Japanese language is cited by Janhunen: ”Chinese, Tibetan, Dravidian, Papuan, Austronesian, and Austro-Asiatic, with the most popular point of reference being offered by the so-called Altaic (or Ural-Altaic) framework, which comprises Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic (as well as Uralic)”

If we recall the Shompen language, which is treated by linguists as either an Austroasiatic language or language isolate, and which can now be considered a language of the offshoot of the yDNA O1b*/O1b2-related Qihe3 population, which also contributed to the formation of the Japanese in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the Shompen language clustered with the Japanese language in Jager, 2015 and Jager, 2016 only basing on the similarities of lexical items, whereas grammar and morphology is not tackled in Jager, 2015 and Jager, 2016.

The grammar of the Shompen language is extremely poorly analyzed today. However, basing on existing materials, it can be judged that the Shompen language actively employs the ablaut (alteration, of which one of examples is the Indo-European English verb forms “sing, sang, sung”) as a grammatical means in the form, which is not observed in modern Japanese and was not observed in Old Japanese:
An example from the Shompen language:
https://www.rogerblench.info/Languag...en%20paper.pdf

kaiug ũā “go there”
kaiug tiug nānbeo “I shall go to Campbell Bay”
o kāiāggi nānbeo “I shall not go to Campbell Bay” (here o=not)
mheā kāog nibu “Nibu has not come” (here mheā =not)

In the questionnaire concerning the origin of the Japanese language, 10 linguists out of 10 (100%) agreed that the Japanese language underwent external linguistic influence. Thus, it may be considered that “Shompen-related” Qihe3 populations contributed a lot of loanwords to populations, distantly related to Boshan, because the modern Japanese people is more close autosomally to populations, distantly related to Boshan, than to populations, related to Qihe3. However, in the 2000s, the Japanese geneticists mastered the way enabling them to report that 100% of yDNA K2a in the Buryat people is O-M175, thus, the question of scrutinity in determining uniparentals in modern and ancient populations remains open.

According to the WALS data, there is no plural in Shompen, while there are plural suffixes in the Japanese language. Overall, the Japanese language has a rather complex grammar, various elements of the Japanese grammar bear similarities to the languages from the list above, with which the Japanese language was shown to exhibit connections. It would hardly be correct to think that not the Shompen-like lexical items were imported from Qihe3-related populations, but instead the Japanese grammar was “imported” or was formed under the influence of 7-8 foreign language families.

In the models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the Upper Yellow River and other more northerly locations had been the place of habitation of the yDNA K2a Ust-Ishim-related component (but to the south 6% related to yDNA F* populations can be observed), while Boshan-related populations exhibit properties of having a different comparably ancient yDNA K2a-related component, which can only be classified so far as a “distantly Oase1-related” component, because there are only two such ancient yDNA K2a*-related components so far in "Genome of Pestera Muierii skull shows high diversity and low mutational load in pre-glacial Europe". The location of a “distantly Oase1-related” component in the models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” is in the tributaries of the Upper Yangtze River basin (while the Yangtze river basin is a homeland of the Japanese language in several theories, and the Japanese people do have some Oase1-related component in "Genome of Pestera Muierii skull shows high diversity and low mutational load in pre-glacial Europe"), thus, it is likely that populations, distantly related to Oase1, were reaching “the plain of high heaven” of the Upper Yangtze River basin in the Palaeolithic.

[Oasis]

In 1934, the stone burial chamber of an ancient burial mound was accidentally discovered during construction of the Kyoto Imperial University's seismic observatory on the 281.1 meter Mount Abu. There was no indication at ground level that this was a kofun, but further investigate determined that it had originally been a circular enpun (円墳)-style tumulus with a diameter of 82 meters, surrounded by a dry moat and rows of cylindrical haniwa. The burial chamber contained a coffin stand, on top of which was a sarcophagus made by hardening cloth with lacquer in multiple layers. The outside was painted with black lacquer and the inside with red lacquer. This was a unique discovery, made even more so when it w was discovered that inside was the almost complete mummified remains of a man in his 60s, complete with hair and clothing. There were no mirrors, swords, jewels or other grave goods, but the body appeared to have been wrapped in brocade, with many gold threads were scattered from the chest to the head, which was resting on a pillow made of woven glass beads. On April 29, 1934, the discovery was made public by the Osaka Asahi Shimbun, and quickly attracted crowds of spectators due to speculation that it was the grave of Asuka period nobleman Fujiwara no Kamatari.
[…]
A 1987 analysis revealed that the deceased had a strong bone structure and an athletic body, with the so-called pitcher's elbow. The cause of death was complications from injuries to the vertebral column and lumbar vertebrae sustained from a fall, as if from horseback or a high ground. The injury is thought to have left the lower body paralyzed and could have caused secondary complications such as pneumonia or urinary tract infection. The cause of death matches that of Kamatari's, who is recorded to have died from a fall from horseback.

The distribution of gold threads was determined to have been from the embroidery thread for a taishokkan woven kanmuri, which could have been used only by a noble of the highest rank. Together with the lacquered coffins and the glass-ball pillows, it was concluded that it is highly likely that the tomb was that of the 7th century statesman and aristocrat Fujiwara no Kamatari.

In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, a Japanese person, who may be thought to be more closely related to Fujiwara no Kamatari within 2075 years (the timeline in accordance with theytree.com), has mtDNA which was only reported from a Xiongnu in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, though the distant ancestor of this mtDNA bearer was reported from the Longshan culture, as is the case with non-C2-M217 individuals, who entered the Lower Xiajiadian culture from the Longshan-related populations in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", and their descendants later became the members of the Khitan Mongols. The Xiongnu affiliation of the mentioned Fujiwara-related lineage is consistent with a much more distant, with a split a few thousand years ago, yDNA relative of Fujiwara no Kamatari being observed in Karachay-Cherkessia, where descendants of Altaic or local “Sumerian mountaineers in the Steppe”-related populations are intermixed with Caucasian populations. Interestingly, the described mtDNA lineage of a Japanese person, who may be closer to Fujiwara no Kamatari within 2075 years, has a very rare mutation, shared with Native Americans. Interestingly, “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations” tried to blame a Native American-Ust-Ishim-related affinity onto an mtDNA R30 member of the rice farming She nationality, however, the Admixture model in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” did not show any initial Native American-Ust-Ishim affinity in a mtDNA R30 member of the rice farming She nationality, so the relatives of Fujiwara no Kamatari population should blame this small initial Native American-Ust-Ishim affinity on themselves.

Interestingly, within 3230 years (according to theytree.com timeline), there is another Japanese person with a lineage, possibly related to Fujiwara no Kamatari within those 3230 years, and his mtDNA is mtDNA N9b (Jomon-related), according to “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. Interestingly, this mtDNA N9b has a mutation uniting it with Himalayan populations interacting with mtDNA M70 with no apparent Neanderthal or Denisovan mutations in her main sequence (observed in the ancient Himalayan M70/basal N-F2930* C4570 individual ). It is possible that the distant ancestor of this Japanese mtDNA N9b person started to interact with ancestors of the Japanese imperial family, and, due to this, he and other members of his clan acquired the connection to the mythical origin of the Japanese emperor. Unlike this, the direct ancestor of Fujiwara no Kamatari descended from another related yDNA branch within 3230 years, but, due to the imperial connections, acquired by his distant yDNA relative, the direct ancestor of Fujiwara no Kamatari unexpectedly acquired the position related to the management of the religious sphere, previously holding the administrative position of oumuraji (“There is no evidence to suggest that the Nakatomi originally performed a priestly role, nor that they had any strong connection to a particular shrine or deity”).

