Ancestors of Native Americans could not influence the formation of language families in East Asia

[Oasis]

The following Native American – Asian split ca. 30500 ago is too ancient and predates virually all language families. Thus, Native Americans separated too early to participate in the formation of language families in East Asia. On the other hand, their ANE-mediated interaction with Siberian populations occurred later than Native American – Asian split ca. 30500 ago, so these interactions may enhance the mutual closeness of influential language families specifically with Native American-related languages, whose connections in Eurasia were lost and cannot be attested today.

“Moreno-Mayar sequenced a high coverage genome of an 11,500-year-old individual (USR1) at Upward Sun River, Alaska [72] who shares a close relationship with present-day Native Americans. They also estimated split times by modeling the evolutionary relationship between USR1 and present-day East Asians, Siberians, and Native Americans with diCal2 and momi2 (Box 1). Using the same mutation rate and generation time as Sikora et al., they estimated that Native Americans and present-day Siberians separated 36,000–25,000 years ago, and that USR1 separated from other Native Americans around 20,000 years ago. They used these estimates to suggest that admixture related to ANS ancestry likely occurred between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago [72]. These results are consistent with qpGraph analyses including Paleosiberians, Native Americans, and East Asians [69,73], where the Asian source for Native Americans separated earlier than the Asian source for Paleosiberians.

https://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html#R69
A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia
Melinda A. Yang
Department of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, USA
Received: Jun 9, 2021 | Accepted: Sep 14, 2021 | Published: Jan 6, 2022

[Oasis]

D4* - China, Mongol from Heilongjiang and Hebei[25], Korea, Japan
As for the “northern” D4* which does not represent modern branches of D4, the Chinese “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” has shown using its genetic models, that “northern” D4* was intermixed with Native American ancestry, intermixed with the more ancient part of it which is not closely related to East Asians, but which interacted with ANE. In “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan” the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) can contain a European hunter-gatherer ancestry (which was also related to Western Eurasian mtDNA U bearers, who were in turn related to mtDNA K). Interestingly, a Polish scientist reported mtDNA K1h branch which has the rare defining mutation T7751G, which seems to be reported only from Europe so far (the sample was reported in the article “Piotrowska et al., 2019”: European_MG646124 Polish European Poland Poland MG646124 K1 Piotrowska et al., 2019), which would support the presence of mtDNA K1 in Palaeolithic Europe, while the autosomal ancestry of European hunter-gatherers stretched as far as ANE in "Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”. Interestingly, “northern mtDNA D4*-related ancient populations selected in Chinese “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” all appeared to have a connection to mtDNA K1, being simultaneously related to Native Americans. Thus, in accordance with these discoveries, “northern mtDNA D4*” bearers should be the speakers of those languages related to Native Americans, rather than to Eurasian languages. Today mtDNA K1 is distributed in the Near East. In accordance with the discussed discoveries, the bearers of mtDNA K1 might have contributed some linguistic features to Native American languages

the Devil’s Gate mtDNA D4*
The Devil’s Gate is no different. For example, it is obvious that Tungus-Manchu Ulchi, related to Devil’s Cave, do not speak a Native American-related language. There is the whole article:
The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia
Oct 2020
Chao Ning, Daniel M Fernandes, Piya Changmai, Pavel Flegontov

In the above article, there is a whole population tree separating from East Asians 32000 years ago (!) and encompassing Native American ancestries with their contribution to various Siberian ancestries, including Devil’s Gate. This Native American connection in Siberia should be the same as the Native American connection of “the northern mtDNA D4*” discovered in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. Thus, Native American-related bearers of all of these ancestries also contributing to ancient and modern Siberians, should have been the speakers of various Native American-related languages. None of Native American-related languages preserved in Eurasia, thus, these Native American-influenced “the northern mtDNA D4*” bearers did not contribute linguistic features to the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and other Eurasian languages. If, as hinted by “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, there would be connection of mtDNA K1-related populations with some ancestors of Native Americans, this would cause the appearance of linguistic features shared exclusively by modern Near Easterners’ languages and the majority of Native American languages, but such linguistic features would not be present in other Eurasian languages.

However, if there is a rule, there might be an exclusion from this rule.

I noticed that, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", one sample with an mtDNA popular in Korea, who contains this “northern mtDNA D4*” population’s autosomal DNA, contributed this northern autosomal DNA to Japan Jomon.

We already discussed the connection of Japan Jomon and some Jomon-related yDNA O-47z lineages connected to alledged wolf/dog beliefs in Japan.



Male yDNA (4%) of the following Japan Jomon specimens was modeled using yDNA of Qihe3 in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago":

I6341 Japan_Jomon Funadomari 3200 years ago
I13882 Japan_Jomon Rokutsu Shell Mound 3234 years ago
I13883 Japan_Jomon Rokutsu Shell Mound 2859 years ago
I13884 Japan_Jomon Rokutsu Shell Mound 4351 years ago
I13885 Japan_Jomon Rokutsu Shell Mound 3216 years ago
I13886 Japan_Jomon Rokutsu Shell Mound 4003 years ago

In addition, Qihe3 also provided the best model for modeling yDNA O1b in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"

Thus, as early as 4351 years ago, during the Jomon Period, the interaction between yDNA O1b population and yDNA D-M64 population should have started in the Japanese Archipelago.

The only Late Neolithic non-Yayoi yDNA O1b specimen reported in Japan so far is yDNA O1b2-47z.
NAG007.A0102_merged Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Late Neolithic 24,8908 125,2793 This study
https://www.theytree.com/tree/O-CTS1875

The modeling of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” supported a link between the mtDNA N9b1 Jomon Ikawazu specimen and the East Asian specimen of the mtDNA lineage found in Austronesians which should be one of human lineages associated with the distribution of an Austronesian dog (“Ancient DNA Evidence from China Reveals the Expansion of Pacific Dogs”), but, according to the Chinese data, a population of this lineage found in Austronesians also bears traces of interaction with the Haminmangha culture whose dogs should be closer to wolves. Rokutsu Jomon and Funadomari Jomon specimens also mainly belong to mtDNA N9b1, but they were all modeled using the Qihe3 specimen in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Thus, it is impossible to disconnect an O1b-related population whose ancestors interacted with Fudanomari Jomon and Rokutsu Jomon (the only Late Neolithic pre-Yayoi yDNA O1b specimen in Japan is O1b2-47z) from the mtDNA N9b1 Ikawazu-related population which interacted with populations which contributed dog lineages connected both to autosomally more “wolf-like” dogs and to East Asian dogs to Austronesians. No Jomon/pre-Yayoi yDNA male lineages other than D-M64 and O1b2-47z were reported from Japan so far. Thus, it is obviously impossible to say that any other lineages should be blamed for the rite discussed in the previous post (“Japanese grain (rice) farmers once worshiped wolves at shrines and left food offerings near their dens”), while indigenous D-M64 only could interact with wolf-dog distributing populations after the period when O1b2-47z had done so

A picture from “Ancient DNA Evidence from China Reveals the Expansion of Pacific Dogs”
https://i.ibb.co/hm1S2nY/12.png
However, European studies treat an indigenous East Asian dog as an unknown species and insist that their Western Eurasian-related dogs also have an autosomal connection to the dog which distributed along with Austronesians. From the Chinese point of view, a Western Eurasian dog is more closely related to a wolf. It is the Early Neolithic Haminmangha site in China which may provide a suitable dog/wolf-admixed species in China, and the Haminmangha-related population distributed in China and towards Siberia. The Haminmangha culture is treated in China as a culture, which had a archaeological connection to the Xinglongwa culture, while the Xinglongwa culture is treated today as an ancestral culture for ancestral bearers of all Transeurasian (“Altaic”) languages, according to Robbeets’ hypothesis. The ancestry connected to the Xinglongwa culture in “Ancient genomes from northern China suggest links between subsistence changes and human migration” was dominated by yDNA C2-M217 in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.


