Mysteries of the origin of anatomically modern humans

[Oasis]

http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.16359/j.1000-3193/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

The above most recent article supported the existence of 120000-year-old anatomically modern humans in China. Recently a 130000-year-old dental crown with human characteristics was directly radiocarbon-dated in China.


Interestingly, there is also an opposing view from representative scientists in China suggesting that anatomically modern humans did not come to Southern China earlier than 50000 years ago: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33558418/ However, the accusation of this article was based upon the lack of directly radiocarbon-dated human remains, whereas the situation has already changed after the appearance of this older article.

The 120000-year-old population was especially valued in Korea, where even more kinds of yDNA D-M174 haplogroup (a brother of yDNA E-M96, a lineage only dominant in Africa today) are found (as compared to Japan where virtually only D-M64 branch is present).

The possible coexistence of an older population and a newer 50000-year-old population may shed light on the order of the peopling of Eurasia and Africa by different waves of anatomically modern humans and shed light on the outcome of interaction of the older and newer 50000-year-old (such as ancestors of O-M122) yDNA lineages in Eurasia. Curiously, the qualitative similarity of older yDNA E-dominated Africa and newer yDNA O-M122 (yDNA F)-dominated China is not observed in Admixture models virtually in all articles, while yDNA D-rich Japan is similar to China in this respect.

[Oasis]

This also of note for the distribution of anatomically modern humans.


http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.16359/j.1000-3193/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


In general, the discussed Chinese article already contains the response to the article "Assembly of 43 human Y chromosomes reveals extensive complexity and variation" which was available at biorxiv, but was issued today.

https://i.ibb.co/cYL6qpz/phpn-UZs4-Y.png

In general, in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, Ancient East Asians/Ancient Northern East Asians include everyone related to NO-M214 within 45000 years, thus including the atypically deeply divergent Finn of "Assembly of 43 human Y chromosomes reveals extensive complexity and variation" (for example, NO-M214 typically split 41900 years ago in “Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup N: A Non-trivial Time-Resolved Phylogeography that Cuts across Language Families” where the dateset was much more representative). Thus, they all originated from the Ancient East Asian homeland dated at least 45000 years ago. According to “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” yDNA K2a* specimens of Ust’Ishim and Oase1 did not contribute to modern populations, thus, the atypical substructure of NO-M214 obtained by Pille Hallast in “A Southeast Asian origin for present-day non-African human Y chromosomes” should be explained as a result of interaction within 45000-year-old Ancient East Asian homeland of various yDNA NO-M214* and K2a* lineages with ancestors of modern O-M175 and N-M231, explaining atypical substructures within NO-M214 which may be obtained using a too small set of samples, while, before 45000 years ago, some yDNA K2a* members, such as Ust’Ishim and Oase1, left other yDNA K2a and K2a* members who were settling in Ancient East Asian homeland.

Also, I have already written why yDNA N-M231 are not considered Paleosiberians in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?375001-Genetics-and-Eastern-Eurasian-Archaeological-Cultures-and-Ancient-Populations&p=7774989&viewfull=1
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?375001-Genetics-and-Eastern-Eurasian-Archaeological-Cultures-and-Ancient-Populations&p=7778129&viewfull=1

[Oasis]

UPDATE:

Reconstructing the genetic relationship between ancient and present-day Siberian populations
Haechan Gill, Juhyeon Lee, and Choongwon Jeong,*
Affiliation:7
1 School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence to: cwjeong@snu.ac.kr

As we can see, the Northern East Asian ancestry including members of yDNA N haplogroups, according to “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” only separated from Southern East Asians ca. 19000 years ago:

https://i.ibb.co/cYL6qpz/phpn-UZs4-Y.png

In the Korean article they only view separation within Siberia of Paleosiberian ancestry that separated from ancestors of Ancient Southern East Asians and Ancient Northern East Asians 24000 years ago (according to Melinda Yang). According to the discussed article “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” yDNA N-M231 haplogroups should belong to Ancient Northern East Asian ancestry, which is not Paleosiberian. So Baikal samples came later after Paleosiberian ancestry, but the participation of their Ancient Northern East Asian ancestry is omitted from the Korean analysis above, therefore, the migration history of Siberian samples cannot be reliably obtained from the Korean article. We can only learn the distribution of the Paleosiberian ancestry of yDNA Q in this article and its Eastern Eurasian part, but we cannot learn the history of distribution of Ancient Northern East Asian ancestry of yDNA N-M231 haplogroups from the Korean article.

To sum up, the Koreans cannot assign yDNA N haplogroups to “Paleosiberians” and the Koreans will have to deal with yDNA N-M231 haplogroups richly found in Northeast Chinese ancient cultures (including N1c of WLR BA and N1c of Xueshan I and possible N1c-related population of the Puyo Kingdom which some Koreans claim as a kingdom related to Koreans, though there are other views, including the Para-Japonic affiliation of Puyo).