Thus, it is more likely that the basis “in the real world” for “the mythical origin” of the Nakatomi, ancestors of Fujiwara no Kamatari, is the acquired relatedness to members of the Japanese imperial family, which was acquired by the Nakatomi’s distant yDNA relative, while the direct ancestor of Fujiwara no Kamatari was capable of changing the administrative position to the position, managing the religious sphere, due to the imperial connection, which arose because of his ancient distant relative. Thus, the modern Japanese populations, having the same yDNA as the Nakatomi, do not acquire the right to claim “the mythical origin”, because the idea of “the mythical origin” of the Nakatomi appeared due to their connection to the imperial family, but not due to their original descent, not due to the Nakatomi’s yDNA.

Also, there would be no ground for claiming that the Japanese people “created” the Himalayan population. How one of yDNA D-M64 could have migrated from Japan during the ancient period, was described in the quotation in the first post in this topic.

P.S. It should be added that, in accordance with this particular yDNA phylogeny, a contact between a population, related to Xiongnu ancestors, and a population, ancestral to the Nakatomi, Fujiwara no Kamatari, should have happened before the split between the branch closer to Fujiwara no Kamatari and the N9b-related branch, which was likely to first contact the ancestors of the Japanese imperial family. This fact only even strongly supports that, during the early medieval period and before, it was important to acquire the actual relatedness to the imperial family for acquiring the possibility to claim one's "mythical origin".

I do not mention the actual name of the yDNA of Fujiwara, to which it was claimed they had belonged, and do not describe the essence of "the mythical origin". Those who are interested, can find this information themselves.

[Oasis]

As for the alledgedly 25000-year-old OCA2-HiS615Arg (rs1800414: T→C) in the Japanese population, the oldest OCA2-HiS615Arg (rs1800414: T→C) was only reported from the 7500-year-old Fujianese woman Liangdao2 (mtDNA R9), related to Austronesians, in “A Late Pleistocene human genome from Southwest China”, so the appearance of OCA2-HiS615Arg (rs1800414: T→C) in the Japanese people was likely a separate event and was possibly mediated by a Late Neolithic Fujianese Xitoucun component. Thus, one more separate distribution should be true for ALDH2 (rs671: G→A), as the most ancient ALDH2 (rs671: G→A) was only detected in Iron Age samples, whose ancestors originated from the Yellow River Basin. The C allele of ADH1B rs1229984 was widely distributed in ancient samples in China, but not in the Himalayan yDNA D-M174 ancient samples (according to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”).

In this new article “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” by Yosuke Kawai, the interesting finding is the separation of the Ryukyuan population (speakers of a branch of Japonic languages, which is usually considered the most deeply diverged branch of Japonic) ca. 3700 years ago from a certain rather small population in mainland China.

The “ancient” mtDNA of the Ryukyuan population is the following in “Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the skeletal remains excavated from the old Tokijin tomb, located in the Nakijin village of Okinawa Island”:



There exists an ancient sample in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", whose direct Neolithic ancestor was likely related to the culture of Hemudu, judging by the male uniparental, and who had yDNA, which did not preserve in modern Ryukyuan males in Hammer at al, 2006, but this sample’s mtDNA is related to mtDNA B5*, having mutations 8281-8289 del. and 8584A, so this described sample could be reported to belong to mtDNA B5* in the similar fashion, as was done in “Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the skeletal remains excavated from the old Tokijin tomb, located in the Nakijin village of Okinawa Island”. Moreover, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", this ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample clustered very close to a modern sample, having the mutation from mtDNA B5b*/B5b2*, so it is quite likely that this ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample was also intermixed with the mtDNA B5b*/B5b2*-related population, which was most widely represented in qpADM models by the male part of ancient Boshan in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

This ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample and yDNA N-M231 Boshan formed a cline, which also included ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples, belonging to mtDNA M7b1a1 (it means that there should have been interaction with populations, ancestral to Tai-Kadai in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"), while the DNA percentage, which is characteristic of mtDNA M7b1a1a1 in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", can be observed as far north as Boshan, though “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” made a small remark, implying that northern Early Neolithic period Shandong populations should not be considered direct linguistic ancestors. Indeed, these populations were replaced by Transeurasian-speaking communities, their languages dying out, but at least contributing to the typology of the newcomer languages, while their ancient southern ancestors contributed to the formation of modern populations. If the Japanese-related mtDNA M7b1a1a1 has mutations 309.1C and 315.1C, it used to be determined as mtDNA M7b2 in a western genetic article. It might be the “origin” of the numerous Ryukyuan mtDNA M7b2 in Tanaka et al, 2004, while other articles report mainly mtDNA M7b1a1a1 from Ryukyuan-related populations. The actual mtDNA M7b2a was reported from Tai-Kadai in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, so if the M7b2 affinity in Ryukyuan M7b1a1a1 was caused by actual exchange with some ancestors of the Tai-Kadai, this exchange has been described by the discussed cline comprising ancient yDNA N-M231 Boshan, ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample and ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". [The meaning of mtDNA M7b2 is such that mtDNA M7b2 shares a mutation with mtDNA R12, maximized in the Shompen people, discussed in this topic, providing a clue that yDNA O1b* populations, which coexisted with mtDNA M7b2, actually contributed to the formation of the Shompen people, and the Shompen language should be treated as the yDNA O1b-related language]


It is important that not only yDNA N-CTS582 Boshan participated in the discussed “ancient Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline, but also yDNA N-F2930>CTS4714 Naxi sample, yDNA N-F2930>CTS4714 Yi sample of the same branch as Naxi, form a cline, which is an offshoot from “ancient Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline, and a Naxi, belonging to a deeply diverged 24000-year-old branch of yDNA O1b1, joins their offshoot in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Moreover, the N-CTS582 ancient samples from Thailand also form an offshoot from this “ancient Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline’s samples, providing a clue for the joint migration of some N-CTS582 and N-F2930>CTS4714. Moreover, the Henan province ancient Pingliangtai N-F2930>CTS4714-related samples also form an offshoot from this cline’s samples. The above means that the discussed “ancient Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline intersects the important area, where ancient Yangtze River Basin-related yDNA N-CTS582 and yDNA N-F2930 populations coexisted with yDNA O1b populations and yDNA O1a-M119 populations, in accordance with “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” . The yDNA O1b2 population, whose ancestry was detected in ancient Xitoucun, is connected to the discussed “ancient Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline via the component, related to N-F2930>CTS4714 Naxi and Yi, which is consistent with the Japanese population’s acquiring a component from China, which also passes through the Yi and Naxi in “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu”. The Japanese authors of “Genetic characteristics of Yayoi people in Northwestern Kyushu” probably only wanted to extract some magnificent component from Yunnan-related bodies of Naxi-Yi, because it was suggested by Christopher J. Beckwith, a MacArthur Fellow, that the Japanese formed out of the local Puyo-Koguryo component settling in Korea and out of the “Tibeto-Burman” component (including Yunnan), while the infamous “possibly Kosarek-related” Bai are also not far from Naxi-Yi. Indeed, it would be perfect to assign the best part of “Bai” to yDNA O1b. However, in the later work of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the only Naxi-Yi component that an yDNA O1b2-related population, contributing ancestry to ancient Xitoucun, can get, is a "prior to Tibeto-Burmanization" component, shared with yDNA N-F2930>CTS4714 Naxi sample, “24000-year-old branch of yDNA O1b1” Naxi sample, yDNA N-F2930>CTS4714 Yi sample, when these samples form a logical offshoot from the main discussed “ancient yDNA N Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline, that is, the cline which is important for tracking the distribution of both Yangtze-related yDNA N-F2930 samples and Yangtze-related yDNA N-CTS582 samples.