As Haminmangha_MN has a plain autosomal connetion to Ancient Kolyma (yDNA Q-M242), it is not impossible that yDNA Q-M242 bearers intially brought a Western Eurasian-like dog related to a wolf to the ancestors of Haminmangha_MN.

Be it as it may, the ancestry of “northern mtDNA D4*”-related population was contributed to Japan Jomon in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". If some Japanese autochtonism-supportive beares of yDNA O-47z think that yDNA O-47z predominantly derived via a Japan Jomon-related lineage, and if additionally some of those Japanese autochtonism-supportive beares of yDNA O-47z believe that “northern mtDNA D4*” populations’ languages (related to Native Americans in accordance with the findings of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”) could have contributed to Eurasian language familes, despite the unrelatedness of Native American and Eurasian languages, then it may be the connection (likely mediated by a kind of Japan Jomon) between the Japanese language and Native American languages supported by Gerhard Jager’s article of year 2017. However, usually Japanese is treated as a language isolate.

[Oasis]

According to Hugh McColl, during a certain period, a West African-related population arrived from Africa to our Onge-related Australasians.

https://i.ibb.co/Bt6pJSn/19.png

According to "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia", there was a Palaeolithic arrival of Australasians closer to the homeland of Native Americans. Their route possibly passed closely to the Japanse Archipelago, where a “Papuan” mtDNA R* was found in the Palaeolithic site of Shiraho-Saonetabaru.

The mtDNA R*-related Australasians mixed with Tianyuans, and the result mixed with the ancestors of the Surui Native Americans (but not only with them, according to the newest article), who today belong to mtDNA D1a1, which contains T16189C mutation.The Tianyuan counerparts of Australasians likely belonged to mtDNA R-T16189C*.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982217311958-gr3_lrg.jpg

The rare mutations of the Surui Native Americans mtDNA are full of surprises, one of them is extremely rare in Eurasians, but can be observed in West Africans. One should think that mtDNA R-T16189C* “back”migrated to Africa together with DE* Australasians mixed with West African-related populations. As all the “components” reached as far as the location of Native Americans, one should think that the “back”migration to Africa started in the North. The yDNA C1b population should also have participated at some point, according to the model of Hugh McColl, which explains the connection to Australians.



Interestingly, the models of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" provide a clue on the existence of a slightly older (older than 73200-73300 yeas ago) yDNA DE* population which did not contribute to Shandong Boshan, but instead contributed to a Hoabinhian related to Australians and other Australasians, including Papuans. This DE* people should be slightly older by ca. 1000 years than 73200-73300 years, according to "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Interestingly, in Hugh McColl’s "The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia" there already appeared a model where a Hoabinhian lineage contribute to West Africans. When combined with the clue of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" about the presence of an older DE* population’s ancestry in Hoabinhians, then it would explains the presence of a DE* lineage in West African Nigeria as a “back”migration.


https://i.ibb.co/wg8jWms/16.png

The Burmese and the Mizo, who have the linguistic feature N117A “Locational predicative possession”, also have mtDNA R-T16189C*. Similarly, ancient mtDNA R+T16189C* was also found in ancient Shandong closer to Japan and Korea (the ancient Shandong Yinjiacheng ruins 3800-4500 years ago). One should think that it is the Palaeolithic mtDNA R-T16189C* bearers, but not negligibly rare in Eurasia West African-related maternal component, were a source of the linguistic feature N117A “Locational predicative possession”.

[Oasis]

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982217311958-gr3_lrg.jpg

44% Tianyuan+56% Papuan…
Who were them?
The yDNA K2b* Tianyuan lineage should be related to deep Southeast Asian yDNA P https://www.yfull.com/tree/P/ who did not join the Kostenki14 when Eastern Eurasians and Western Eurasians separated from each other.

The real Papuan is yDNA C1b-M38, and he mixed with Denisovan-related populations. His mtDNA should be Papuan/Australian mtDNA M42a https://www.yfull.com/mtree/M42a/

His close relative who did not go to Western Eurasia as Kostenki14 did and who did not mix with Denisovan-related populations is the Indian branch of yDNA C1b-K98 https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-K98/. When they descended from the common population with the ancestors of C1b-M38, the “Indian” C1b-K98 should have inherited mtDNA M42b+T16189C!.

Usually to deep Southeast Asian yDNA P may cause Native American affinity in scientific sample, which implies that yDNA P related to Southeast Asians was once widely distributed and reached America contributing to the Native American gene pool (44% Tianyuan+56% Papuan observed in the Surui samples in “40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia”).

Though mtDNA M42b+T16189C! is not observed in Native Americans, there are cases of mtDNA M* in Native Americans, which may have been distributed via Papuan lineages. The farther relatives of mtDNA M* may include some African mtDNA L3 lineages in Vyas et al.


As for the modern East Asian populations containing mtDNA R+T16189C*, mtDNA R+T16189C* is very ancient, and East Asians do not derive from a deeply diverged mtDNA R+T16189C* observed in Africa (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/R-a/). They secondarily married mtDNA R+T16189C* close to the location where such ancient females with mtDNAs R+T16189C* lived in China (for example, YN_LN_Dayin_L5129 YN_LN R+16189 Dayin Yunnan, China 3,446-3,326 0,86 Wang T et al., 2021) and close to the location of the formation of Hoabinhians (“The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan Province, southwest China” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618215010575). As they can be modeled as 49% Hoabinhian, 49% Andamanese Onge, they do not derive from the ancient yDNA K2b* population closely related to Tianyuan. On the other hand, a population in China, whose ancestors were related to yDNA C1b bearers, but did not interact with Bianbian-related populations, is considerably genetically different.

The case of populations who interact with Bianbian-related populations (yDNA N-M231):
https://i.ibb.co/FHRW2GD/php-Q407bh.png

UPDATE
Ebizur,


C-M48 (TMRCA 14,540 ybp[22])
C-B90 (TMRCA 7,270 ybp[22])
C-B91 (TMRCA 3,812 ybp[2]) - Koryaks[2]
C-B93 - Ulchi[16], Evenk (Sakha Republic[23])[2]
C-M86 (TMRCA 4,280 ybp[22])
C-F7321 (TMRCA 3,610 ybp[22])
C-F6379 (TMRCA 3,030 ybp[22]) - Kyrgyz (China[23]), Uyghur (Aksu City[23])
C-Y12825 (TMRCA 2,170 ybp[22])
C-Y15849 - Volga Tatars (Tatarstan[23][1]), Tuvan[23], Kazakh (China[23])
C-Y15844 - Siberian Tatar (Tomsk Oblast[1]), Kazakhs (Kazakhstan[1][23]), Karakalpaks (Uzbekistan[1][23]), Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstan[23]), Xibo (Ili[23])
C-Y226010/FT411737/C-F8053 - China (Tangshan Han[1][23][22])
C-F6193 - Mongols (Ölöd from Nilka County[22], Torghut from Jinghe County[22], Torghut from Kalmykia[23], Torghut from Mongolia[23], Mongol from Bole[22], Khoshut from Alxa Left Banner[23], Khoshut from Kalmykia[23], Xinjiang Kalmyk[23], Derbet from Kalmykia[23], Mongol from Hulunbuir[23], Buzava from Kalmykia[23]), Tsaatan from Mongolia[23], Kazakhs (Naiman from China[23] and Kazakhstan[22], etc.), Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstan[23][1], China[23]), Uyghur from Ili[23], China (Baoji[23])
C-Y138418 (TMRCA 2,900 ybp[22]) - China[1] (Yuci District[23])
C-F8472 (TMRCA 2,690 ybp[22]) - China (Xi'an[23], Jiangsu[1] Manchu[23], Linxia Hui[23], etc.), Turkey[1][23], Bhutan[23]
C-Y152968 - Kazakhstan (Uzbek[23]), Genova (French[1])
C-Y138401 - China (Shaanxi[23][1], Beijing[23][1], Inner Mongolia[23][1], Liaoyang[23], Shanxi[23][1], Qinghai[1], Heilongjiang[1])
C-SK1061 (TMRCA 2,390 ybp[22])
C-B80 (TMRCA 1,640 ybp[22])
C-B469 (TMRCA 2,350 ybp[22])


