AR3.4K/AR7.3K in Northeast China include DNA ancestral to European N-M2019 and N-L1026 [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

View Full Version : AR3.4K/AR7.3K in Northeast China include DNA ancestral to European N-M2019 and N-L1026

Oasis

09-18-2023, 06:42 PM

AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” form a tight cluster and are even viewed as one series of samples in that article. The N-M231-related part of their ancestry is more similar to Shandong Xiaojingshan, while the AR14K ancestry is more characteristic for bearers of the northern branch of C2-M217. The homeland of AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier is not on the Songnen Plain, samples from which form a different cluster. The homeland of AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier should be somewhere between their archaeological sites and Shandong Xiaojingsan, encompassing the Jilin Province, where the Kingdom of Puyo influenced by autosomally Shandong Bianbian-like yDNA N-LLY22g-related populations is later found. According to Christopher Beckwith, the language of the Kingdom of Puyo was Para-Japonic. The Kingdom of Puyo was destroyed by the Xianbei and its population was scattered by the Xianbei or incorporated into the Xianbei, the Mongolic-related group. The PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” include both a Tungusic Oroqen sample and a Mongolic Daur sample occupying virtually the same position and being very close to AR3.4K. The PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” also includes Daur samples shifted in the direction of Shandong Bianbian which implies Bianbian-like genetic influence. The N-F4205-rich Buryat do not have any intermediary between AR3.4K and themselves, their N-F4205 likely originating from an AR3.4K-like population, thus, it is likely that ancestors of their N-F4205 representatives preserved an initial non-Mongolic language. Basal N-CTS6967* is contributed to ancestors of the Kalmyk residing in Mongolia on the way to Baikal independently of the Buryat, and, from the same population similar to AR3.4K the basal N-CTS6967* is contributed to populations living closer to the Asian Eskimo, where N-CTS6967* is also observed. The source population of both N-CTS6967* for Kalmyk ancestors and N-CTS6967* for the Asian Eskimo ancestors should be the same and autosomally similar to AR3.4K, thus, N-CTS6967* was distributing from Northeast China independently of kra001 (Krasnoyarsk). N-B202 got to Chukotko-Kamchatkans via a population which later contributed to Tungusic populations.

The source of N-M2058 should be in AR3.4K which to a certain degree evolved from AR7.3K which is closer to the age of N-M2126. The time depth of ancestry of AR7.3K-related populations may be deeper with some deep N-Y23747-related populations participating in clines with AR7.3K in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, thus, representatives of such a branch as N-Y9022 should also be potentially at least autosomally related to AR7.3K.

The AR3.4K/AR7.3K-related ancestry contributing to the European N-L1026 and European N-M2019* was similar. The PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” supports that their ancestry interacted with the ancestry of one of mtDNA D5a3a1 individuals of the Hongshan culture. The Western population to where their East Asian ancestry migrated is shared by one Buryat and one Altaian who occupy a position close to each other, but far from the core of Mongolic-speaking Buryats and far from the core of the Turkic-speaking Altaians, that is, it is likely that the European N-L1026 and European N-M2019* were not speakers of Altaic and Mongolic languages.

The position of AR3.4K/AR7.3K on the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” is the following: their cline (when passing through Xiaojingshan with whom they share an affinity in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”) and they are slightly shifted from the main Northeast Asian cline in the direction of the Ikawazu Jomon. However, this is not caused by the fact that Ikawazu Jomon contributed ancestry to them, but this is caused by the fact that their remote Palaeolithic ancestors contributed some ancestry to ancestors of the Ikawazu Jomon via populations having mtDNA D4+T195C and mtDNA G1a* migrating to Japan Jomon via Korea, that is, they were not related to the Ainu people.

The population of yDNA N-L729, ancestors of N1c, N-P83, N1b-E P43+ Y3196+ Y3185+ VL97+ FGC38830+ Z35051+ L665+
“Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" has found Japan Jomon-related ancestry in the deeply diverged ancient specimen yDNA N-L729* of Lokomotiv_EN, and other Chinese articles such as “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and so on are needed to receive the explanation for this.