Thus, in order to account for the presence of mtDNA B5* in “ancient” Ryukyuans and for the presence of mtDNA M7b1a1a1 in “ancient” Ryukyuans, it is necessary to determine the route, along which the Ryukyuan-related populations could have proceded to the territory of Korea and Japan from the localization on the “ancient Boshan+ancient mtDNA B5*-related sample+ancient Tai-Kadai-related samples” cline of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The distribution in China should be similar to the distribution of yDNA N-Y24191: one branch of yDNA N-Y24191 remained closer to the Yangtze River basin (Chongqing, Jiangsu), another branch of yDNA N-Y24191 within the Late Neolithic period went to the Henan province, from where it either distributed to Shanxi Province or distributed to coastal Shandong Province from the Henan Province, finally reaching the territory of Japan via Korea.



mtDNA M7b1a1h of this yDNA N-Y24191 individual has never been found in Ainu, but instead mtDNA M7b1a1h was reported from both North China and Tai-Kadai Gelao population from Vietnam, so it even mirrors the split between the Yangtze River’s yDNA N populations, interacting with Tai-Kadai and finally migrating to Vietnam and farther, and the Yangtze River’s yDNA N populations migrating to North China in the way, which will be described below.
According to the PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", some the Neolithic Yangtzean yDNA N populations should have left their place of living in the Hubei province and distribute via the territory of the rice farming Daxi culture, which stretched from Western Hubei to Eastern Sichuan, expanded to the south and even reached the Pearl River in the Guandong Province. While the Neolithic Yangtzean yDNA N Naxi-Yi-related component finally moved to Vietnam, those Neolithic Yangtzean yDNA N, who traveled from the Daxi territory, in the eastern direction along the Yangtze River, interacting with migrating Xitoucun-related populations (the autosomal DNA of yDNA O1b2-related populations was found in Xitoucun), reached the Province of Jiangsu, and from Jiangsu they proceded to the Province of Henan, the mtDNA F2h sample of the ca.4000-year-old Henan’s Longshan culture of Pingliangtai (whereas the rare N-M1819* from Pingliangtai, whose direct relatives in Thailand are unknown so far, have a stronger connection to Hubei, which signifies coming to Jiangsu (and later to Henan) during the period of distribution of the rice farming Shijiahe population) . The ancient sample, to which Ryukyuan and N-Y24191/ M7b1a1h Hokkaido populations should be related to, is the ancient 4000-year-old mtDNA F2h sample of Pingliangtai of the Longshan culture, who has female uniparental relatives in Vietnam. Populations, related to this mtDNA F2h Pingliangtai sample, migrated to Shandong’s peninsula of Jiadong and finally reached Korea and Japan. The reason for the Shandong-Korea-Japan direction, chosen by Pingliangtai populations, should be the autosomal influence of the so-called “Yin” population in Pingliangtai, likely having come from Korea via Shandong. As mtDNA F2h Pingliangtai sample not only aligned with Shandong outliers, but also with mtDNA D4*/C2-F1067 ancient sample in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it means that the “Yin” population was not only composed of yDNA O1b2, but also of yDNA C2-M217, and could explain the presence of yDNA D4* in the ancient DNA of the Ryukyuan people. The existence of the “Yin” language of Koreanic affiliation (a picture from Christopher J. Beckwith https://i.ibb.co/KFtJP4Z/59.png), influencing the territory of China and Japan, was hypothesized by the Korean scholar Sin Yong-t’ae.


Thus, when the Japonic-speaking Ryukyuan people separated from the rather small mainland China’s population ca.3700 years ago, then the Ryukyuan people should be related to ancient populations contributing to the 4000-year-old Pingliangtai Longshan population, which, in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", contains the autosomal DNA of the mtDNA B5* and M7b1a1a1 populations, observed in ancient Ryukyuans. In the Longshan culture, both millet and rice farming was already practiced. The Yangtze-related yDNA N-Y24191/mtDNA M7b1a1h ancestors likely entered the Longshan territory from Jiangsu via the territory of the rice-farming Daxi culture, while Pingliangtai PLTM312 N-M1819* ancestors likely entered the Longshan territory from Jiangsu, deriving from the territory of the Hubei Province’s rice farming Shijiahe culture. Unlike this, some of died-out N-F2407*, which came from the Yangtze river basin during the earlier period, being mixed with yDNA O1b1, did not reach Shandong, Korea and Japan, but, in accordance with “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, got mixed with the millet farmer Yellow River Yangshao Middle Neolithic and proceded to the Upper Yellow River basin (Late Zongri), while millet farmers are not considered ancestral to rice farming Japonic speakers. As for yDNA O1b2, it might have joined from both the territory of such a settlement as Beiqian of Jiadong (as “Yin” of Sin Yong-t’ae, or even as a part of certain other ethnic entities, whose arrival to China is speculated by some researchers), connected to the territory of Korea, or it might have joined (contacting “Hubei-related” and “Daxi territory-related” migrants) via the Xitoucun-related population (in which autosomal DNA, related to an yDNA O1b2 population, was detected in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). Most Yayoi populations can be modeled using Longshan culture samples in “Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages”, while Pingliangtai is also the settlement of the Longshan culture (The Pingliangtai settlement is famous, because the Pingliangtai network of ceramic water pipes is the oldest complete drainage system discovered in China so far). There is a theory that rice farming was developing almost indigenously in Southwestern Korea in the Songgukri culture, so some of yDNA D-M64 could have joined the Longshan-related population in that culture. If any D-M64 ever reached the Himalayan region, then they should have returned, being accompanied by mtDNA M70-influenced mtDNA F1d and mtDNA B4d123, the one that was detected in the Jiangsu Province in the Chinese article. As for the Himalayan D-MF10280 https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-MF10280/ , the mtDNA, which accompany the Himalayan branch of D-M174 in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, contain some mutations, which, unfortunately, were observed in mtDNAs of populations from the discussed “Kusunda-Totonac” cluster of Jager, 2015, Jager, 2016 and Jager, 2017.
P.S. As for mtDNA B5b2a1a of Ryukyuans, in the scheme of “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”, its migration included two characteristics:
[1] The 13000-year-old deeply diverged mtDNA B5b2a1a (ancient Bianbian-related) migrating from Shandong by sea in the direction of the Japanese Tokara Islands between 4600 and 9500 years ago, because in Jager, 2017 it was shown that the Takarajima Japanese in terms of its basic lexical items might be the most deeply diverged branch of the Japonic languages (later assimilated by Ryukyuans) , so the 13000-year-old deeply diverged mtDNA B5b2a1a (ancient Bianbian-related) should account for this hypothesis about the existence of the most ancient Takarajima Japonic;
[2] It was stated in “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” that the influence of the indigenous local component on modern Ryukyuans separating from Mainland China 3700 years ago, is negligible. Thus, the second characteristics of mtDNA B5b2a1a in the scheme of “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” is that mtDNA B5b2a1a, despite being a 13000-year-old lineage according to that article and migrating to Japan 4600-9500 years ago, remains also the local mtDNA lineage of the local Shandong populations. Thus, such a Shandong mtDNA B5b2a1a, which did not migrate to the Japanese Tokara Islands between 4600 and 9500 years ago, should stay in Shandong and join Longshan-related populations during their migration via Jiadong in the direction of Japan 3700 years ago. Thus, mtDNA B5b2a1a may have two origins in Ryukyuans in accordance with of “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”.