In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", if we join an East Asian yDNA C1b-related population to the “northern” yDNA C2-M217 samples (including yDNA C-M48), their cline will pass via the Tianyuan sample. He is yDNA K2b, so “northern” C2-M217 people might have been just one of “genetic ingredients” of his population. This is a different line of development. If some C1b people acquired Feature 117A: “Locational Predicative Possession” via females of mtDNA R-T16189C*, it does not mean that any other C haplogroup member separating from this C1b people ca.50000 years ago shall have this linguistic feature. If “Locational Predicative Possession” were caused by the languages of C2-M217 individuals, then why is it so rare in languages of Native American populations, where yDNA C2-M217 is not that rare?

[Oasis]

Some members of populations in parts of Asia have been found to carry Y-DNA that belongs to haplogroup C1b1-AM00694/K281. C1b1b-B68 has been found in a Dusun in Brunei.[23] C1b1a-B66/Z16458 has three primary subclades: C1b1a1-M356, C1b1a2-B65, and C1b1a3-Z16582. C1b1a3-Z16582 has been found in some individuals from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. C1b1a2-B65 comprises two subclades, C1b1a2a-B67 and C1b1a2b-F725. C1b1a2a-B67 has been found in two Lebbo' people from Borneo[23], an individual from Hadakewa on Lembata[24], and four individuals from Flores (one from Rampasasa and three from Cibal)[24]. The TMRCA of C-B67 has been estimated to be 17,007 (95% CI 19,608 <-> 14,627) years before present, with the Lebbo' individuals from Borneo belonging to a branch that is basal to the rest.

After my post about the Native American connection of yDNA O1b2-47z ancestors you added an information on the connection of yDNA C1b (C-F3393), likely distantly related to the Laotian Hoabinhian LA368, to the yDNA C1b of the Rampasasa, the population possibly connected to the Homo Floriensis, the ancient pygmy.

However, it is not surprising that, in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it is an Indonesian yDNA O1b ancient individual, who contributed to LA368 Hoabinhian, and later this ancestry reached Chokhopani, explaining the affinity between Chokhopani and Japan Jomon and the Japanese, reported in Gakuhari et al, 2020.

One should remind about the Chinese name of Japan (Wa, that is, Pygmies).

As for Bianbian-related populations, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", they interacted with ancient ancestry which was first contributed to the yDNA D-related Hoabinhian (who should be closer to the Onge), and then a part of this ancestry got to the C1b LA368 Hoabinhian (that is, a part of this ancestry which was previously contributed to the yDNA D-related Hoabinhian).

UPDATE The models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” imply that the kind of yDNA N-M231 bearers which should be related to the kind of yDNA N-M231 bearers who interacted with some ancestors of the Japanese, cannot be modeled with a sample containing some ancestry of yDNA C2-F1067-related population. Consequently, in accordance with these models, it is likely that there existed an yDNA N-M231 population in the past, who totally did not interact with yDNA C2-F1067 bearers, and it is such an yDNA N-M231 population that should have interacted with some ancestors of the Japanese.

On the contrary, the West African DNA discussed in the previous posts should have interacted with the yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian in accordance with Hugh McColl’s model (thus, ancient yDNA N-M231 people did not interact with (44%Tianyuan+56%Papuan) population from "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia", but only interacted with an intermediary ancient population, another part of which contributed to the yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"):
https://i.ibb.co/Bt6pJSn/19.png

[Oasis]

https://i.ibb.co/BNw3SWK/22.png
The linguistic feature 136A “M-T Pronouns” means that the pronoun in the first person singular in those languages contained a phoneme/sound M, and the pronoun in the second person singular in those languages contained a phoneme/sound T.

The languages containing this feature include:
[1]Indo-European languages
[2]Kartvelian languages (a language family in West Asia)
[3]Uralic languages
[4]Turkic languages
[5]Mongolic languages
[6]Tungusic languages
[7]Eskaleut languages
[8] Lakhota language (Native American Siouan languages)
[9] Miwok language (Native American Utian languages)
[8]Kamchukotic languages
[9]Yukaghir languages
[10] Fulfulde language (Niger-Congo language family)
[11] Grebo language (Niger-Congo language family)
[13] Salt-Yui language (Chimbu-Wahgi language family)
[14] Yimas language (Papuan Ramu-Lower Sepic language family)
[15] Waskia language (Papuan Madang language family)
[16] Usan language (Papuan Madang language family)

As both pronouns can hardly be simultaneously loaned, it is important to determine the initial origin for the distribution of M-T languages since the Palaeolithic.

In the Georgians of the now-small Kartvelian language family, the frequency of mtDNA T is the highest (https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(200005)112:1%3C5::AID-AJPA2%3E3.0.CO;2-Z)
The known bearers of the Papuan Madang language family have mtDNA P as a dominant mtDNA lineage, which is another branch of mtDNA R along with mtDNA T of the Kartvelians. Interestingly, the basal lineage of mtDNA P* was reported from Spain ("Biomolecular insights into North African-related ancestry, mobility and diet in eleventh-century Al-Andalus"). When we know that there was migration of mtDNA lineages related to Papuans (for example, mtDNA M42 in Saudi Arabia), if this mtDNA P* reached Spain via North Africa, its ancient people might have account for “M-T pronouns” in some Niger-Congo languages, such as Fulfulde or Grebo. The problem is that it is claimed that “M-T pronouns” are not reconstuctible for the Papuan Proto-Madang language, however, the Proto-Madang reconstruction is still in its infancy and is very limited, while some Madang languages do have “M-T pronouns”. The solution here would be the following:


Current Biology
Volume 23, Issue 7, 8 April 2013, Pages 553-559
Journal home page for Current Biology
Article
A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes
Qiaomei Fu 1 3 19, Alissa Mittnik 2 19, Philip L.F. Johnson 4, Kirsten Bos 2 5, Martina Lari 6, Ruth Bollongino 7, Chengkai Sun 8, Liane Giemsch 9 10, Ralf Schmitz 9, Joachim Burger 7, Anna Maria Ronchitelli 11, Fabio Martini 12, Renata G. Cremonesi 13, Jiří Svoboda 14 15, Peter Bauer 16, David Caramelli 6, Sergi Castellano 1, David Reich 17 18, Svante Pääbo 1, Johannes Krause 2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157
Figure 1. Tree for 54 Present-Day Humans, Ten Ancient Modern Humans, and Seven Archaic Humans

The phylogeny in the top panel was constructed using Maximum Parsimony and rooted using midpoint rooting.

https://i.ibb.co/JqksVQB/23.png


When using some modern and ancient samples, mtDNA P and mtDNA R2’JT have joined into a single branch. The age of mtDNA P branches’ split was determined at 53600 years ago in this study. Thus, the common branch of mtDNA P and mtDNA R2’JT should be even more ancient.
Thus, it is possible that not all mtDNA P branches’ populations, but at least populations with certain deep ancient mtDNA P branches (similar to mtDNA P*) preserved the linguistic feature “M-T Pronouns”. Similarly , the mtDNA T-related population in the Kartvelians was probably the source of “M-T Pronouns” in the Kartvelian languages. Thus, the origin of the linguistic feature of “M-T Pronouns” may lay within the common Palaeolithic population of the joined mtDNA P and mtDNA R2’JT branch, which should be more than 53600 years old. This would explain the variety of occurences of “M-T Pronouns” in deeply separated language families.