[Oasis]

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2095927321000657-gr2.jpg
Since Shandong Bianbian was selected in China as one of the oldest yDNA N-M231 specimens, and Shandong Bianbian belonged to mtDNA B5b2, while Neolithic Shandong is also a homeland for a B5b (pre-B5b2) and for B5b4-related B5b1 ancient specimens, whereas even yDNA N-M231-related Chukotko-Kamchatkans appeared to have an autosomal connection to a certain ancient mtDNA B5b*-related population (according to the Chinese data), whereas mtDNA B5b4-related populations' DNA can be traced within the DNA of “Kingdom of Puyo-related” AR7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, it would be more correct to pay attention to a more rare in China mtDNA B5b4 as one of the lineages which accompanied some European N1c-related populations:
https://i.imgur.com/LXYh3Bf.png
Unlike this, the explanation of the Chinese models is that mtDNA B5b*-population’s autosomal DNA which contributed to Chukotko-Kamchatkans, did not contribute to the formation of the overwhelming majority of populations in Southern East Asia, except for some sets of specimens that are rarely used in genetic analyses, that is why we mainly observe “monolithic” Chukotko-Kamchatkan ancestry in Admixture models, and Chukotko-Kamchatkans very seldom tend to express East Asian-related ancestry in some Admixture models on specific conditions.

As it was supposed that mtDNA B5b came to Shandong via Northwestern China in "Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago", Shandong’s mtDNA B5b cannot be reliably treated as a haplogroup of Japanese-related “Yangtze Para-Austroasiatic”-related yDna O-47z, since O-47z had a different homeland than Northwest China. If “Yangtze Para-Austroasiatics” were mentioned, it should be remembered that Japanese is treated as a language isolate by the majority of linguists, despite the Eastern Eurasian nature of Japanese linguistic traits, not observed in their combination in other East Asian languages having at least some similar features. Japanese is also not similar to languages of Papuans, relatives of yDNA D-rich Hoabinhians. Theories of the creole origin of language families are also not widely accepted among linguists.

Prior to the formation of the Kingdom of Puyo, populations such as AR7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier should have been assimilated by the population of the Machengzi culture, which should be autosomally not dissimilar to the ancient sample of Shandong Bianbian, judging by the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

[Oasis]

https://i.ibb.co/Vjqjf9D/php-Icy-JRX.png
If we return to the article "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", then, taking into account that the deep African-related population contributing to Shandong Boshan can be inferred from the article’s materials to be 73300 years old, while the branch connected to West Africans contributing to African Mbuti can be inferred to be 76600 year old, while yDNA CT* should be at least ca.76600 years old and yDNA DE should be at least ca. 73200 years old in "A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa", then the population contributing to Shandong Boshan should have belonged to yDNA DE* just prior to the split of yDNA D and yDNA E, while the branch connected to West Africans contributing to African Mbuti should have belonged to yDNA CT*. The yDNA DE* was found in a Tibetan in China. As the modern DE people does not think that their very ancestral DE/DE* population mixed with a Neanderthal, a Denisovan and Homo Erectus 73200-73300 years ago, then it would be correct to assume that African-like DE* people ancestry contributed to Shandong Boshan’s ancestors belonged to “pureblood” African-related Homo Sapiens branch closely related to ancestors of yDNA E and yDNA D.
Indeed, there was a report in Nature (“Early presence of Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia by 86–68 kyr at Tam Pà Ling, Northern Laos” nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38715-y) about the appearance of a fossil of an anatomically modern human unadmixed with archaic hominins/Neanderthals without archaic hominin/Neanderthal traits during the period which included the discussed 73200-73300 year-old period. Thus, 11% of Shandong Boshan ancestry might originate from this “pureblood” African-related Homo Sapiens branch or a different very similar 73200-73300 year-old population.

[As an aside, it was already written that according to Gerhard Jager’s full model from 2017, the Sumerian language was placed by Jager into African Nilo-Saharan languages, but Sumerian of Jager also has a slightly older ‘relative’ in “Papunesia”, so it is not impossible that the discussed migration of 73200-73300 DE* people was somewhat related to the origin of some relatives of Sumerians, while the earlier slightly older DE* migration contributed this older “Papunesian” language…]

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 explain the presence of a DE* lineage in West African Nigeria as a “back”migration.