[Oasis]

Ebizur,
It has to be explained once again that Zongri5.1K (yDNA N-M231) is not a Tibeto-Burman population, but a pre-Tibeto-Burman population.

Proving, that Zongri5.1K (yDNA N-M231) is related to the populations of the Yangtze River basin, it appeared possible to model the Zongri5.1K’s yDNA N-M231 uniparental (4%) as 1,5% Fujian_EN + 2,5% Atayal Austronesian in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

Zongri5.1K has largely turned into a “ghost modern” population. The reason to call the Zongri5.1K population to life in ancient DNA was to show that the highlander ancestors of a sort of main speakers of the Prinmi/Pumi/Prmi language, which has a pitch accent similar to the pitch accent of the Japanese language, that is the yDNA D Yushu2.8K population, can be modeled as deriving 100% of their ancestry from another ancient highlander Zongri5.1K (yDNA N-M231) in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.
Additionally, yDNA D Yushu2.8K population clustered with yDNA N-M231 Zongri5.1K:



The Yushu2.8K is one of the main populations ancestral to the Prinmi/Pumi population.

A Typological Study of Tonal Systems of Japanese and Prinmi: Towards a Definition of Pitch-accent Languages
https://www.sejongjul.org/archive/vi...?pid=jul-7-2-1

It can be seen in the article above that the Japanese language and the Prinmi language are pitch-accent languages, unlike Central Tibetan (the one spoken in Lhasa), which is a word-tone language (another word-tone language is Wu Chinese, formed under the influence of its non-Sinitic substratum). “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” discovered mtDNA F1 in ancient DNA of Lhasa, and, similarly, Wu Chinese speakers are rich in mtDNA F1 as well. Interestingly, in Tanaka et al, 2004, mtDNA F1 is absent from the population of speakers of the pitch-accent Ryukyuan languages, a branch of Japonic languages. What is the most important, in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, it also proved possible to model the yDNA of ancestors of pitch-accent languages speakers, that is, yDNA of Yushu2.8K, as deriving 0,6% from the yDNA of the population, distantly related to yDNA K2a* Oase1, providing an insight that yDNA K2a* populations, such as Oase1, could be the speakers of pitch-accent languages.

Thus, not only the ancient yDNA N-M231 Zongri5.1K population shared the C allele of ADH1B rs1229984 with the “Proto-Japanese” population (the one, described in “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” by Yosuke Kawai), but also the ancient yDNA N-M231 Zongri5.1K population, as a source of 100% ancestry for Yushu2.8K-related ancestors of the speakers of the pitch-accent Prinmi language, proved to be a “linguistic” relative of the Japanese language at least on the basis of the shared “pitch-accent” type.

Unlike this, read “The Accentual History of the Japanese and Ryukyuan Languages: A Reconstruction” by Moriyo Shimabukuro (University of the Ryukyus):

”Vovin (2000) presents an intriguing argument on an earlier accentual system of the Japonic languages in relation to Korean accent. Pointing out a correlation between Korean vowel reduction (corresponding to unstressed syllable in earlier Korean, which had lexical stress) and the Japanese locus accent, Vovin suggests that Proto-Koreo-Japonic was a stress language. Furthermore, he assumes that pre-Proto-Japonic had stress and Proto-Japonic developed register due to vowel length and voiced/voiceless consonant distinctions. Looking into my reconstruction of Proto-Japonic, in fact, this assumption seems to be quite possible. This is at present an open question, and as this is beyond a scope of this book, I leave it for future research.

In respect to the ancestor of the Japonic language, whose bearers genetically separated from a small population in mainland China 3700 years ago and formed the Japonic Ryukyuan languages in the recent “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” by Yosuke Kawai, Proto-Koreo-Japonic as a stress language is nothing else, but one more version of the mentioned “Yin” language of Koreanic affiliation (a picture from Christopher J. Beckwith https://i.ibb.co/KFtJP4Z/59.png), influencing the territory of China and Japan, the existence of which was hypothesized by the Korean scholar Sin Yong-t’ae. While Vovin’s hypothesis of Proto-Koreo-Japonic as a stress language would overstate the local Koreanic-like component (having no pitch accent) in the formation of the Japanese language, the Japonic language, deriving from the language of Yangtze-related populations, distantly related to the language of Zongri5.1K population (the genetic source of the pitch-accent Prinmi language speakers), would be a language with a “ready-to-use” pitch-accent system, though modern Japonic speakers would loose the battle for a lot of local yDNA O1b2 and C markers in favour of modern Koreanic speakers.



Interestingly, the Tokushima Prefecture of the Shikoku island contains the separate Awashima-like pitch-accent type and the Sanuki pitch-accent type. Apparently, during the disintegration of Proto-Japonic on the Japanese archipelago, these two types represented forming branches of Proto-Japonic, and their populations managed to develop distinct yDNA frequencies, but these branches were later assimilated into the mainstream regional type of the Japanese language.

UPDATE:
Ebizur,
The Hezhen people have a rare case of basal yDNA NO*. All cases of yDNA N-M231 from Tokushima were reported either as yDNA N-M231 or as yDNA NO* in Hammer et al, 2006 (as well as a case of N-M231/NO* from mainland Japan). Could some of them became settlers and migrate to Jiamusi in the 20th century? Maybe. However, “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” points that the migration “To Hezhen” started to occur from China via the Shandong territory in the Late Neolithic. . As for the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population, related to 11000-year-old AR11K_deleted (see here https://i.ibb.co/Yc2LygJ/37.png), despite AR11K_deleted outlier geographic localization, AR11K_deleted actually occupies such a position on the PCA, which would be similar to Early Neolithic Liaodong or even Early Neolithic Jiaodong. There is a lot of struggle about these haplogroups, but the brother of the N-F1360-related population has a branch (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y149447/ ), which only lives in China so far and lives in the Yangtze river basin (see here https://i.ibb.co/6sR4g52/38.png), and the very origin of the N-F1360-related population should be similar. Indeed, migrants to Northeast China and North are viewed and modeled as the distant autosomal relatives of Xiaojingshan (Shandong) in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, and if we draw a line along the cline joining Xiaojingshan samples and AR11K_deleted, it will point to the same place of the deepest origin, related to Yangtze. [Obviously, in China, it is considered that the Yellow River basin is the origin of O-M122-related Sino-Tibetan languages, but it is logical that the best places of the Yangtze River basin were also already occupied or being occupied by O-M122, all branches of which had originated close to each other in the area, including the area of formation of Sino-Tibetans. Therefore, the most important alleles should be viewed as issuing from O-M122-related population in China. If we track, how alleles could appear in ancient samples from “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, using models from other related works, despite the mentioned recipient Liangdao2, everything in the least points that the O-M122>O-M7 Dushan-related population was going to become a recipient of 25000-year-old OCA2-HiS615Arg (rs1800414: T→C) and ancient ALDH2 (rs671: G→A) (“O-M122-related” Miao-Yao are considered a branch of Sino-Tibetan in China), and the mentioned Boshan-mtDNA B5* sample-Tai-Kadai “Ryukyuan-related” cline reaches ancient Tai-Kadai in a place on the PCA, which is very close to ancient Dushan on the PCA in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"] Returning to the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population, it should be clear that various “Western Eurasian”-like connections and allegations should be mediated by AR19K: interaction with such a substratum is obvious for AR11K_deleted. In the nearby Xiaojingshan-related Houli culture, there is evidence for millet and rice, but there is no evidence for hemp. Martine Robbeets placed the Transeurasian Xinglongwa-related “Proto-Japano-Koreanic” into Lower Houwa and Lower Xiaozhushan cultures, and, apparently, the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population not only interacted with the Houli population, but also interacted with into Lower Houwa and Lower Xiaozhushan inhbitants of Liaodong and might have contributed some “typology” to those speakers. As for mining, Xiuyan jade is found in the Liaodong peninsula. As for the directionality of jade working, mtDNA R11 might be a tracer dye marker. It is quite diversified in the Yellow River O-M122 Sino-Tibetan populations, but mtDNA R11 is also observed in the Yangtze River basin, where jade working appeared in the Hemudu culture, but before this, mtDNA R11 already reached the Amur river via the Xiaojingshan-like component of migrants to Northeast China, where the earliest jade working appeared in the Xiaonanshan civilization more than 9000 years ago, preceding the West Eurasian-related Xinglongwa culture. Jade working is apparent till the territory of initial migration of N1c-related AR7.3K_outlier, whose population should derive via the Zuojiashan culture of the Jilin province. Therefore, the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population dwelt in Liaodong close to the future Xiyuan jade mine, and, in the nearby Lower Liaohe’s Xinle culture, jade artifacts also appeared, though they are usually linked to the Xinglongwa culture, but the greenish Xiuyan jade was one of the favourite and most sacred materials for the Hongshan culture. It is quite obvious that the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population migrated to more inland Shandong, Korea and Japan. Note that N-F1360*-N-M128 cline passes close to the ancient Longshan Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h sample (which should be related to 3700-year-old ancestors of Ryukyuans), which is related to Tai-Kadai F2h, but not to Beiqian’s D4b1a3/D4b1a4-related D4b1a*