The further support for the common population of mtDNA P and mtDNA R2’JT bearers can be found in Admixture models of “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan” and “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, where ancient occurrences of mtDNA R2’JT yield a tiny share of the Papuan autosomal component in Western Eurasian ancient samples, including samples with Neolithic Iran affinity.

Interestingly, there seems to be no well-known occurences of “M-T Pronouns” in South America, from where “44%Tianyuan+56%Papuan” autosomal component was reported from the Native American Surui people. Thus, the more than 53600-year-old Palaeolithic migration of people of the reconstructed common mtDNA P and mtDNA R2'JT branch should be different from “44%Tianyuan+56%Papuan” migration, traces of which were observed in the Surui. However, we know that some Europeans disagree with it. They might continue to search for the Surui ancestry in Western Eurasians and try to prove that two migrations were the same one migration.


https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982217311958-gr3_lrg.jpg


The next question is the appreance of “M-T pronouns” in Northern Eastern Eurasian and Northern American languages, such as Miwok and the Siouan Lakhota language.

In 2021 in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” it was determined that the ancient AR14K (yDNA C2) of the Songnen Plain in Northeast China is an optimal source for the Palaeosiberian ancestry in KolymaM (yDNA pre-Q-M120) living close to Beringia. The AR14K does not easily yield apparent Western Eurasian ancestry, though it is mentioned in Chinese works that Western Eurasian ancestry in Northeast China might have been present earlier, but it had been diluted. The AR14K belongs to mtDNA D4h3a which later traveled to America, and mtDNA D4h3a was dated to 19400 years ago in the scientific article (https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(23)00424-2). Interestingly, mtDNA D4h3a has the same A16241G mutation as mtDNA T branch whose bearers’ languages should be suspected as a source for “M-T pronouns” in the Georgian branch of the Kartvelian languages (A16241G mutation is also found in some branches of mtDNA J, a sister of mtDNA T). Interestingly, AR14K does not share an autosomal connection to ANE samples such as Yana (yDNA P), AfontovaGora (yDNA pre-Q-M120) or Malta (yDNA R*) or WSHG implying that those ancient Eurasians were not the Western Eurasian source for the AR14K. Thus, the Western Eurasian source for AR14K coming to Northeast China prior to 19400 years ago should be different from Yana (yDNA P), AfontovaGora (yDNA pre-Q-M120) or Malta (yDNA R*) or WSHG, and it should possibly contain mtDNA T or J (or their “older sister” mtDNA R2 which has already been detected in ancient DNA in Xinjiang).

It is obvious that AR14K contributed to KolymaM (yDNA pre-Q-M120), and KolymaM had a genetic connection to the Native American Siouan population, thus, this should be one of the ways to explain the presence of “M-T pronouns” in the Siouan Lakhota language, and, taking into account the scope of KolymaM genetic influence, it can account for “M-T pronouns” in some other Native American languages. From the point of view of ancient East Asian populations, KolymaM also had an ancient genetic connection to a Longlin-related population, thus, explaining the variety of linguistic entities, with which KolymaM ancestry might be correlated.

AR14K ancestry was very widely distributed around Northeast China including Northeast Siberia, and languages of bearers of this ancestry can account for other cases of “M-T pronouns” in some other nearby Eastern Eurasian languages. One of the male lineages found in the nearest vicinity of AR14K is yDNA C-M48 found in Tungusic and Kamchukotic populations (https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-M130, AR19K (N=1) C-M1373*; AR14K (N=1), AR13-10K (N=2), AR9.9K (N=1), ARPOST9K (N=2) C-M1373>C-F3447; AR14K (N=1) C-M1373>C-F1699; AR13-10K (N=1) C-M48), as Ebizur has observed, though Ebizur’s Japanese language does not have “M-T pronouns” observed in Koryak, but instead Japanese has the linguistic feature N117A “Locational predicative possession”, which is not found in Kamchukotic languages including Koryak:

C-M48 (TMRCA 14,540 ybp[22]):
C-B90 (TMRCA 4,992 ybp[2], TMRCA 4,600 ybp[23])
C-B91 (TMRCA 3,812 ybp[2]) - Koryaks[2]
C-B93 - Ulchi[16], Evenk (Sakha Republic[24])[2]

Multiple language families in Northeast Siberia and at least some Native American languages have “M-T pronouns”, and it could be explained by Western Eurasian influence of mtDNA R2 or mtDNA T or mtDNA J-related populations on the Northeast Chinese AR14K-related ancestors who partially participated in the formation of peoples bearing those multiple language families in Northeast Siberia and some Native American languages.

UPDATE: Those yDNA GHIJK(LT) populations, who possibly bypassed Shandong, were much later than the appearance of mtDNA R2 prior to 19400 years ago, and they were not similar to the “Ancient Egyptian” component separating from other humans more than 100000 years ago. They only appeared during the later period, whereas their ancestry was not clearly detected in the Early Neolithic island sample of Liangdao2. Even those yDNA GHIJK(LT) populations, that might have come, were more similar to the kind of “Basal Eurasian with no Neanderthal” likely included in ancient Ust’Ishim, a similar ancestry was included in Southern East Asians in "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia":

https://i.ibb.co/61KF6kg/24.png

As for the GonurBA-related contribution to Qihe3 and Fujian_EN (Qihe2, Liangdao2) in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, according to the Chinese articles, it should be predominantly related to Qihe2 and Qihe3, but not to Liangdao2. However, Qihe3 was used to model yDNA O1b populations, and Qihe2 contributed to the ancestors of the Austronesian Malagasy (Madagascar inhabitants). In the article written by African Americans (“Entwined African and Asian genetic roots of medieval peoples of the Swahili coast” by Esther S. Brielle, Jonas Oppenheimer and Chapurukha M. Kusimba), the Austronesian Malagasy were used as main representatives of East Asian ancestry. Interestingly, Admixture models of the African Americans’ article yielded “pureblood East Asian” ancestry in some ancient Africans. The role of GonurBA-related contribution to Qihe3 and Fujian_EN (Qihe2) in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” is the following: ancient East Asians could not directly contribute to faraway Africans, it was Neolithic Iran representatives that contributed to Africans. As the GonurBA-like Neolithic_Iran-like ancestry in Qihe2/Qihe3 was contributed to the Malagasy, but, relative to Africans, this Neolithic_Iran-like in ancient Africans got highlighted as Malagasy-related East Asian ancestry in Africans, this means that Neolithic_Iran-like Basal Eurasian ancestry in respect to African ancestry is similar to East Asian ancestry, that is, Basal Eurasian ancestry in Eurasia is not at all similar to Africans, but Basal Eurasian was much more similar to Eurasians than to Africans…

There is no use trying to conceal under the label "GHIJK(LT)" those ancient populations, part of whom contributed to yDNA D-M174 Onge-related Southeast Asian Hoabinhians and another part of whom interacted with yDNA N-M231 Bianbian ca.40000 years ago. Actual members of such populations died out long time ago.