Interestingly, there is an article "Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals" which speculated that prior to “Out of Africa” there was a gene flow to Neanderthals from more than 100000-year-old African population related to San, Mbuti and West African Yoruba. However, when combined with a finding of article "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" about a 76600-year-old mtDNA L3 and yDNA CT* West African-related population contributing to Mbuti (a sort of West African-like contribution should also penetrate the San people, as the San-related South African hunter-gatherer interacted with some females very possibly of West African affinity in " Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry" (as these females separated quite closely to the point of separation of West Africans, but before the separation of East African-related Eurasians in "Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry", so it is quite correct to view their branch in the Dzudzuana paper as a branch very close to West Africans, but not directly related to East Africans)), it becomes clear that a gene flow from such a younger mtDNA L3 African population into Neanderthals would much better account for younger African mtDNA L3 populations’ connections with Neanderthals (for example, those shared by some deep more than 70000-year-old African-only mtDNA L3 branches with Neanderthals, including European Neanderthals). Besides, the age of 76600 years ago is already much closer to the “Out of Africa” event which is already very well documented. Thus, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" provided a framework when mtDNA L3 and yDNA CT* population from Africa split from West Africans and contributed to archaic hominins during the period which was already quite close to an “Out of Africa” event. Later, the yDNA DE*-related Hoabinhians, putatively “discovered” by "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", would mix with the result of this mtDNA L3 and yDNA CT* population’s “Out of Africa” migration.


Guang-Lin He et al. (2022) examined a sample of current Mongols of China (n=175, including n=97 from Inner Mongolia, n=27 from Liaoning, n=10 from Heilongjiang, n=10 from Jilin, n=3 from Qinghai, n=3 from Xinjiang, and n=25 from elsewhere in China) and found different haplogroup O subclades (107/175 = 61.1% in total) to be the most frequently observed Y-DNA haplogroup. The second most frequently observed Y-DNA haplogroup among the sampled Mongols from China was C2 (22.9%, including 16.6% "Northern" i.e. Mongolian/Siberian C2b1a and 6.3% "Southern" i.e. East Asian C2c1)
Mongol males of He et al. (2022) have been sampled in many areas: 2 from Alxa, 2 from Baotou, 3 from Bayannur, 4 from Beijing, 12 from Chaoyang, 22 from Chifeng, 1 from Dalian, 9 from Fuxin, 3 from Hebei, 10 from Heilongjiang, 18 from Hohhot, 5 from Hulunbuir, 1 from Jiangsu, 10 from Jilin, 4 from Nanyang, 4 from Ordos, 3 from Qinghai, 6 from Shandong, 4 from Shanxi, 5 from Shenyang, 1 from Tianjin, 19 from Tongliao, 2 from Ulanqab, 8 from Xilingol, 12 from Xingan, 3 from Xinjiang, 2 from Yunnan
Unlike this, according to "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" there are yDNA N-M231 lineages in China, uncluding ancient DNA, which do not have any Mongol-related Amur ancestry/Transeurasian-related Amur ancestry / Siberian C2b1a ancestry.

Usually archaeological cultures in China whose bearers are thought to contribute to a certain degree to the Japanese gene pool, despite their diversity, along with other various haplogroups, are usually marked by finding yDNA N-M231 haplogroups in ancient DNA of those cultures…

There is an ancient hg N-M231 individual in China in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" who did not have any Mongol-related Amur ancestry/Transeurasian-related Amur ancestry / Siberian C2b1a ancestry, but he interacted with an ancient population of ancient yDNA O1b bearers-related ancestry (given the specific form of this ancestry unlike the ancestry of yDNA O1b1, it should be yDNA O1b2 ancestry related to the Japanese), which probably initially did not have any Mongol-related Amur ancestry as well, because this hg N-M231 sample likely interacting with yDNA O1b2, did not score this “Mongol-like” ancestry. This hg N-M231 ancient individual is very likely to interact with rice-farming cultures, not necessarily with those parts of the Lingjiatan culture-related groups, who simultaneously contributed to Japanese, Koreans and Mongol. However, a part of “yDNA O1b2”-related population, with whom this hg N-M231 ancient individual interacted, did contribute some ancestry to the ancestors of Mongol, but this ancestry was not related to yDNA N-M231 bearers, but it was rather related to O1b2 bearers. So we have at least one hg N-M231 ancient individual who could contribute to the Japanese people (via an autosomal component of East Asian origin which presence is substantial in the Japanese people), but the Japanese people would not be able to consider this ancient yDNA N-M231 individual a Korean, Mongol, Tunguz or Turk, as he did not have Amur, but had ancestry similar to East Asians. Models of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” also put an end to attempts to mix such an yDNA N-M231 bearer with the ancestry related to southern yDNA C-M217. Thus, if the Japanese are finding similarities in mtDNA lineages between some Japanese and Mongol, it is more likely that it is the O1b2-related population lost these lineages to Mongol, while an ancient yDNA N-M231 representative was likely to interact with the continental part of rice-farming-like Japanese ancestors independently of Korean, Mongol, Tunguz or Turk influence, according to the models of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

EDIT: The Miao-Yao-like ancestry, which interacted with the ancestors of the Japanese, also had some Amur-like ancestry in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". As the discussed yDNA N-M231 individual did not have the Amur-like ancestry in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", he should not be considered admixed with the Miao-Yao having the Amur-like ancestry.

UPDATE2:
Ebizur,
Unlike your support for Jomon-mixed populations (of which the Aoya Yayoi is an example, which was more similar to the Palaeolithic local people of Japan), below is a different similarity of a Yayoi group coming from the continent, according to the materials of Japanese researchers.