P.S. Female mutations are not so important. For example, mtDNA R9’F is old enough to consider that, during her early separation, mtDNA R9’F still had some surviving yDNA CT* males in her population, and signals from their genomes can be observed in mtDNA F1-related populations. Similarly, mtDNA N9 might not have been so important. For example, yDNA D-M64.1 as a whole shares Z3722 mutation with an yDNA K2a branch (K-Y28299) and a branch of yDNA N, which also might be indicative of the place of yDNA D-M64.1 origin in the Palaeolithic prior to its differentiation ca. 25000 years ago in the vicinity of the Japanese archipelago.

[Oasis]

Therefore, the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population dwelt in Liaodong close to the future Xiyuan jade mine, and, in the nearby Lower Liaohe’s Xinle culture, jade artifacts also appeared, though they are usually linked to the Xinglongwa culture, but the greenish Xiuyan jade was one of the favourite and most sacred materials for the Hongshan culture. It is quite obvious that the N-F1360*/N-F1360-related population migrated to more inland Shandong, Korea and Japan. Note that N-F1360*-N-M128 cline passes close to the ancient Longshan Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h sample (which should be related to 3700-year-old ancestors of Ryukyuans), which is related to Tai-Kadai F2h, but not to Beiqian’s D4b1a3/D4b1a4-related D4b1a*

Ebizur,
It is clearly stated in Hammer et al, 2006, that, in Japan, the main localization of yDNA N, corresponding to N-F1360*(xM128) of today, is in the Tokushima prefecture, where Awashima-type pitch-accent and also Sanuki pitch-accent are observed, whereas those were the territories, ruled by the Inbe clan, which later suffered from the descendants of Fujiwara, and which can include multiple lineages, because different people adopted their name.
”Inbe clan (also spelled Imibe clan or Inbe clan) was a Japanese clan during the Yamato period. They claimed descent from Futodama.
The Inbe clan originally had a religious function by preparing and taking care of offerings.
Accorrding to the Kogo Shūi the Inbe clan were given Awa Province in Shikoku. This is where Inbe Shrine was built.”

See also “A Pitch Accent Analysis of Intonation in Finnish” by Riitta Välimaa-Blum (1993) https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ion_in_Finnish


Unlike this, the appearance of the Fujiwara-related branch of yDNA O1b2 in Karachay-Cherkessia, coupled with the presence of the Xiongnu-related mtDNA in a relative of Fujiwara, strengthens the rumour of 23mofang.com, that the lineage of the Koguryo ruling family was O1b2-47z, as it was Koguryo (which is considered by modern North Korea as North Korea’s important predecessor) that had political exchange with the Xiongnu ("subsequently as well, there were sporadic contacts between Koguryŏ and branches of the Xiongnu people such as the Yuwenbu 宇文部" https://muse.jhu.edu/article/646472/pdf), often directed against the Kingdom of Puyo, geographically based on the territory of the Zuojiashan culture, the homeland of AR7.3K_outlier. If the assumption of Vovin is correct, the Koguryoic language should not have had the pitch accent.

In 1934, the stone burial chamber of an ancient burial mound was accidentally discovered during construction of the Kyoto Imperial University's seismic observatory on the 281.1 meter Mount Abu. There was no indication at ground level that this was a kofun, but further investigate determined that it had originally been a circular enpun (円墳)-style tumulus with a diameter of 82 meters, surrounded by a dry moat and rows of cylindrical haniwa. The burial chamber contained a coffin stand, on top of which was a sarcophagus made by hardening cloth with lacquer in multiple layers. The outside was painted with black lacquer and the inside with red lacquer. This was a unique discovery, made even more so when it w was discovered that inside was the almost complete mummified remains of a man in his 60s, complete with hair and clothing. There were no mirrors, swords, jewels or other grave goods, but the body appeared to have been wrapped in brocade, with many gold threads were scattered from the chest to the head, which was resting on a pillow made of woven glass beads. On April 29, 1934, the discovery was made public by the Osaka Asahi Shimbun, and quickly attracted crowds of spectators due to speculation that it was the grave of Asuka period nobleman Fujiwara no Kamatari.
[…]
A 1987 analysis revealed that the deceased had a strong bone structure and an athletic body, with the so-called pitcher's elbow. The cause of death was complications from injuries to the vertebral column and lumbar vertebrae sustained from a fall, as if from horseback or a high ground. The injury is thought to have left the lower body paralyzed and could have caused secondary complications such as pneumonia or urinary tract infection. The cause of death matches that of Kamatari's, who is recorded to have died from a fall from horseback.

The distribution of gold threads was determined to have been from the embroidery thread for a taishokkan woven kanmuri, which could have been used only by a noble of the highest rank. Together with the lacquered coffins and the glass-ball pillows, it was concluded that it is highly likely that the tomb was that of the 7th century statesman and aristocrat Fujiwara no Kamatari.