[Oasis]

Ebizur,

You referred to Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (rabbitbrush) apparently to point to the Zuni people: "The Zuni Tribe and some other native Americans reportedly used rabbitbrush as a yellow dye, to make a medicinal tea, and for chewing gum." https://sbcsentinel.com/2016/07/leafy-common-rabbitbrush/

Read Native American Zuni myths and compare the development of some of their motifs in Japanese “Kojiki” and myths of some Austroasiatic populations:
https://www.billstifler.org/myth/files/2D-001-06-zuni_creation.htm

Have a look at the Native American Zuni people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877212/
They have 74,29% mtDNA B2.
Their language is considered a language isolate, but, in Gerhard Jager’s 2017 work (http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/slides/slidesHITS.pdf) they joined a macrocluster with O’odham and Diegueno, Native American languages which have a linguistic feature “N-M Pronouns”, and Japanese also joined this Native American cluster.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Katsumi Matsumoto that the ancient Proto-Austroasiatic language , the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language and a lot of Native American languages are the so-called “N-M Pronouns” languages.
Thus, yDNA O1b2 people (an ancestor of yDNA O1b2-47z) contributed some ancestry to Native American ancestors ca.30000 years ago prior to the separation of Native Americans and East Asians. The yDNA O1b1 people participated in the formation of Austroasiatic populations. yDNA O1b2 people should have been speakers of a language related to both Austroasiatic languages and some Native American languages, to whose populations yDNA O1b2 people contributed. This would be in accordance with findings of Katsumi Matsumoto in “Japanese in the World’s Languages: a new perspective on the origin of the Japanese language”


https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41cXgAtPRHL._SX355_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
The Japanese linguist Katsumi Matsumoto is known for drawing attention to the Japanese-Austroasiatic connection as early as in1975 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301689119_Notes_on_the_vowel_system_of_archaic_Jap anese).

In 2007, a new book by this linguist was published, “Japanese in the World’s Languages: a new perspective on the origin of the Japanese language” (世界言語のなかの日本語 日本語系統論の新たな地平). Katsumi Matsumoto thinks that multiple linguistic layers participated in the formation of the Japanese language.

However, Katsumi Matsumoto mentions the Austroasiatic connection of the Japanese language in the most interesting way. Basing on historical linguistics, the author claims that the ancient Proto-Austroasiatic language , the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language and a lot of Native American languages are the so-called “N-M Pronouns” languages. It means that the pronoun in the first person singular in those languages contained a phoneme/sound N, and the pronoun in the second person singular in those languages contained a phoneme/sound M.

As full “N-M Pronouns” did not preserve in some modern languages, the map of the linguistic feature 137B “M in Second Person Singular” may partially give the impression about the geographic distribution of the remains of this “N-M Pronouns” feature (modern Korean underwent historical changes).
https://i.ibb.co/0m1XxXN/20.png

According to Katsumi Matsumoto, “N-M Pronouns” in the Proto-Austroasiatic language , the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language and a lot of Native American languages are different from “N-K Pronouns” of the Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao languages. Obviously, Katsumi Matsumoto thinks that “N-M Pronouns” should have been the first ones, while “N-K Pronouns” should have appeared later.

However, “N-M Pronouns” were observed in Papuan languages and in Africa. The “back”migration of mtDNA R-T16189C* to Africa was already discussed. According to the Chinese scientists, which mtDNA haplogroup bearers could have caused “N-M Pronouns” in languages of ancestors of the Proto-Austroasiatic language , the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language?

This should be mtDNA M74, traces of whom were found as far to the north as Europe ca 35000-36000 years ago. Indeed, “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" stated the influence of yDNA O1b-related Qihe3 on Japan Jomon, and this article contains a cline comprising the Nivkh-related Ulchi, Japan Jomon sample, Qihe3 sample and the Austroasiatic Nicobarese who have mtDNA M74b2. mtDNA M74 is considered to be a sister of mtDNA M42 related to Papuans, whose migrations (likely as far as Africa and America), we already discussed. Additionally, Austroasiatics share additional mtDNA M Longlin-related ancestry in models of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" meaning that Austroasiatics need extra mtDNA M ancestry relative to other East Asians.
https://i.ibb.co/THYyzRT/21.png

However, we do not see mtDNA M74 in Native Americans. However, the Siberian component of mtDNA M74 in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" and considerable AR33K-Tianyuan ancestry in mtDNA M74 sample in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” make it clear that mtDNA M74 interacted with mtDNA B2 which is very widespread in Native Americans. As both Tianyuan and AR33K are mtDNA B4’5* and mtDNA B*, the shared AR33K-Tianyuan ancestry appears in mtDNA B-related samples, whose mtDNA B branch did not considerably contribute to modern East Asian populations. The Native American mtDNA B2 separated from the East Asian mtDNA B4b 26100-31700 years ago. Interestingly, there are non-negligible amounts of mtDNA B4b in Austronesians, but the Austronesian languages as a whole were not characterized by “N-M Pronouns”. Thus, the connection of mtDNA M74 found in Austrasiatics to mtDNA B2 of Native Americans should cause the difference between East Asian mtDNA B4b and Native American mtDNA B4b>B2.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to reproduce here the magnificent description of the connection between the ancient Proto-Austroasiatic language , the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language and a lot of Native American languages. Katsumi Matsumoto is so fond of phonetic similarities between Japanese, Ainu and Korean.

If Proto-Austroasiatics were influenced by the presence of yDNA O1b1, then the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language and a lot of Native American languages should have been influenced by yDNA O1b2. Recently Ebizur has raised the age of yDNA O1b2, a parent of his yDNA O1b2-47z, and its most ancient almost 30000-year-old branches perfectly suit contributing to Native Americans (https://www.yfull.com/tree/O-P49/). Even if the remainder of yDNA O1b2 lived somewhere in the Lower Yangtze River, or settled to the south of the Yangtze River during the Last Glacial Maximum, because of the fact that yDNA O1b2 bearers should have contributed to Native Americans, their 30000-year-old languages should have had quite a lot of connections to Native American languages, even if they should remain related to Austroasiatics at least lexically within some words in the core vocabulary. For example, the yDNA O1b2-influenced Nivkh language has a strong connection to Native American languages. In Gerhard Jager work of 2017, Japanese, Korean and Ainu also have lexical connections to Native American languages. However, in other respects Japanese is not at all similar to Native American languages. This means that, wherever the narrow homeland of the Japanese language were, the actual Japanese language formed under the strongest influence, if not considerable replacement, by East Asian-related languages, and East Asian-like features in Japanese should be attributed to the influence of these languages on the formation of the Japanese languages.


Earlier it was even thought that Japanese is related solely to the Zuni language, which is mentioned by J. Marshall Unger in “No Rush to Judgment : The Case against Japanese as an Isolate”.

In order to explain numerous affiliations of the Japanese language one should mention the opinion of the Japanese linguist Yoshizo Itabashi.
According to the Japanese linguist Yoshizo Itabashi, “the Old Japanese or pre-Japanese is a nongenetic language whose lexicon and grammar were inherited from more than one language or language family in connection with the Old Japanese personal pronouns”.

mtDNA M21b can be observed in Northeast China, and, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", an mtDNA M21b-related lineage sample can be modeled using Japan Jomon. In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” Chinese geneticists hint at the roles of mtDNA M74, M21b, M77 and R*, M* interacting with M74, M21b, M77 (female lineages related to Australo-Melanesians, some of which remained in Southern East Asian) in order to explain by these lineages’ populations’ influence the differences between yDNA O1b Austroasiatics/Yangtze Para-Austroasiatics and the rest of yDNA O-M175 populations in China, related to Sino-Tibetans, Austronesians, Tai-Kadai. yDNA O1b Austroasiatics have some differences in language and mythology, and these should be true of yDNA O1b2 Para-Austroasiatic populations who should have influenced Native Americans in accordance with “Japanese in the World’s Languages: a new perspective on the origin of the Japanese language” by Katsumi Matsumoto (that is, prior to the separation of Native Americans and East Asians).

[Oasis]

Chinese geneticists have found a sample whose DNA unites mtDNA mutations found in Africans who speak languages with Neg[V-Neg] double negation (for example, Afro-Asiatic Amharic) and Africans who speak languages with [Neg-V-Neg] double negation (for example, the Igboid Izi language). The sample hints that the appearance of a negative suffix could be traced to languages of mtDNA L0a-related populations, thus, these features and other negative suffixes in other human languages, which may be possibly derived as a result of simplification of these features, may be considered a part of the dialectological variation within anatomically modern humans.