The cranial similarity of the “Japanese rice-farming Yayoi” to typical Chinese Shang Dynasty period populations (Yinxu):
https://i.ibb.co/xqkJLw3/14.png

Cranial morphometric analysis of early wet-rice farmers in the Yangtze River Delta of China
KENJI OKAZAKI, HIROFUMI TAKAMUKU, YOSHINORI KAWAKUBO, MARK HUDSON, JIE CHEN

UPDATE3: Ebizur, on your remark on southern C2-217, one should add that, moreover, the likely coming of likely West African-admixed Maludong-related C2-M217 from the south along the coastal route to the Palaeolithic Japan during the periof when Palaeolithic Japanese Minatogawa 1 existed, was already described in “A Late Pleistocene human genome from Southwest China” (see Japanese Figure 7 above for the position of Minatogawa 1 close to the “Jomonese-related” Aoya Yayoi of Japan). However, one should recall the possible Korean connection for another “southern” (that is, located in China rather than in Siberia) yDNA C2-M217 (yDNA C2-CTS2657, a branch of C2-F1067) in "Phylogenetic analysis of the Y-chromosome haplogroup C2b-F1067, a dominant paternal lineage in Eastern Eurasia".

[Oasis]

Ebizur,

ブリヤート（Buryat, Buriat)」と記されたサンプルからO1b2-P49に属すY-DNAが検出された例は一つのみで、その一例はロシア領内のブリヤートではなくモンゴル国内のブリヤートを 対象にしたもの。

Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations

NIALL P. COOKE, VALERIA MATTIANGELI, LARA M. CASSIDY, KENJI OKAZAKI, CAROLINE A. STOKES, SHIN ONBE, SATOSHI HATAKEYAMA, KENICHI MACHIDA, KENJI KASAI, NAOTO TOMIOKA, AKIHIKO MATSUMOTO, MASAFUMI ITO, YOSHITAKA KOJIMA, DANIEL G. BRADLEY, TAKASHI GAKUHARI1 , AND SHIGEKI NAKAGOME

In this Japanese article there is the following statement

”Only one candidate was found to better fit a two-way mixture for Kofun, a population of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age individuals from the Yellow River basin (YR_LBIA) (20), although this was not consistent across the reference sets (nested, P = 0.100; table S13). Despite not showing statistically significant gene flow with Yayoi to the exclusion of Jomon (Z = 2.487) (Fig. 4A and fig. S16), we find that a two-way model between YR_LBIA and Jomon also fits the Yayoi (table S14). This Yellow River population has an intermediate genetic profile with approximately 40% Northeast Asian and 60% East Asian (i.e., Han) ancestry, as estimated by qpAdm. Thus, this is an intermediate genetic profile that fits both Yayoi and Kofun in certain models, with an input of 37.4 ± 1.9% and 87.5 ± 0.8% in these populations (table S14). These results imply that continuous gene flow from a single source may be sufficient to explain the genetic changes between the Yayoi and Kofun.”

Thus, the yDNA N-M231-related population which should contribute to the Japanese gene pool, contributed some ancestry to the Yellow River LBIA sample Haojiatai 13. Haojiatai 13 is an Eastern Zhou Period male whose yDNA and mtDNA are not known (HJTW13: 353-57 calBCE (2140±30 BP). However, we should be interested in a part of his autosomal DNA, as such a yDNA N-M231 individual’s ancestry was inferred to belong to East Asian (which, according to "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years", should be similar to ancient East Asian farmers’ ancestry contained in Japanese in “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations” ), but was not inferred to belong to Northeast Asian. In “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations”, Haojiatai 13 was shown to interact with Jomon (thus he could be related to the Japanese Yayoi, not only to the Kofun Period population), and he does not have apparent Mongoloid “Central Steppe” ancestry in the model of “Tripartite structure”. However, the Chinese article "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years" defined what “Central Steppe” and Siberian-related ancestry were for such ancient samples, and showed that “Central Steppe” and Siberian-related ancestry were not present in the ancestry of such an ancient yDNA N-M231-related individual. It goes without saying that the population of such an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual (that is, an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual who contributed to Jomon-interacting Haojiatai 13) should be somewhat different from yDNA O-M122 related Han Chinese who derived from a different population (even though the Eastern Zhou Period was in the 8th-3th centuries BC), and, as this yDNA N-M231 population was viewed in "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years" as yDNA N-M231 population not identical to yDNA N-M231 contributing to Tibeto-Burmans, such an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual (that is, an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual who contributed to Jomon-interacting Haojiatai 13) should be somewhat different from Tibeto-Burmans. Such an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual (that is, an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual who contributed to Jomon-interacting Haojiatai 13) should also be different from Ethnic Mongol (Menggu-zu) in the PRC, Mongolian_Chifeng, Mongolian_HulunBuir, Mongolian_Tongliao, Mongolian_Heilongjiang, Mongolian_Hebei, Mongolian_Ordos, the Khatso in Yunnan, Mongolian_Shenyang, Mongolian_Jilin, Mongolian_Yunnan, Mongolian_Dalian, Mongolian_Jiangsu, Mongols in (Outer) Mongolia as well as in Xinjiang, Mongols in Qinghai, Kalmyks, etc, Mogushan_Xianbei_IA, Neolithic Mongolia, Neolithic Amur, etc, because he and his ancestral population did not have Mongoloid “Central Steppe” and Siberian-related ancestry in "Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years", while mentioned populations have such ancestries. Similarly, such an yDNA N-M231 individual represented a different yDNA N-M231 population, so he is free of the ties, identical to other yDNA N-M231 populations, who had some ties to various ancient “Austric” populations, because the ancestry of such an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual (that is, an yDNA N-M231 ancient individual who contributed to Jomon-interacting Haojiatai 13) was inferred in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years" to be somewhat different from his brother branch of yDNA N-M231-related populations who are supposed to contribute to the Kingdom of Puyo, which was considered to be Para-Japonic by the researcher Christopher I. Beckwith, a MacArthur Fellow.