In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, a Japanese person, who may be thought to be more closely related to Fujiwara no Kamatari within 2075 years (the timeline in accordance with theytree.com), has mtDNA which was only reported from a Xiongnu in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, though the distant ancestor of this mtDNA bearer was reported from the Longshan culture, as is the case with non-C2-M217 individuals, who entered the Lower Xiajiadian culture from the Longshan-related populations in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", and their descendants later became the members of the Khitan Mongols. The Xiongnu affiliation of the mentioned Fujiwara-related lineage is consistent with a much more distant, with a split a few thousand years ago, yDNA relative of Fujiwara no Kamatari being observed in Karachay-Cherkessia

[Oasis]

Surprisingly, yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier+yDNA N-F4205-related AR3.4K_outlier shares the same component as yDNA N-F2930 population, which is present in ancient Xiaojingshan, but is absent in yDNA N-CTS582 Boshan and Bianbian in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. Thus the N-Z1956 population ( www.yfull.com/tree/N-Z1956/ ) and N-F2930(xCTS582) population had to have an interaction with each other in the Yangtze river basin, which was not shared by yDNA N-CTS582 Boshan and Bianbian ancestors. The former article presents the cline of migration for N-Z1956(xY149447), and N-Z1956(xY149447) population shared the “mtDNA M13c*/yDNA F Lahu from Guangxi component” with the N-F1360 population.
Consequently, the data of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” describe the following situation:

[1] After the first, earliest, wave of yDNA N-F1360 bearers migrating from Jiaodong to Liaodong, Liaodong should have been partially occupied by Transeurasian Xinglongwa-related population, contributing to Lower Houwa and Lower Xiaozhushan cultures. In order to account for the distribution of “components”, simultaneously ancient Bianbian-related population should have started the migration to Liaodong, interacting with “Japano-Koreanic”-related Transeurasians of Liaodong, “Mongol-Tungus”-related Transeurasians ( when migrating farther), and eventually Bianbian contributed to the “Korean cline”. During this period, more “autosomally southern” yDNA N-F1360* bearers and ancestors of yDNA N-M128 bearers, less admixed with local Palaeolithic Shandong populations, than Bianbian had been, should have been preserved in a Jiaodong-related location, resuming yDNA N-F1360 migration to Liaodong, occupied by Lower Houwa and Lower Xiaozhushan, closer to the beginning of the period of the formation of the Pianpu culture.

[2] While https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y23747 and their parental branch’s basal lineages remained closer to the future Xiaojingshan settlement, at the beginning occupying the western bank of the Paleo-Bohai Bay, the remaining part of N-Z1956(xY149447) ( www.yfull.com/tree/N-Z1956/ ) should have migrated as far as the Jilin Province (the most likely initial source of yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier), where the Zuojiashan culture developed (another important territory mentioned in a different article is the Zhaobaogou culture’s territory). However, their Xiaojingshan-like autosomal ancestry started to be observable in the neighbouring Sungari river basin only after 9000 years ago, making it unlikely that ancestors of their modern branches might have entered Siberia during that period, especially when one takes into account that Jilin-specific mtDNA lineages were not reported from Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic Siberian ancient DNA so far. Importantly, the Jilin Province’s territory is adjacent to the territory, where mtDNA A and mtDNA C4 was distributed in Northeast China, therefore, MTdna A14 and mtDNA C4a2a1 first appeared in the Miaozigou “Transeurasian-related” branch of the Yangshao culture, denoting the most fruitful direction of migration from the Province of Jilin, while mtDNA A8 was found in the Middle Neolithic Qingtai site of the Yangshao culture.

[3] From the west of the Bohai Bay, N-Y23747 https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y23747 and their parental branch’s basal lineages distributed to the nearest river basins of the Hebei province (see also "Individuals from the Jiangjialiang belonged to two Y haplogroups, N1 (not N1a or N1c) and N1c" in “Genetic diversity of two Neolithic populations provides evidence of farming expansions in North China”), and their cline reached as far as the mtDNA D4b2 specimen of the Miaozigou “Transeurasian-related” branch of the Yangshao culture in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. [b]Importantly, their N-Y23747 branch also migrated to the Lower Liao River basin of the Liaoning Province, where the Xinglongwa-related Lower Xinle culture should have be replaced with the Machengzi culture, later expanding to Liaodong. According to the cline of N-Y23747 individuals in "The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, their “Machengzi-related” offshoot should have assimilated the Jilin Province’s “ yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier+yDNA N-F4205-related AR3.4K_outlier”-like population, while Q-M120 population was assimilated by the Tungusics. The described situation is consistent with the formation of the Xituanshan culture, the ancestor of the culture, ancestral to the Kingdom of Puyo (Fuyu). Since yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier, yDNA N-F4205-related AR3.4K_outlier and mtDNA F1d-related Nanai(Hezhen) form meaningful clines with participants of the cluster of the formed “Xituanshan-related” population, N-M2126-related individuals, N-F4205-related individuals and Nanai(Hezhen) N-B479-related individuals should have participated in the population of the Kingdom of Puyo (Fuyu) along with N-Y23747 individuals from the formed “Xituanshan-related” cluster in accordance with the data of this material of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

While in the previous posts the contribution of N-F2930 and N-F1360* to the so-called 3700-year-old “Ryukyuan-related” Proto-Japonic population was described, the fact from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” that yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier+yDNA N-F4205-related AR3.4K_outlier shares the same component as yDNA N-F2930(xCTS582) population, which is present in ancient Xiaojingshan, but is absent in yDNA N-CTS582 Boshan and Bianbian, means that “yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier+yDNA N-F4205-related AR3.4K_outlier” ancestors were more closely connected to N-F2930(xCTS582) ancestors (https://www.theytree.com/tree/N-F2930 https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-F2905/) at some point, than to N-CTS582 ancestors. Taking into account that that yDNA N-M2126-related AR7.3K_outlier+yDNA N-F4205-related AR3.4K_outlier descendants along with N-Y23747 participated in the population of the Kingdom of Fuyu (Puyo), the language of the Kingdom of Fuyu (Puyo) was classified by Christopher J. Beckwith as “Para-Japonic”, while N-F2930 and N-F1360* were shown to contribute to the so-called 3700-year-old “Ryukyuan-related” Proto-Japonic population in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The theory of origin of the mainland China’s constituent of the Japonic ethnogenesis, depicted by the authors of the mentioned articles, should be acknowledged as one of the most complete theories, since it finds points of reconciliation of numerous Western, Japanese and Chinese theories of the Japanese origin, even including the origin of their Para-Japonic branch and the relationship of the Japanese origin to neighbouring populations.

[Svevlad]

If I had to guess, "proto-east Asians" of the "first wave" - the component that mixed with the ANE to create the American aborigines. I think a connection should be sought with the Andamanese - I saw some word lists that have a distinctly "Japanese-like" feel

[Oasis]

The language of the Andamanese Onge (distant relatives of yDNA D-M64.1) did not cluster with the Japanese language in Jager, 2017.

Those who are interested, can see my response to Ebizur about the southern route, as viewed by Melinda Yang from the University of Richmond. However, for this topic, the route of ca.50000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic human migrations is not important. In accordance with the findings of Chinese articles, discussed in this topic, the result will be the same, which supports the universality of the discussed ethnogenetic reconstruction.

Current models of East Asian Y-chromosome variation generally argue a single southern route origin of the four haplogroups which make up 90–95% of male lineages [C, D, and the NO clade (comprising haplogroups N and O) [29] [30] [31] [32]], followed by subsequent northwards expansion [30] [31] [33]

j
The MRCA of K2-M526 is estimated to have lived approximately 48948 (95% CI 36027 <-> 53266) ybp (Karmin et al. 2022).

The MRCA of K2a-M2308 is estimated to have lived approximately 48040 (95% CI 34839 <-> 52277) ybp (Karmin et al. 2022).

The MRCA of NO-M214 is estimated to have lived approximately 41750 (95% CI 30597 <-> 46041) ybp (Karmin et al. 2022).

The MRCA of K2b1-PR2099/Y25867 is estimated to have lived approximately 48215 (95% CI 34802 <-> 52382) ybp (Karmin et al. 2022).