This result contradicts the previous observation that Type 4 [V-Neg] languages are frequent on the banks of the Arabian Sea, where the Socotra Island is located, where an unknown species of ancient hominins was observed, which was extrapolated onto some other regions by revealing the presence of mtDNA mutations rare in anatomically modern humans in samples from places of distiribution of languages with negative suffixes, such as Zuni, etc.

As for the ancient sample in China from “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago” that yielded a connection to the Q-M242 population distributing an ancient dog related to a wolf from Western Eurasia, the mtDNA of that type in China yielded the mutation G5913A, the defining mutation of mtDNA K1b lineage.

Such a population likely influenced yDNA Q-M242-related populations related to Native Americans and some Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic and Eskaleut yDNA Q-M242 lineages, including Q-M120 likely influencing the formation of some continental East Asian populations ancestral to the Japanese people, which was already explained:



https://i.ibb.co/8sRM50x/27.png
Feature 143A: Order of Negative Morpheme and Verb
The largest share of languages (525 out of 1325, or 39,6%) have Type 1: NegV.
“Type 1: NegV
Type 1, and by far the most frequent type, represents those languages in which the normal expression of clausal negation is a negative word which precedes the verb (…)

These languages include Chinese, Hebrew, English, Tibeto-Burman Naxi language, but these languages are numerous on all continents. For their East Asian area the Chinese researchers point to ca.70000-year-old yDNA F/F* as a possible population to distribute such a linguistic feature (it should be mentioned that yDNA N-M231-rich Naxi people does not have the Mongol-Tunguz/Amur ancestry in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). Consequently, other descendants of yDNA F, such as yDNA O-M175 or its descendant yDNA O-M122 maximized in Han Chinese may account for the preservation of such a feature in East Asia. The Naxi people in Southwest China have 44% of yDNA N-M231, and their language also has this feature. Australia is rich in this feature, consequently, at least some branches of yDNA C/C* should be bearers of the languages characterized by this feature. This feature is very widespread in Africa, so some lineages of the equally ancient level should be responsible for the preservation of this feature Africa. The West African Yoruba language has this feature, and traces of 76600-year-old mtDNA L3/yDNA CT* population should be observed in West Africans according to the model "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". This feature is observed in Hebrew, but it is not seen in Coptic, a descendant of Ancient Egyptian and it is not observed in Egyptian Arabic. Some European Germanic languages include this main Type 1 and Type 2.

Almost all other types of Feature 143A “Order of Negative Morpheme and Verb” are similarly observed on all continents, implying that dialectological differentiation already existed in ancient anatomically modern humans.

“Type 4: [V-Neg]
Type 4 represents those languages in which the normal expression of negation is a negative suffix on the verb”

The origin of the entire Type 4, which is distributed on all continents, is not clear. In Africa, both the Type 4 Masalit language and Type 4 East African Sandawe language have yDNA A3b2 members among bearers of these languages. However, other African languages of some other yDNA A members do not have this feature, so the earliest intial formation of this Type 4 feature might have involved a now died-out ghost population.
In Eurasia, the languages containing this Type 4 feature include Eskaleut, Japanese, Mongolic, Turkic, Manchu-Tungusic languages. A lot of Native American languages have this Type 4 feature, but a lot of Native American languages also have Type 1 feature. If yDNA O-M175 branch of yDNA F is dominated by bearers of Type 1 languages, then initially yDNA Q-M242 branch of yDNA F should have also been dominated by bearers of Type 1 languages. However, there is a branch of yDNA Q such as Q-F472 which is split in Q-F1096 found in Eskaleut, Japanese, Mongolic, Turkic, Manchu-Tungusic language bearers and Q-L56 found in Native Americans. As both branches contain speakers of Type 4 languages, it is possible that Q-M242 bearers, initially the speakers of Type 1 languages, mixed with a mysterious Type 4 population. Interestingly, in “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, Chinese researcher reported an ancient Xinjiang population which contained Q-L56>…>Q-M930, a relative of Native Amerixcans who lives in Europe today, and a mysterious ancient yDNA Q who was once determined to be yDNA Q and once was determined to be yDNA F, which, according to the article’s rules means that this ancient sample had just one mutiation characteristic of yDNA Q, other mutations being solely related to yDNA F level. So it is possible that ancient yDNA Q-F472 bearers mixed with a mysterious noew died-out ghost population very distantly related to yDNA A3b2 Sandawe and Masalit in Africa, thus yDNA Q-F472 bearers acquired Type 4 lingustic feature of Sandawe and Masalit, and it preserved in languages of Q-F1096 bearers found in Eskaleut, Japanese, Mongolic, Turkic, Manchu-Tungusic language bearers, while yDNA Q-L56 bearers ancestral to Native Americans and some Europeans, having acquired Type 4 linguistic feature, mixed with a mysterious yDNA F*/mtDNA R-T16189C* population living closer to Tibet and Xinjiang, and Q-L56 bearers ancestral to Native Americans and some Europeans acquired Type 1 linguistic feature. Thus, Type 1 became dominant in some Native American languages, Type 4 remained dominant in a lot of other Native American languages. Type 1 became dominant in languages of Q-M930 living in Europe, as we do not observe any Type 4 languages along the course of migration of Q-M930 to Europe.




Genome-scale sequencing and analysis of human, wolf, and bison DNA from 25,000-year-old sediment
Pere Gelabert 1, Susanna Sawyer 2, Anders Bergström 3, Ashot Margaryan 4, Thomas C Collin 5, Tengiz Meshveliani 6, Anna Belfer-Cohen 7, David Lordkipanidze 6, Nino Jakeli 6, Zinovi Matskevich 8, Guy Bar-Oz 9, Daniel M Fernandes 10, Olivia Cheronet 2, Kadir T Özdoğan 2, Victoria Oberreiter 2, Robin N M Feeney 5, Mareike C Stahlschmidt 11, Pontus Skoglund 12, Ron Pinhasi 13
PMID: 34256019 PMCID: PMC8409484 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.023
Abstract
Cave sediments have been shown to preserve ancient DNA but so far have not yielded the genome-scale information of skeletal remains. We retrieved and analyzed human and mammalian nuclear and mitochondrial environmental "shotgun" genomes from a single 25,000-year-old Upper Paleolithic sediment sample from Satsurblia cave, western Georgia:first, a human environmental genome with substantial basal Eurasian ancestry, which was an ancestral component of the majority of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe; second, a wolf environmental genome that is basal to extant Eurasian wolves and dogs and represents a previously unknown, likely extinct, Caucasian lineage; and third, a European bison environmental genome that is basal to present-day populations, suggesting that population structure has been substantially reshaped since the Last Glacial Maximum. Our results provide new insights into the Late Pleistocene genetic histories of these three species and demonstrate that direct shotgun sequencing of sediment DNA, without target enrichment methods, can yield genome-wide data informative of ancestry and phylogenetic relationships.
----------------------
This is probably the “Caucasian” source of “a wolf ancestral to dogs”, alledgedly venerated by Japanese rice farmers. Findings of the Japanese anthropologist Hirofumi Matsumura, who appears to be closely aligned with American scientists, hint at the role of mtDNA K1b as a spouse of these males distributing a Western Eurasian “wolf-like dogs”, which influenced East Asian dogs, according to the western research. How migrant mtDNA K1b people influenced the Eastern Eurasian “ecosystem” and whether mtDNA K1b people, influencing ancestors of Japanese-related F1096>Q-F746>Q-M120 and of Eskaleut-related -F1096>Q-F746>Q-B143, spoke the Type 4 language, remains to be inferred.