In the past, the yDNA N-L729 people simultaneously interacted with mtDNA D4 Yumin-related population and with mtDNA G1a* population which later indirectly contributed to Japan Jomon via the territory of Korea. Thus, the yDNA N-L729 people first mixed with mtDNA G1a* people and then contributed a died-out branch of N-L729* to Yumin-related population, from where a died-out branch of N-L729* proceded to Baikal (Lokomotiv_EN), “braving tundra and ice” along with other deeply diverged “Botai-related” N-Y6503 haplogroups who were modeled using Yumin in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”. As the culture of that N-L729* people was more advanced than the culture of Yumin-related N-Y6503 people, then N-Y6503 people should have been influenced by N-L729* people, though this N-L729* branch contributing to Yumin did not have direct descendants today. Unlike Yumin-related ancestry, the surviving yDNA N-L729 population in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” also contained a piece of Shandong-related ancestry on the modern territory of the People’s Republic of China, because yDNA N-L729 people is a brother branch of Shandong yDNA N-F2930 people, but not a brother branch of Yumin-related N-Y6503 who diverged 25000 years ago, and the surviving yDNA N-L729 people and Shandong yDNA N-F2930 people interacted with the same ancient population in China. The part of the surviving yDNA N-L729 people, who remained in Northeast China, acquired the D4 branch from interaction with Yumin-related populations, while its mtDNA G1a*-related part started to interact with the neighbouring mtDNA G1a-related people who contributed to Japan Jomon, having migrated to Japan from Korea in the Early Neolithic.

Since the surviving N-L729/D4/G1a* people contributed some female mtDNA G1a* female ancestry to the dog-loving Q-M120 population which distributed in China and to Japan Jomon, then the languages of the surviving N-L729/D4/G1a* people should share linguistic traits, acquired from mtDNA G1a* population, with the Japanese language which formed under the influence of Japan Jomon, but not with the Korean language and its Korean-related offshoots likely penetrating Siberia (for example, there is shared word for “a bear” between Korean and some poorly attested Siberian languages). We should remind that AR7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier (whose descendants should be in future assimilated by autosomally yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-like Machengzi culture to form the Para-Japonic Kingdom of Puyo) derived from this N-L729/D4/G1a* people, and “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” showed that AR7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier were at least partially genetically similar to Shandong yDNA N-M231 populations and were not genetically similar to Q-M120-related AR9.2K_outlier, thus, modern yDNA N-L729 populations’ ancestors were not influenced by yDNA Q-M120-related population and did not form a part of this yDNA Q-M120-related population in the Neolithic.

Since our mtDNA G1a*, whom the surviving N-L729/D4/G1a* people included in their ranks, does not have apparent Neanderthal mutations, which would be shared with mtDNA G1a branch which was influenced by yDNA Q-M120 people and was incorporated into the ancestors of Japanese starting from the Jomon period, we will think that some other linguistic features than the yDNA Q-M120 people-related Feature 143A “Type 4 Order of Negative Morpheme and Verb” found in Japanese and Eskaleut languages, that is, some other linguistic features, which appeared in Japanese and a Near Eastern language, originated from a branch of our mtDNA G1a* East Asian people, who was influenced by yDNA N-L729 population, distantly autosomally related to ancient “proto-“yDNA N-M231 related populations whose more “Hoabinhian/Onge-like” autosomal DNA was found in the Burmese-related populations in Southeast Asia in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", and the presence of such proto-“yDNA N-M231 related more “Hoabinhian/Onge-like” autosomal DNA in the Burmese-related populations may explain the presence of the same discussed linguistic features in the Burmese language, which are also found in Japanese and in a Near Eastern language, but which are not found in other Tibeto-Burman languages and are not found in the Chinese language. This scenario would be in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

However, we remind Ebizur that his 18-year-long fight with N-L729 was groundless, because the East Asian part of the Japanese ancestors was influence by another branch (it was not closely related to N-L729 people-related ancestry), yDNA N-F2930, whose autosomal ancestry reached the Yantze River basin in China in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.