[Oasis]

As for “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", they do not agree that the whole mtDNA G should be considered Japanese-related basing on the fact that solely mtDNA G4a and G4b are limited to Japan and Korea.

Indeed, the split of mtDNA G occured ca.36000 years ago, and one of the inferred ages of Jomon separation from other East Asians was inferred to be 36000 years ago, for example, in “The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia” (it should be remembered that there are also much later dates for the Jomon split from East Asians in other articles)

The mtDNA G5 branch is limited to Southern China and Southeast Asia. Moreover, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” determined Vietnamese G5 lineages containing 8289.1C 8289.2C 8289.3C 8289.4C 8289.5C 8289.6T 8289.7C 8289.8T 8289.9A as basal mtDNA G*.


Thus, it would be not impossible that one of the early “splits” of Jomon ancestors from ancient East Asians might have been described as the mtDNA G4-related people moving away from ancient East Asians and joining Jomon ancestors. However, “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" casts doubt on this scenario by showing that autosomal DNA which would be expected to appear in mtDNA G-related population as a result of genetic exchange with Jomon, actually was better modeled using another ancient East Asian sample, rather than using Japan Jomon samples. Thus, the reason for the appearance of mtDNA G4 in Japan and Korea remains an open question.


Thus, the “separation” of Himalayan Kusunda people “from Japan Jomon” and Kusunda’s connection to Native Americans should not be explained by mtDNA G-related population.

There were attempts by Gerhard Jager to connect the Nicobarese Shom_Peng language and the Kusunda language with each other, and to connect such a Shom_Peng-Kusunda cluster to the Japanese language. On the other hand, Gerhard Jager connected Japanese, Shom_Peng and a Native American language isolate (other than the Zuni language) in his article. To solve this mystery, “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" observed the connection between the KolymaM sampe having ancestry which separated from Native Americans, the Korean Peninsula samples, the autosomally Jomon-influenced Fujianese sample and the Nicobarese population influenced by the mtDNA R12-rich Shom_Peng people. mtDNA R12 is rare in Eurasia and was also found in an Australian. Thus, the picture was probably the following: when still living close to Southeast Asia, the Japan Jomon ancestors interacted with “Australasian” mtDNA R12 and went in the direction of Korea and Japan along the coastal route. The population that stayed split into the Shom_Peng mtDNA R12-related ancestors and Nepalese ancestors participating in the formation of the Kusunda people, as the mutation connected to mtDNA R12 is also observed in Nepal. The Japan Jomon ancestors reached Korea and Japan, but their mtDNA R12-related part stayed in Korea, later migrated in the direction of Native American ancestors in Asia, mixed with them, and the genetic traces of this mixing preserved in the ancient KolymaM individual in Siberia. The island Japan Jomon ancestors did not directly participate in the formation of Native Americans, which explains the absence of Native American-like ancestry in Japan Jomon in Japanese articles. These ethnic processes would be different from the coming of mtDNA B2 to America (the languages of mtDNA B2-rich Native American populations clustered with Japanese forming a large cluster of languages, while traces of mtDNA R12 population may only explain Japanese-Kusunda-Shom_Peng-Native American language isolate connection, also discovered by Gerhard Jager).