[Oasis]

Wang et al. 2022 report the following Pengshui Hmong data:
[…]
"4": G2b1/"N1b1a1b~"-F2905+, CTS39+, CTS10070+(?)
"10": B4c1b2a/"C2c1a2a2"-Z1300, F3880+, F10056/Z36838+(?)
[…]
Source:
Wang Yicheng et al. 2022: "The genomic history of southwestern Chinese populations demonstrated massive population migration and admixture among proto Hmong–Mien speakers and incoming migrants"; doi: 10.1007/s00438-021-01837-3


According to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the population ancestral to the Han Chinese is represented by Shimao_LN and Lajia4K who have mostly yDNA O-M122>O-M134 and also contain an mtDNA G2b1, thus, mtDNA G is not a female proto lineage accompanying yDNA N-M231 population.

As for B4c1b2a, it should derive from Southern East Asia (“Maternal genetic structure of a Neolithic population of the Yangshao culture”). As for C2c1a2a2, they derived from C2-F1067, who form a cline of their own in the very close vicinity of modern and ancient East Asians in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Perhaps, at least according to the PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago",the most ancient C2-F1067, unlike northern C2-M217 related to Tianyuan to a certain degree, developed along a cline of its own starting from the most ancient population ancestral to both yDNA C2 and C1, and the most ancient C2-F1067-related cline would span as far as Yumin, but modern northern C2-F1067 derive from the population which was very close to Ancient Northern East Asians. According to “Mitogenome evidence shows two radiation events and dispersals of matrilineal ancestry from northern coastal China to the Americas and Japan”, an mtDNA lineage such as D4h1c should be expected to derive from a Northern East Asian yDNA C2-F1067-related population, related also to the southern branch of Yumin-related mtDNA C4a2b2. Interestingly, Tanaka et al, 2004, hinted to the lack of association of the more southern component of the Japanese language with mtDNA C, thus, it should have been influenced by the population representing 68% ancestry of Chamdo_2.8k_1, “Yangtzean” yDNA N-M231 (N-F2930)-related population with no Amur-like Mongol, Tunguz, Turk ancestry, but not by the population representing 32% ancestry related to “Yumin-related” mtDNA C4a2b2 and, thus, indirectly to yDNA C2-F1067 (the branch with a certain ancient distant affinity to mtDNA C5 Yumin).

Thus, it is the most interesting to view the deep origin of yDNA N-M231-related populations basing on the materials of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". We know that yDNA N-M231 Shandong is more influenced by yDNA O-M122 populations than a slightly more Hoabinhian-like yDNA N-M231 Shandong Bianbian, thus, the cline comprising the female D4b1a2 Ust-BelayaN, (who has some female ancestry from yDNA O-M175-related population), Boshan, Bianbian, such a cline will point exactly into the Cambodian specimen with mtDNA R23 with no apparent Denisovan and Neanderthal mutations in its main sequence. Interestingly, the same specimen was assigned Western Eurasian mtDNA R0 (HV) in the Western piece of research, while another HtinMal-related –O-M268-related Cambodian with typical HtinMal mtDNA R9b2 branch was similarly assigned Western Eurasian mtDNA R0 (HV) instead of its actual mtDNA R9b2 in the Western piece of research. The article "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" elaborated upon this fact and showed that these two R23 and R9b2 Cambodian individuals with the variant containing mtDNA R0 (HV) assignment form a cline which further developed in other East Asians. Thus, this may be nothing else than the ancient primary Palaeolithic similarity of East Asian mtDNAs such as R23 with no apparent Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations in their main sequences to Western Eurasian mtDNA R0 with no reliable Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations in their main sequences, and such a population further influenced the HtinMal-related mtDNA R9b2 and distributed in other East Asian populations.

This would very nicely explain the reason why more than one billion Han Chinese people having various mtDNA lineages would cluster craniologically with a small mtDNA R0-rich Palestinian people in Hirofumi Matsumura’s “American” piece of research “Female craniometrics support the 'two-layer model' of human dispersal in Eastern Eurasia”. Han Chinese and Palestinian females clustered together craniologically, because both ancient East Asian and ancient Palestinian ancestors derived from qualitatively similar mtDNA R/N populations, though lineages were distinct. Unlike this, Japan Jomon clustered with Australasian Tasmanians. “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" has shown that “female” 51% of Jomon (except for 0,4% DNA associated with having DNA from the population bearing G5147A mutation in its sequence, which was assigned to female side of yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-related population in that article, but not to mtDNA N9 Japan Jomon) can be used to model the local Southern East Asian branch of mtDNA G, which had a typical mutation found in an mtDNA M21b lineage also interacting with local Southern East Asian mtDNA M74b and M77. Thus, this means that both Sourthern East Asian variants of mtDNA G and Japan Jomon’s mtDNA N9b got “assimilated” to local populations distantly related to Papuans dominated by rare branches of mtDNA M. The fate of Australian mtDNA N*/P* populations should have been similar. Thus, in terms of craniology Japan Jomon (mtDNA N9b) and Tasmanians (mtDNA N*/P*) all clustered with mtDNA M-rich Papuans. “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" supports the southern coastal route of Jomon-related migration and migration of other related lineages such as N9a, Y1, Y2; the article reported traces of ancient N9 population from the ancient Fujianese in China. The reason why East Asian Chinese mtDNA R-influenced population along with Near Eastern mtDNA R0-rich population clustered separately from mtDNA M-influenced populations, which is also true of different groups of Africans in “Female craniometrics support the 'two-layer model' of human dispersal in Eastern Eurasia” by Hirofumi Matsumura, requires further explanation.

Now, in order to reduce the influence of other East Asian populations, especially rich in yDNA O-M175, let us view a slightly different cline on the PCA of . “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago": a cline comprising Siberian Shamanka_EN yDNA N-M231 individual with the Siberian branch of mtDNA C4 and Shandong Bianbian, an individual with a more “indigenous” Hoabinhian-like yDNA N-M231 according to Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" and with no apparent mtDNA C4 influence, according to “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”.

This “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline passes quite closely to UstBelayaN-Boshan-Bianbian cline where Boshan-Bianbian are respectively an O-M122-influenced N-M231 and a more Hoabinhan-like indigenous N-M231, but, by including UstBelayaN with relevant autosomal ancestry, the UstBelayaN-Boshan-Bianbian cline may be considered as influenced by East Asian females married to yDNA O-M175 populations. This “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline does not precisely include either mtDNA R23 Cambodian or “HtinMal” mtDNA R9b2 Cambodian, but nonetheless yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline passes very closely to these two individuals, whose indigenous East Asian mtDNA R23 and R9b2 (influenced by mtDNA R23 population) bears resemblance to Near Eastern-related mtDNA R0 (HV) populations. Thus, the most ancient more than 40000-year-old yDNA N-M231 individuals evolved from their own variant of such an mtDNA R23-related population with no apparent Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations, and, similarly, a lot of other ancient East Asians are likely to evolve from their variants of such a population.

This “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline passes quite closely to mtDNA M74-related Thailand ancient Ban Chiang individual, but this cline does not intersect this sample; ancient yDNA N-M231 populations lived close to mtDNA M74 populations, but probably did not substantially intermix with them.

The sample on this “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline which this cline actually intersects is a Thai sample related to mtDNA M91b, which also has an mtDNA M74-related mutation, but, nonetheless, this “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline did not intersect with the previous mtDNA M74-related Thailand ancient Ban Chiang sample. mtDNA M91 is found in Burma, and it is considered in China that it has just migrated to Southern China 2200 years ago. Thus, probably some Palaeolithic yDNA N-M231 haplogroups could have interacted with mtDNA M91, but their autosomal traces remained in Burma, while ancestors of living N-M231 haplogroups did not derive directly from the Burmese populations. mtDNA M91 does not have apparent Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations in its sequence, mtDNA M91b has one Neanderthal mutation. However, there is a cline on the PCA of . “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" which comprises this mtDNA M91b-related sample, but also includes samples with mtDNAs containing Neanderthal-like mutations, implying that mtDNA M91b ancestors mixed with anatomically modern humans who already had such mutations in their mtDNAs.