Oasis

09-20-2023, 06:44 PM

Target: Poland_Kowalewko_IA:PCA0028

Distance: 2.6021% / 0.02602123

47.2 Icelandic

16.0 Latvian

15.0 Norwegian

14.6 Swedish

4.0 Basque_Spanish

1.8 Finnish_Southeast

0.6 Biaka

0.6 Koinanbe

0.2 Mbuti

It is not correct to consider possible East Asian-related ancestry (for example, the ancestry akin to the one included in the ancient European Loschbour) as bearing close resemblance to the Biaka, Koinanbe, Mbuti.

The fact is the following: the Harvard article “Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history” discovered an f4-statistics affinity of the large East Asian population to the linguistically Nilo-Saharan Mursi people (Ethiopian East Africans) and an affinity of the large East Asian population to the linguistically Afroasiatic Agaw (they are Ethiopian East Africans as well).

The Chinese article "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" elaborated upon this fact, but it appears that such an affinity to the Agaw and Mursi was caused by the very fact of the separation of Basal Asian ancestors of East Asians from East Africans. Consequently, various percentages included in modeling of East Asians in qpGraph and qpAdm in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" should be viewed in the first place as deriving from the shared Palaeolithic populations with the ancestors of the Ethiopian Agaw and Mursi, but not from the West African Lemande or Yoruba.

Let us consider yDNA N-M231 Bianbian and yDNA N-M231 Boshan as examples.

In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", 11% of deep 73300-year-old yDNA DE* African ancestry in Boshan should be related to 11% of ancestry in the Nilo-Saharan East African Mursi people of Ethiopia, but it can evolve into 6% of Tianyuan-related ancestry, according to "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The qpAdm model of the Chinese article assigned similar 11% of deep ancestry to yDNA N-M231 Bianbian.
Let us continue.

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.

When modeling mtDNA Y2-related sample of Taiwan Gongguan (that is, mtDNA N9-related sample), the article used either 48% of “male” yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-related ancestry, or 35% of “male” yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-related ancestry. Thus it can be said, that 48%=35%+13%. Thus, “male” 48% of Basal Asian ancestry in yDNA N-M231 Bianbian should be distantly related to 35% “male” Agaw ancestry plus 13% Agaw ancestry. All such percentages of Agaw-related East African ancestry (13%, 35%, 48%) exist in “Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history”.

Those 35%+13%=48% of “male” yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-related ancestry akin to 48% of “male” East African Agaw ancestry mean that, this “male” East African Agaw ancestry evolved into the Hoabinhian/Onge Basal Asian ancestry in East Asia and Southeast Asia. If we add 11% Mursi-related ancestry acquired by yDNA N-M231-related populations later, we will get 35%+13%+11%=48%+11%=59% East African-related ancestry in an East Asian yDNA N-M231 Bianbian
It should be noted here that some Denisovan-like, Neanderthal-like and some other archaic-like mtDNA mutations are treated as a common archaism between Homo Sapiens and archaic humans including Denisovans and Neanderthals in mentioned Chinese articles. For example, it is shown in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, that yDNA DE/mtDNA D4o specimen AR10-13K (D4o has a branch with G16274A mutation) forms a cline with mtDNA M13c-related Burmans (mtDNA M13c is considered related to yDNA D-M174 populations in China), and mtDNA D4e5 AR7.3K also occupies the same cline. G16274A mutation is quite widely distributed in Africans and Eurasians, including mtDNA L1, L4 and X4. mtDNA M13c contains G16390A mutation observed in L0a, L0d, L2 and X4, so the article turns attention to the possibility to think that both G16274A mutation and G16390A mutation were preserved in ancient Homo Sapiens and their bearers evolved in such a way that these mutations preserved in mtDNA L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, etc, and both G16274A mutation and G16390A mutation coexist in mtDNA X4 and some other branches of mtDNA M and mtDNA N.

https://i.ibb.co/FHRW2GD/php-Q407bh.png

Why yDNA N-M231 Bianbian is modeled using 49% Hoabinhian/Onge-related ancestry?
Is it related directly to 49% East African Ethiopian Agaw ancestry from“Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history”. Not necessarily.