I am placing this text into the “Mysteries of origin of humans”, because the most comprehensive Gerhard Jager’s work of 2017 rooted the world language tree in the “clicking languages” of Southern Africa http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/slides/slidesHITS.pdf. In case someone thinks that Gerhard Jager’s work of 2017 actually depicts the influence of unknown African hominins on the world’s languages, the article “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" contains an answer to such a hypothesis as well, by pointing to Homo Heidelbergensis-like mutation:
A14605G
Homo Heidelbergensis
L0k1b1 (South Africa)
G3b
M71a2
D1j2
D4b2b1
H3-c3
H4a1m
T2d2a
K2a10b

Here mtDNA M71a2 is a Longlin-related haplogroup, an ancient Homo Sapiens with cranial features which were estimated to separate from anatomically modern humans more than one million years ago. It was reported that this particular Longlin-related lineage came to China from the southwestern direction. It is considered that she did not contribute to modern populations. Another ancient individual from the Maludong cave with similar atypical features was reported to have 3% DNA from West Africa in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222009289

Thus, A14605G mutation may be treated by some as an introgression, or A14605G mutation may be treated by some as the preservation of an archaism in Africa as the scientist Anders Bergstrom did: “An analysis of archaic sequences in modern populations identifies ancestral genetic variation in African populations that likely predates modern humans and has been lost in most non-African populations.” science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay5012 Anders Bergstrom proposed that some Africans preserved variants common with Neanderthals and Denisovans (Neanderthals and Denisovans separating at least 1 million years ago) which were lost in non-Africans.

Thus, it is not advisable even for Ebizur to admire Gerhard Jager’s Ainu-Japonic-Austroasiatic cluster. However tempting this cluster may seem to him, it is unknown what sort of judgement made Gerhard Jager to compose his word lists, that is, whether he selected words which someone considers as not deriving from the languages of Homo Sapiens or not.

[Oasis]

We have already discussed that the Cambodian specimen with mtDNA R23 with no apparent Denisovan, Homo Heidelbergensis muatations, Neanderthal mutations in its main sequence 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. They would be ancient East Asian populations to a certain degree qualitatively similar to “Basal Eurasian”, and this would explain why Han Chinese females’ crania clustered with Palestinian ones in Hirofumi Matsumura’s work. There are other female mtDNA R-rich populations in East Asians who clustered on the Han Chinese side in other Hirofumi Matsumura’s works, but he decided not to show this in this later analysis. Moreover, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" had shown that this 11% of autosomal DNA from a 73300-year-old yDNA DE*-related population just prior to the split between yDNA D and yDNA E (https://i.ibb.co/Vjqjf9D/php-Icy-JRX.png) later evolved into the autosomal DNA of mtDNA N Tianyuan population, thus, yDNAs CF and DE should have initially lived in geographically close populations, and female lineages mtDNA Ns and their ancient mutations inherited from mtDNA pre-L0>pre-L1>pre-L2>pre-L3f,L3e level were once related to Basal Eurasians.
Attention: there is no Longlin influence on the picture below
https://i.ibb.co/f0wxnDH/12.png

Unlike this, females from Eskaleut Inuits, Japan, Austronesian Java, Austronesian Celebes (Sulawesi) do not cluster with Basal Eurasian-like mtDNA N-rich populations. The article “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" points to the mutation G16319A, which may serve as a tracer dye to explain Hirofumi Matsumura’s clusters in terms of genetic differentiation within Homo Sapiens. Indeed, G16319A is found in:
[0] G16319A is within the variation of Homo Sapiens;
[1] G16319A is found in South Africa’s Khokhoi-related mtDNA L0a, which would explain the basic split between Southern cluster and Northern cluster, the possibility of evolution of the southern-like cranial characteristics into northern-like cranial characteristics under different environmental conditions, which is mentioned by Matsumura;
[2] G16319A is found in African mtDNA L3f and L3d, who were relatives of mtDNA N in Vyas et al. Thus, G16319A could be inherited by mtDNA N related populations and preserve in some mtDNA N* in certain locations such as Northeastern Eurasia;
[3] G16319A is found in numerous mtDNA M lineages including the ones contributing to Papuans, thus, G16319A was also inherited by mtDNA M populations;
[4] G16319A preserved in mtDNA A, which is maximized in Inuit, Northeast Asians and is present in China and in Mongolian populations. Moreover, there are genetic traces of interaction between mtDNA A-rich populations and some Austronesian populations (Austronesian populations include Java’s, Sumatra’s, Celebes’ dwellers, etc), whereas proto-Austronesians originated from the Fujianese coast of China.

“Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" has found samples with other mutations in mtDNAs, which cluster along clines with G16319A mutation bearers. These mutation belonged to Homo Sapiens. Interestingly, these mutations also include a more rare mutation found in populations with (Neg-V-Neg) languages, thus, maybe it would be possible for linguists to show that the V-Neg feature of a smaller amount of languages of Homo Sapiens originated from Neg-V feature of a larger amount of languages of Homo Sapiens via the feature of double negation Neg-V-Neg, where the second negation after the verb is added to strengthen or cancel the first negation (depending on the language).