48948 - 41750 = 7198, so there should be only approximately 7,200 years between the MRCA of K2-M526 (i.e. the most recent common ancestor of K2a-M2308 plus K2b-M1221) and the MRCA of NO-M214 (i.e. the most recent common ancestor of N-M231 plus O-M175).

7,200 years is plenty of time for K2a-M2308 to have migrated to East Asia (where it hypothetically would have produced N-M231 and O-M175) via North Asia and K2b1-PR2099/Y25867 to have migrated to Sundaland and/or Sahul

Earlier Chinese geneticists and modern Chinese geneticists such as Melinda A. Yang do not support the northern route for the migration of yDNA K2a-M2308 related to modern NO-M214, because it is unknown whether the Initial Upper Paleolithic people (IUP) were actually Homo Sapiens. Acta Anthroplogica Sinica has just published the article by the Israeli archaeologist Omry Barzilai, where he announced the existence of such a doubt:
“The origins and destinations of the Levantine Initial Upper Paleolithic: A view from the Negev Desert, Israel” http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/CN/10.163.../AAS.2022.0035
Omry Barzilai: “Today it is accepted to include intermediate assemblages under the general nomenclature of Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP)[12]. What is not accepted is the identity of the makers of these industries. Was this material culture brought in by the migrating modern humans? Or did it develop from the local Middle Paleolithic industries of the Neanderthals?”

[Acta Anthroplogica Sinica, a quarterly founded in 1982, is sponsored by the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Chinese Academy of Sciences, and published by the Science Press, Beijing]


Omry Barzilai suggests that “similar technological features and chronological proximities between Boker Tachtit and assemblages from the Nile Valley (Taramsa-I) and southern Arabia suggest the early Boker Tachtit inhabitants may have originated from these regions.”

However, southern Arabia is suggested by some an area of indigenous development of archaic hominins (Marks, A. (2008). Into Arabia, perhaps, but if so, from where? Proceedings of the Seminar of Arabian Studies 38, 15-24.)

Moreover, it was suggested that Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals in the Negev Desert (https://www.timesofisrael.com/prehis...000-years-ago/)

Nonetheless, Omry Barzilai suggested that Becher Tachtit-related IUP populations kept dispersing to the north, central Europe, and northeast Asia. Omry Barzilai considers Becher Tachtit-related IUP populations the ancestors of Proto-Aurignacians of Europe.

However, the authors of “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, published in “Acta Anthropologica Sinica” earlier this years, excluded the territory of Becher Tachtit in the Negev Desert from the territory of their Near Eastern “Basal Eurasian” with virtually no admixture from archaic hominins.

http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.163.../AAS.2023.0010
Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans
Acta Anthropologica Sinica ›› 2023, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (03) 15 June 2023
ZHANG Ming1,2,3, PING Wanjing2,3, YANG Melinda Anna2,4, FU Qiaomei2,3
1. China-Central Asia “the Belt and Road” Joint Laboratory on Human and Environment Research, Key Laboratory of Cultural Heritage Research and Conservation, School of Culture Heritage, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127; 2. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044; 3. CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Beijing 100044; 4. Department of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173, USA

While it is quite likely that that the Lower Egyptian ca. 60000-year-old “Taramsa-I”, favoured by Omry Barzilai, is in some form connected to yDNA E* or yDNA DE*, the “Basal Eurasian” of Chinese geneticists is not so deeply “African” as used to be “Basal Eurasian” in Narasimhan et al. The “Basal Eurasian” which is preferred by Chinese scientists, separated quite closely to the split between Western Eurasian Kostenki14 and Eastern Eurasian Tianyuan ("40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia"):



The lack of deep African ancestry in ancient Eurasians such as Kostenki14 and Tianyuan is an argument against their dispersal along the northern route

In 2022, in “A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia” by Melinda A. Yang, she localized the point related to “Basal”, yDNA K2a* Ust-Ishim and the population which contributed to Western and Eastern Eurasians in the Middle Paleolithic Iranian site of Jahrom (the Middle Paleolithic lasted since 250000 till 47000 years ago). On her map, Eastern Eurasians were connected to the territory of China via India along the southern route, which is consistent with the distribution of one of basal branches of the yDNA K2a-M2308, directly ancestral to NO-M214, in India (https://www.yfull.com/tree/K-Y28299/)



The Middle Paleolithic site of Jahrom is known for its isolation from other Paleolithic Iranian sites, for which the influence of various kinds of Neanderthals or older Oldowan/Acheulean-related hominins from the South or Arabia might be proposed. On the other hand, Jahrom artifacts bear similarities to flake tools in both China and India, but some of Jahrom artifacts also bear similarities to Upper Paleolithic artifacts of Western Eurasians despite the age of Jahrom, which is older than the Upper Paleolithic.

In Melinda A. Yang’s work, the route from Jahrom to Africa was shown to pass through now-submerged localities, which were remote from Neanderthal-related or hypothetical Oldowan/Acheulean -related sites, for example:





Thus, the dispersal of yDNA K2b to Europe, the dispersal of yDNA NO-M214-related population along the southern route was the dispersal of Homo Sapiens, and it was not related to the dispersal of the IUP along North Asia, for which North Asian route it is unknown, whether populations which dispersed along the northern route were Homo Sapiens or not.

-----------------------------------






Since N-F1360*-N-M128 cline of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” passes extremely closely to the ancient Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h specimen (see above or here https://i.ibb.co/ZmWPW0x/68.png), autosomally closely related to rice farmer migrants from China to the Japanese archipelago 3700 years ago, participating in the formation of Japonic-speaking rice farming Ryukyuans, it is quite likely that N-F1360* migrated in the direction of the Japanese archipelago simultaneously with other Pingliangtai F2h-related populations and today is most widely distributed on the territory, where remnants of Japanese speakers of Awashima-type and Sanuki pitch accent types of the Shikoku island, Tokushima (Awa) province, also live, while the specimen D-MF10280 https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-MF10280/, which ended up in the city of Osaka (see the map above or here https://i.ibb.co/4WfZX1k/69.png), close to Tokushima, also participated in the same migration of F2h Pingliangtai-related populations, and the geographical closeness of N-F1360* and D-MF10280 in Japan is consistent with the simultaneous migration of N-F1360* and D-MF10280 to the Japanese archipelago, in which at least yDNA N-Y24190 (yDNA N-F2930), Ryukyuan yDNA O2a1c (O-IMS-JST002611, e.g. Ryukyuan O-FGC54505, likely contributing to Lower Xiadiadian, but having relatives in the rice farming Daxi culture-related She people, where there is also O-IMS-JST002611* in their cluster on the PCA), Ryukyuan mtDNA B5*, Ryukyuan mtDNA M7b1a1a1, Japanese mtDNA B5b1a also participated. The fact that yDNA O1b1/O1b2-related ancient Qihe3 also occupied one of their clines, should help the language of these individuals to cluster as a part of the Japanese language’s branches in Jager, 2015,2016,2017 since the southern branch of Qihe3 formed the Shompen language of the Nicobar Islands, an outgroup to the Japanese language in Jager, 2015,2016, while the Qihe3 population itself contributed to Japan Jomon and to the population of those mentioned haplogroups, related to the ancient F2h Pingliangtai specimen and migrating to Korea and Japan 3700 years ago. Since O1b2-47z and O1b2-L682 of Japan form a small tight homogenous cluster in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the extent and name of O1b2 branches, which might have participated in the same rice farmer-related migration 3700 years ago, depends.