48% of yDNA N-M231 Bianbian ancestry is used when considering an mtDNA N9*-related population, that is, the oldest population related to bearers of basal mtDNA N9* in which the oldest yDNA N-M231 individuals were likely to initially live.
This 48% of yDNA N-M231 Bianbian ancestry is also related to Basal Asian (Hoabinhian/Onge) and its farther deep Palaeolithic relative probably included ancestors of the East African Ethiopian Agaw.

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

https://i.ibb.co/zrGyfYg/11.png
“Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0012

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

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

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

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

https://i.ibb.co/xHGk5dP/13.png

Thus, each population on the territory of China had a certain type of their ancestry. The appearance of one ancestry outside China does not exclude the presence of another ancestry outside China.

To explain the presence of 49% Onge-like ancestry in Bianbian instead of 48% of Onge-like ancestry in Bianbian, one should recall that, in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, it was shown that there was a gene flow from Southern East Asians to the Basal Asian La368 Hoabinhian (yDNA C1b). The PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" showed that it was “Austroasiatic” yDNA O1b1-M268 related samples who contributed their ancestry to LA368. [b]The qpGraph model in the same article showed that there is a model when 49% DNA of yDNA O1b-M268 Qihe3 sample derive from the population ancestral to LA368 (G1) plus the distance of 4 units of genetic drift, and yDNA N-M231 Boshan also derives 49% Hoabinhian-related ancestry from the same population with Qihe3. The 49% of yDNA N-M231 Bianbian deriving from Onge, rather than directly from LA368 implies that both O-M268-related Qihe3 and N-M231-related Boshan also derive 49% of their ancestry from a lineage possibly deviating from LA368 in the direction of the Onge. It is known that O-M268-rich Austroasiatic populations such as the Nicobarese are the geographic neighbours of the Andamanese Onge people.

It is known from archaeology that ca.26000 years ago some ancient East Asian populations started to migrate in the direction of Southeast Asia. According to “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, the yDNA O1b1-M268 population influenced the formation of Australasian-related populations such as the Hoabinhians (LA368) and the Onge. yDNA N-M231-related populations harboured 48% Basal Asian-related ancestry when living together with mtDNA N9*-related populations. Under the yDNA O1b1-M268 influence they acquired 1% of ancestry which evolved from Basal Asian ancestry into Ancient East Asian/Ancient Southern East Asian. As 49% of ancestry in East Asians may be distantly related to 49% ancestry of the East African Ethiopian Agaw people, it is possible that this 49% Agaw-related ancestry evolved into East Asian ancestry and O-M175-rich populations had their own type of this 49% ancestry. Thus, yDNA N-M231 populations acquired 1% of O-M268-specific variant of the discussed ancestry in addition to their slightly different 48% of the discussed ancestry.

According to the PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the ancestry of such a deep mtDNA B5b* who could be related to the yDNA N2-Y6503 as well should be search for in deeply divergent Austroasiatic populations rich in yDNA O1b1-M268, such as the Austoasiatic Htin. In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the Htin people have some Southern East Asian-like ancestry which turns into Northern East Asian ancestry. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", almost all cases of the deeply diverged Munda Austroasiatics possess Northern East Asian ancestry. Two mentioned facts may be caused by the participation of ancestry related to such haplogroups as mtDNA B5b* in northern populations.