The mentioned mutations, samples of which were aligned with samples bearing G16319A mutation in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", also included an mtDNA mutation related to Homo Sapiens which implied a possible wider scope of distribution of G16319A mutation-related populations both in Africa and in Eurasia in the past. Thus, in case it were established that members of the northern and the southern cranial clusters already separated 200000 years ago, and each cluster already contained both types of cranial variation, the discussed mutation , samples of which were aligned with samples bearing G16319A mutation in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", would help to explain an even earlier variation in Homo Sapiens prior to 200000 years ago.

Thus, it can be said that female cranial features selected by Hirofumi Matsumura belong to Homo Sapiens, and it cannot be said that any populations bearing A14605G mutation shaped any of the clusters reported by Hirofumi Matsumura. A14605G mutation was found in the following haplogroups:

A14605G
Homo Heidelbergensis
L0k1b1 (South Africa)
L0d2b (an L0d lineage of the South African hunter-gatherer was influenced by 3% mtDNA from Mota in “Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry”)
G3b
M71a2 (it is located close to Longlin's supposed place of origin southwest from China, though Longlin did not contribute to modern populations, though some people in Japan think otherwise)
B2q1a (a Native American of B4b (B2) distantly related to Lower Yangtze Para-Austroasiatic populations)
D1j2
D4b2b1 (distributed in Japan; two samples of D4b2b1 occupied a place on the cline spanning from Japan till mtDNA M21b/yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago")
M21b3 (related to mtDNA M21b/yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian; their yDNA D-M64 relatives in Japan sometimes think that civilization was brought by their haplogroup D-M64 to China from the most Northern Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum (though it is quite illogical))
H3-c3
H4a1m
T2d2a
K2a10b


UPDATE: Regarding A14605G “B2q1a (a Native American of B4b (B2) distantly related to Lower Yangtze Para-Austroasiatic populations)” Since such a sort of connection involving African-like ancestry, according to “A Late Pleistocene human genome from Southwest China”, should not be older than ca.20000 years ago, and the article “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" does not operate in this particular matter with any other Native American-like sample than KolymaM, then it would be correct to think that such a genetic connection might only appear due to interactions of coastal continental populations sharing an autosomal connection to Jomon (but this “continental” Jomon was not identical to the Japanese Archipelago Jomon, as Japanese Archipelago Jomon is not on mtDNA M21b cline involving A14605G, though is quite close to it in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"; thus, if someone was a Jomonese, it did not mean that he or she had to have A14605G mutation: rather it might be limited to a continental Jomon-like population) such a genetic connection might only appear due to interactions of coastal continental populations sharing an autosomal connection to Jomon with the KolymaM-like population (though the very KolymaM sample does not form a cline with an mtDNA M21b-related population; rather KolymaM is on the cline with the coastal sample having Jomon-related DNA and having a connection to mtDNA M21b population in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). The influence of KolymaM onto the American continent’s populations is depicted in “Insights into human history from the first decade of ancient human genomics”. So the Lower Yangtze Para-Austroasiatics living closer to the sea coast after the LGM should have been involved into such a sort of connection, since the relevant cline spans to more southern samples as well in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Unlike the connection involving African-like DNA, there is no 20000-year-old limitation for the connection between mtDNA R12-related populations (from whom the Kusunda and the Shom_Peng acquired a part of their ancestors) and continental Jomon-like ancestry and Native American-like ancestry included in KolymaM (this connection from “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" was discussed in the previous post). So this sort of connection might have appeared during the formation of Native American ancestors in Asia and was independent from A14605G mutation-related populations. The same is true for the whole of Native American mtDNA B2, a branch of B4b (that is, mtDNA B2-related connection between Native Americans and Austroasiatics was too ancient and there was no contact between mtDNA B2-related populations and A14605G mutation-related populations in Asia during the formation of the Native Americans).

While it is known that “Para-Austroasiatic” B4b1b found in Japanese shares a mutation with numerous branches of mtDNA B2 of Native Americans, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” did list mtDNA B4b1c in Austroasiatics which shares a mutation with a branch of Native American mtDNA B2. Other mtDNA B4b1a and B4b1* which do not share such mutations were listed in non-Japonic and non-Austroasiatic nationalities in that article. It is consistent with the linguistic feature “N-M pronouns” of some Native American languages being uncommon in other East Asian languages except for proto-Austroasiatic, the Japanese language, the ancient Korean language, the Ainu language, the Amuric Nivkh/Gilyak language (according to the Japanese linguist Katsumi Matsumoto: “Japanese in the World’s Languages: a new perspective on the origin of the Japanese language”), thus, this “N-M pronouns” feature should have arisen in the listed languages of mtDNA B4b-related populations as a result of external influence of mtDNA M-related populations, which would also explain some similarities in mythology absent in other groups in East Asia ( “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” lists mtDNA M74b for Austroasiatic Khamu, Blang, Lawa, Mon, Nyahkur populations).