The most interesting point is that the directionality of this “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline includes samples containing G5147A mutations in sequences of their mtDNAs. This is the mutation of mtDNA N9, N9a, N9b (Japan Jomon-related), Y1, Y2. “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" implied that such mtDNA bearers migrated along the coastal route towards Japan. Unlike this, in order to suit the the directionality on the PCA of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" yDNA N-M231 individuals having pre-N9 mtDNA or basal N9* mtDNA containing G5147A mutation should have migrated in the opposite direction towards Yunnan and Burma. According to “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", this pre-N9 mtDNA or basal N9* mtDNA population should have been essential for yDNA N-M231-related populations, because not only their cline is going along samples containing G5147A mutation, but also yDNA N-M231 Bianbian was used as a source for 0,4% DNA associated with having DNA from the population bearing G5147A mutation in its sequence. As such an ancient people as basal N9* mtDNA population should have been autosomally quite close to the initial mtDNA N/N*, R/R* population of ancient East Asians, it is quite likely that the “ancestral” point on this “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline in the immediate neighbourhood of mtDNA R23 Cambodians should be related to this basal N9* mtDNA population.

The practical meaning of this yDNA N-M231 peoples’ relationship to basal N9* mtDNA containing G5147A is the following. There is an idea in Japan that Native Americans derived from a “Himalayan Kusunda people which is a branch of Palaeolithic Japan Jomon ancestors”. However, Japanese scientists always show that Jomonese populations rich in mtDNA N9 containing G5147A mutation never have any Native American component. Thus, yDNA N-M231 populations who should have had basal N9* mtDNA with G5147A mutation in accordance with “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" are also free from forming Native Americans out of the Kusunda people. Because of basal N9* mtDNA with G5147A mutation, the component of yDNA N-M231 related populations should be considered to be the same non-Native American East Asian, as was the component of other mtDNA N9-rich populations (Jomon), who did not have Native American ancestry on Japanese PCAs. The Himalayan Kusunda may form a cline with Native Americans, because Kusundas have yDNA P and its ancestry, which is found in Native Americans as well. The East Asian connection to Native Americans was mediated by mtDNA B2, a branch of B4, but not by N9, whose Jomon-related branches took the southern route via coastal Southern China, which is hinted by “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The connection between the Japanese and Native American Zuni, an mtDNA B4-rich population, was caused by the fact that yDNA O1b2 Para-Austroasiatics were related to B4-rich Proto-Austroasiatics and influenced Native American ancestors, contributing mtDNA B2, a lineage related to B4b. This would explain the linguistic Zuni-Japanese connection, supported by Gerhard Jager’s analysis.

Interestingly, this “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline passes close to mtDNA M13b Ban Chiang ancient individual, but does not intersect this individual. The story of the novel 49000-year-old tree of mtDNA M13 from “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4,000 years” was already discussed:


HOW DID YDNA D-M174 PEOPLE DEVELOP IN EASTERN EURASIA?
CAN IT BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF NORTHERN C2-M217?
CAN IT BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF MONGOL AND TUNGUZ?
There is a theory that yDNA D-M174 distributed from the north of Eastern Eurasia, but there are more widespread theories that yDNA D-M174 distributed from the south of Eastern Eurasia
In “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4,000 years”, Chinese scientists developed a huge novel mtDNA tree of mtDNA M13, which is 49071 years old (its first split). This is already very close to yDNA D-M174 which split 49877 years ago, according to “A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture” (Karmin et al, 2015).
Interestingly, only one Mongol sample has a basal northern 49071-year-old mtDNA M13 in “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4,000 years”. Interestingly, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” there is one Amur AR10-13K sample which was once determined to belong to yDNA DE, but another time he was determined to belong to northern yDNA C2-M217 https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-M130. So it is possible that yDNA D-M174 once lived in Northern East Asia, but later the northern D-M174 was substituted by the northern yDNA C2-M217 ancient people. Other mtDNA M13 and yDNA D-M174 should have distributed in more southern areas.
Thus, on the linguistic map below, southern occurences of the linguistic feature N42a “Different inflection of Pronominal and Adnominal Demonstratives” may be related to the ancient distribution of southern yDNA D-M174 populations, while northern occurencies of this feature may be caused by the influence from ancient populations belonging to northern yDNA C2-M217, taking into account that these northern yDNA C2-M217 populations replaced the now died-out “northern” yDNA D-M174, a trace of which preserved in the ancient sample of AR10-13K of the Amur River Basin in Northeast China.
The Japanese people is also rich in yDNA D-M64 branch. However, it is more likely that the linguistic feature N42a “Different inflection of Pronominal and Adnominal Demonstratives” was introduced to the Japanese language by yDNA C2-M217 Tunguz and Mongol related populations also contributing to Turkic populations. The Ainu people who share the D-M64 branch with the Japanese, do not have this feature in their language. The fact is that "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" hinted that the Japan Jomon-related yDNA D-M64 interacted with Austronesian-related ancient samples (but not with Liangdao2), while, according to S.-Y. William Wang and Mieko Ogura ("Explorations in the origins of the Japanese language"), the Austronesian-related contribution to the formation of the Japanese language is not significant.
https://i.ibb.co/Yb9nGTx/25.png

A note: “The (Tungusic) Udegeys (Udihe) were characterized by a high frequency (66.7%) of Y chromosome haplogroup C, indicating a close genetic relationship with Mongolians and Siberians.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19953529/

In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, mtDNA M13b is attributed to bearers of the Kho-Bwa languages of Arunachal Pradesh, India, such as the Shertukpen. Some linguists think that Kho-Bwa languages are linguistic isolates, but quite recently it started to be more widely accepted that Kho-Bwa languages are related (or at least strongly influenced by) to Sino-Tibetan languages. Kho-Bwa language speakers have some yDNA D-M174, so probably mtDNa M13b lineage distributed along with some branches of D-M174. Interestingly, the split of M13b from the rest occurred 42500 years ago in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, which is quite close to the split of N-M231 from O-M175 41900 years ago. M13b split into “Shertukpen” and “Tharu” branches 30000 years ago. However, this “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline says that ancient yDNA N-M231 might have lived close to those M13b/D-M174 populations, but yDNA Ns themselves were not the people to distribute together with “Shertukpen” or “Tharu” mtDNA M13b. Similarly, mtDNA M13a sample appeared deeply in Tibetan highlanders populations’ on the PCA of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", thus, it was not exactly initially related to N-M231, but was related to yDNA D-M174 population. Interestingly, the traces of Siberian M13* and described traces of Siberian D-M174 might serve as a tracer dye to explain common linguistic similarities between Shertukpen, Ainu and some Ainu’s Kamchukotic neighbours. For example, their languages do not use a decimal system of counting, but instead use a basic vigesimal system of counting (1-20).

In accordance with such a “purer” yDNA N-M231 individuals’ cline of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", yDNA N2 (N-Y6503) and yDNA N1 N-Z4762 should have mixed with the mtDNA B5b (who was in turn mixed with yDNA O-M268* and yDNA O-M122*) and depart at the vicinity of mtDNA M75 Baojianshan sample, though the Baojianshan-related population might have lived farther to the north than modern Guangxi Province 25000 years ago. yDNA N2 (N-Y6503) should have distributed as far as Yumin and later proceed to Shamanka_EN, while yDNA N1 N-Z4762 migrated in the direction of Shandong and Northeast China along the inland route. The ancient population which contributed to the Hoabinhians also indirectly participated in the formation of the ancient yDNA N-M231 population, one of this contributing ancient population’s representative being mtDNA R-T16189C* in accordance with of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".