Interestingly, yDNA N-M231-rich populations do not usually have the linguistic feature “N-M pronouns”. Basing on historical linguistics, the Japanese linguist Katsumi Matsumoto 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. 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). Thus, not having “N-M pronouns”, the languages of yDNA N-M231 bearers were not considerably linguistically influenced by Austroasiatic ,Para-Austroasiatic populations and ancestors of their possible Korean, Nivkh and Native American relatives. There was likely no linguistic shift of yDNA N-M231-related populations to those languages in spite of the fact that they probably acquired 1% of yDNA O1b1-M268 peoples ancestry and acquired mtDNA B5b who was related to yDNA O1b1-M268 bearers. Nonetheless, it may also mean that during the LGM mtDNA B5b/yDNA O1b1-M268 bearers did not initially have “N-M pronouns” in their languages.

Oasis

09-22-2023, 05:26 PM

https://i.ibb.co/FsQBrxr/16.jpg

From the book Volume 1 Grammaticalization Scenarios from Europe and Asia
Grammaticalization in Uralic as viewed from a general Eurasian perspective
Juha Janhunen https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110563146-007
------------------------------------------------
Some features of the so-called “Pre-Proto-Uralic” listed by the Finnish linguist Janhunen include:
[1] the lack of distinction between nouns and verbs;
[2] the transition from ergativity to the nominative-accusative strategy;
[3] the rise of suffixal person marking based on personal pronouns.
These features of “Pre-Proto-Uralic” are the same as in PROTO-AUSTRONESIAN, the ancient language in East Asia.

The problem is that the Chinese language is also thought to be a relative of Austronesian languages.

In terms of the PCA, it appears in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", that the Austronesian Semende people contains ancestry which was a source for yDNA O-M122 contribution to the Basque-Caucasian speakers (Y-chromosome analysis of Bronze Age populations from the territory of present-day Poland:There were also individuals belonging to haplogroup I2a and O2a-L465”:)
https://i.ibb.co/3TSvjP5/15.png

It is clear that the Austronesian Semende have 100% yDNA O-M175, including O-M122. However, other East Asian populations of differing language families also have some populations who contain 100% yDNA O-M175. It is good that there are scientific theories about linguistic relatedness of yDNA O-M175-rich populations of Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Miao-Yao, Tai-Kadai speakers.

But there are also theories that Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Miao-Yao, Tai-Kadai constitute separate linguistic families.

[b]Thus, since male lineages are the same (O-M175-related), it is necessary to search for female lineages whose participation would explain the differences between language families.

In “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", for at least some yDNA N-M231 bearers on the one hand and for at least some Austronesian speakers on the other hand, such a uniting lineage which would explain yDNA N-M231 bearers’-related and Austronesian-related linguistic affinity, will be the mtDNA lineage M23’75.
The yDNA N-related part (mtDNA M75) is limited to China and distributed to Southeast Asia and is represented by the ancient Baojianshan. The population to interact with mtDNA M75 in the first place was yDNA O-M268.

The Austronesian part of this lineage, mtDNA M23, is distributed as far as Madagascar and perfectly suits even the boldest theory of the origin of some linguistic component of Austronesians in the Near East. mtDNA M23 has a rare Neanderthal-related G417A mutation, which is thus likely to be a result of introgression. This mutation is found in Near Eastern mtDNAs and the Native American mtDNA D1. Thus, it is not impossible that some Near Easterners came along the known route (manifested in yDNA pre-Q-M120 Afontova Gora ca. 17000 years ago or older) and contributed this mutation to ancestors of Native Americans and to the yDNA Q-M120-related “second layer” population which appeared in Northeast Asia at least 19000 years ago during the AR19K period (that is, it is older than AfontovaGora is) and contributed to the formation of some ancestors the Japanese people, whose crania clustered with Northern Asian populations distantly related to yDNA Q-M120 people, according to Hirofumi Matsumura. The mutation G417A would integrate with Austronesians via the ancestors of the Japanese affected by yDNA Q-M120.