[Oasis]

Except a single individual from Russia (FJ493503) who belongs to N9b*(xN9b1, N9b2, N9b3, N9b4), all members of mtDNA haplogroup N9b from Russia appear to be members of pre-Russian ethnic groups of the Amur basin who belong to an endemic subclade, N9b4a. The TMRCA of N9b4a based on the mtDNA of twelve individuals belonging to either of two subclades of N9b4a (+310 x 2, +10607 x 1) or to the paragroup N9b4a* (x 9) is estimated to be 642 [0 - 1,585] years. The ethnic and geographic origins of FJ493503 are unclear to me beyond the fact that the individual's DNA has been sampled in Russia.

N9b4(xN9b4a) is represented in the same data set by two individuals from Japan, each of whom belongs to a distinct branch of N9b4. The TMRCA of the two Japanese branches and the Amurian N9b4a branch is estimated to be 4,272 [0 - 8,966] years.

Of course, nearly all other known extant members of haplogroup N9b have been found in Japan.

This makes mtDNA N9b in the Amur basin (or at least the overwhelming majority of it, i.e. N9b4a) seem like a parallel of Y-DNA O1b2-M176 in the same region, where it appears to be extremely recently derived from common ancestors with certain individuals who now reside in Japan or Korea. However, mtDNA haplogroup N9b is more distinctly Japanese than Y-DNA haplogroup O1b2-M176, which subsumes certain subclades that are very well represented in Korea.

cf. Rosa Fregel, Vicente Cabrera, Jose M. Larruga, Khaled K. Abu-Amero, and Ana M. González (2015), "Carriers of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N Lineages Reached Australia around 50,000 Years Ago following a Northern Asian Route." PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129839


Ebizur,
As we remember, the Homo Heidelbergensis mutation A14605G was found in an mtDNA M21b3 sample.

Chinese geneticists have found an M21b3-related branch in Fujian which shares mutation T3593C with yDNA O1b2-47z/mtDNA D4d Nagabaka from the Martine Robbeets article.
Having A6581G mutation, this Fujian M21b3 sample is probably related to M21b3a which was also found in a Yemeni individual, but it lacks G16129A, being probably the basal M21b3a*

Another M21b is found in Hebei on the way to Japan, and it was reported together with mtDNA N9b from Hebei which shares T504C mutation with M21b3a* which shares T3593C with yDNA O1b2-47z/mtDNA D4d Nagabaka. Interestingly, the mtDNA N9b4 found Hebei also shares mutations with this mtDNA M21b3a* (T1673C mutation). mtDNA N9b4 was not found in Ainu, but it was found in Late Jomon.

“Since Ryukyuan is a sister and not a daughter language of Japanese” (according to Thomas Pellard), we can assume that this M21b3a* related to mtDNA M1b3 with Homo Heidelbergensis A14605G mutation was not directly related to Ryukyuan aboriginals sharing some ancestry with the Ainu , but this M21b3a* (related to mtDNA M21b3 with Homo Heidelbergensis A14605G mutation sharing mutation T3593C with yDNA O1b2-47z/mtDNA D4d Nagabaka from the Martine Robbeets article) was related to a more mainstream yDNA O1b2-47z population.

[b]Regarding the oldest pottery in the world found in China (19000-20000 years ago) and Japan, in "The emergence of pottery in China: Recent dating of two early pottery cave sites in South China", David J. Cohen from Taiwan, Amarican Israeli researcher Ofer Bar-Yosef from Harvard , Ilaria Patania from Boston and Paul Goldberg from Australia ask: "Why was pottery used at some sites but not others of similar size and with similar cultural assemblages?" This question implies that they believe in the foreign origin of pottery in China and Japan, even despite the oldest dates in the world (19000-20000 years ago in China), but they do not name the western source of the invention, as no equally ancient pottery was ever reported from Western Eurasia. Regarding Japan, they mention “that a series of [Japanese] vessels from 15 to 11.8 ky cal BP were used almost exclusively for cooking marine and freshwater organisms.” Thus, foreigners coming to East Asia and sparking the development of pottery unknown in Western Eurasia should have followed the coastal route. The reported mtDNA M21b Southeast Asian Hoabinhian strongly suits the description of the population which contacted the ca. 20000-year-old newcomers who had come from the west and alledgedly sparked the use of pottery at least for cooking marine organisms, a tradition which later thrived in Japan in the first place, especially if one takes into account that some Japanese archaeologists believe that their ancestors could additionally participate in the development of the first pottery in China.

[Oasis]

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/10.16359/j.1000-3193/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]

https://i.ibb.co/QfGS48D/34.png
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/prehistoric-man-lived-with-and-loved-neanderthals-in-the-negev-50000-years-ago/)

Nonetheless, Omry Barzilai suggested that Boker Tachtit-related IUP populations kept dispersing to the north, central Europe, and northeast Asia. Omry Barzilai considers Boker 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 Boker 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/10.16359/j.1000-3193/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"):

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

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/)

https://i.ibb.co/d4BNjBx/33.png

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 of 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:

https://i.ibb.co/gST5bVr/32.png

https://i.ibb.co/GpG7Zhf/35.png

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.