See below the exteremely interesting clines on the PCA of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”. mtDNA M80’D* Shimao_LN person also participates in the cline leading to the mentioned migration to Japan, is related to some ancestors of Han Chinese according to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, and is possibly related to the ancient builders of the 4300-year-old 70 meters high pyramid of Shimao.

[Oasis]

One also may note that the TMRCA of O1b2a1a2b-F940 is estimated by 23mofang to be 2700 ybp. Approximately 0.12% of males in present-day China should belong to O-F940 according to 23mofang, most of them being Han Chinese; a particular subclade of O-F940 seems to be very common among Han Chinese surnamed Zhōu (周) in northeast Hunan (Xiangtan, Yiyang, Changsha, etc.). So, it is possible that the ancestor of O-F940 may have emerged from the same expanding early [………….] population; perhaps he might even have been in origin a foreign vassal of the (Eastern) Zhōu Dynasty. However, 23mofang estimates the TMRCA of O1b2a1a2-K4 to be 7210 ybp, so we encounter the same conundrum as we have encountered in the case of O-CTS723 vs. O-47z; judging from the diversity of each of the most often observed subclades, several subclades of O-CTS723 and O-47z should have experienced great population growth roughly simultaneously circa 1,000 BC (so attributable to the expansion of the [………….] archaeological cultures), but the superclades (O-K4 > O-CTS723, O-K4 > O-F940, O-47z, O-F3821), with geographic distributions that notably differ from one another, exhibit much deeper branching from one another (roughly the sixth millennium BC or possibly even the seventh millennium BC in the case of the genealogical split among O-K4, O-47z, and O-F3821). [………….], I do not see how one might resolve whether the direct patrilineal ancestor of e.g. O-F940 had migrated to some place in China in the late sixth millennium BC (ca. 7210 ybp) and had a direct patrilineal descendant who just happened to flourish during the Eastern Zhou period, or whether the ancestor of O-F940 had migrated to China early in the first millennium BC and immediately begun to flourish among the population of the Eastern Zhou. I suppose the latter hypothesis is a priori more likely, but being more likely or more parsimonious does not prove that that must be what has actually transpired. Even with aDNA, it should be like searching for a needle in a haystack, so this problem may never be resolved.

First of all, “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" should allow to come to the conclusion that mtDNA D4b1b2 branch, shared by China and Japan (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4b1b2/ ), and reported from Hunan, was accompanied by yDNA D-M64, its T921C mutation (also observed in mtDNA L3d1'2'3'4'5'6) should be characteristic of yDNA D population, but not of yDNA E population; mtDNA D4b1b2 branch came to Shandong after the Early Neolithic from the territory, reachable by Japan Jomon, likely along with some yDNA D-M64, and started to interact with the population, which was a descendant of ancient Shandong Xiaogao (mtDNA N9a2’4’5’11).

“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" should allow to come to the conclusion that the source of the Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-47z and Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-L682 should be the migration from Korea of the “AR19K+local Northeast Asian” mixed component, found in modern Japanese, which resulted in the formation of the Pianpu culture, whose initial distribution was superimposed by Miyamoto Kazuo onto the eastern part of the Hongshan culture (Eastern Liaoxi) and western part of Liaodong, where Transeurasian Xinglongwa-related Xiaozhushan and Houwa culture flourished. The resulting autosomal profile for the bearers of Pianpu-related Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-47z and Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-L682 (along with his O1b2-F940 brother) is intermediate between Hongshan_MN and Shandong_EN and can be observed in some Mongol-Tungus easternmost Altaic speakers. The acquired homeland of the Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-47z and Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-L682 is the mentioned culture of Pianpu. The location of the Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-L682 was more continental within the Pianpu, while the location of the Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-47z was more coastal, allowing the Liaodong<=>Jiaodong exchange with the coastal Austronesian-related B4c1b2a, observed in the Neolithic Beiqian site, which resulted in the existence of the diverged O1b2-BY45877 https://www.yfull.com/tree/O-BY45877/. The “expansion” of the Pianpu culture was slightly separate for yDNA O1b2-L682 and yDNA O1b2-47z, but this “expansion” mostly proceded along the most well-studied trajectory of Pianpu-Shandong-Jiangsu-Hubei-Hunan for both Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-L682 and Japanese-specific yDNA O1b2-47z (here O1b2-47z-related were more closely related to mtDNA D4g2b1 https://www.yfull.com/mtree/d4g2b1/). yDNA O1b2-L682-related individuals contacted the mtDNA D4b1b2-related population, already living in Shandong. The “backmigration” back to the core Pianpu territory from the Yangtze river basin resulted in the appearance of mtDNA R11b lineage, specific for modern Tungusics and Altaians, that is, the core Pianpu territory was largely contributing to Altaic-related populations. The yDNA O1b2 population, which united with mtDNA D4b1b2 (which had come to Shandong before) and reached Hunan (where yDNA O1b2-F940 is found), genetically contributed to one of the specimens of the Xitoucun site’s culture, which implies moving along the rivers and interacting with the population, akin to coastal Austronesians. Since Xitoucun is very coastal, it is this branch of yDNA O1b2 Hunan-related population, contributing to Xitoucun, that was also related to mtDNA D4v https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4v2/ and migrated to Japan, providing the source for the information about the connection of a certain part of the Japanese to Tàibó, the founder of the state of Wu ( ”The Wa say of themselves that they are posterity of Tàibó. According to custom, the people are all tattooed.”). The “Tàibó-related” yDNA O1b2 people were hardly the mainstream population for the formation of the Japanese-specific O1b2 populations. Another part of the Hunan-related yDNA O1b2 population, which was formed as a result of Pianpu-related yDNA O1b2-47z and -L682 migrations, traveling along the rivers, contributed to the population, ancestral to some Austroasiatic Vietnamese (explaining the presence of a small percentage of yDNA O1b2 in the Vietnamese), and, from those Austroasiatics, they contributed to the Tai-Kadai Dai people, providing for the known mythological link as well as for more recently discovered by Kanzawa-Kiriyama genetic similarity between Dai and Japanese……………………………….. Another part of this Hunan-related Austroasiatic-contributing Tai-Kadai-contributing yDNA O1b2 population most contributed to yDNA O1b2-47z>K13 lineages' population and was the most closely mixed with the “ancient Beiqian”-related mtDNA D4b1a ancient Pingliangtai female specimen in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" (even if the “more close to Ryukyuans” branch of yDNA O1b2-47z>K13 mixed with rice farmers in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the overall genetic ancestry of constantly migrating Pianpu-derived Hunan-related yDNA O1b2-related population, mixed with Pingliangtai’s female mtDNA D4b1a specimen (“ancient Beiqian”-related), in yDNA O1b2-47z>K13 population explains the rather warlike essence of yDNA O1b2-47z>K13 population). This description quite fully covers the “Out-of-Korea”=>the Pianpu culture=>Hunan Province migration of some yDNA O1b2.

P.S. If someone is going to search for an even earlier migration of yDNA O1b2 “To Hunan”, avoiding the Pianpu culture, it seems likely to be associated with the Northeastern cultures' contribution to the formation of the dog, ancestral to dogs of Austronesian hunters https://academic.oup.com/view-large/...8/msz311f2.tif However, the assignment of ancient sites to the Pianpu culture was carried out by Miyamoto Kazuo, so there is no use to continue the game of splitting one’s Northeast Asian forefathers into a Northeast Asian and a non-Northeast Asian part.