As for the mtDNA haplogroup M75, a sister of Austronesian M23, she initially lived in China to the North of the Guangxi Province, and it is there where yDNA N-M231-related populations should have interacted with this “Austronesian-like” haplogroup who was accompanied by yDNA O-M268.

In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", other linguistic interlocutos for yDNA N-M231-related populations in China should include:
[1] The 73300-year-old DE*-related population possibly very distantly related to the Nilo-Saharan-speaking Mursi (Gerhard Jager classified Sumerian as a Nilo-Saharan language in his article of year 2017). mtDNA O-M175 interacted with such populations;
[2] The yDNA F*-related, mtDNA R-T16189C*-related populations, a part of which lived from Yunnan till Guangxi.

In “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, it was especially shown that the mtDNA D4 ancestry with which yDNA N-M231-related populations interacted did not incude any Native American Surui ancestry. Thus, yDNA N-M231-related populations were not related to the Surui Native Americans who included 4% of a (44% Tianyuan+56% Papuan) component.

It was especially shown in “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, that certain mtDNA R9’F haplogroups have mutations, (for example a mutation related to G16145A), the presence of which may cause the appearance of the small amount of the Native American-like ancestry, likely because of the association of these particular mutations with deeply diverged basal mtDNA R*-rich populations who lived in the geographic proximity of mtDNA R9’F populations, while another part of such deep populations contributed to Native Americans. This observation fully applies to the Austroasiatic Orang Asli population in Peninsular Malaysia where a deep branch of yDNA N-M231 was recently found:
ID Y haplogroup
(ISOGG Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2018） Y mutation
BTQ016 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-)
BTQ038 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-)
As those Orang Asli had mtDNA R9’F and G16145A mutation in their representatves, this should explain the tiny Native American affinity in one of their samples in view of the relevant observation in Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”.

Thus, those basal yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli as bearers of basal yDNA N* were completely unrelated to Native Americans. Thus, their small interaction with the proto-Austronesian component in the relevant article, where a tiny part of autosomal DNA of yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli as bearers became a part of the Proto-Austronesian-like component independently supports the idea of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" that the genetic “Austronesian-relatedness” of the most ancient yDNA N-M231 was mediated by shared mtDNA haplogroups such as M23’75, etc, who were at first more likely to be accompanied by some yDNA O-M175 bearers because of the closer geographic proximity of mtDNA M23’75 to the homeland of O-M175.

Martine Robbeets did not even doubt when she named the yDNA N-M231-rich Houli culture as “Austronesian”. This also includes Xiaojingshan who has autosomal DNA related to ancestors of yDNA N-M2058, yDNA N-L1034 bearers.

In view of this Austronesian idea of Martine Robbeets and Austronesian-like linguistic features in Pre-Proto-Uralic reported by Janhunen , it is unlikely that the ancestors of yDNA N-M2058, yDNA N-L1034 lived in Western Siberia 7000 years ago, 3000-4000 years BC. It is more likely that the WSHG component of the Uralic populations lived in Western Siberia during this period.

UPDATE I noticed that the mtDNA lineage reported by researchers from Hungary is the Near Eastern mtDNA N1a1a1. One of its subbranches has that G417A Neanderthal-like mutation shared with the Austronesian Malagasy mtDNA M23 and with Native Americans. The distribution of this G417A, likely accompanied by the population movements in the Palaeolithic, might explain some Near Eastern similarities shared by the Japanese, Austronesian and some Native American languages, but it is not related to yDNA N-M231 bearers’ similarities with Austronesians mediated by mtDNA M23’75, because the common population of mtDNA M75 interacting with yDNA N-M231 members and of mtDNA M23 interacting with Austronesians dissolved much earlier in China.

Oasis

09-23-2023, 12:21 PM

Oasis

09-23-2023, 11:13 PM

The mystery of the basal yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli lineage possibly shared by the Austronesian Surigaonon population of the Philippines
It was reported in the Chinese article that some Orang Asli of the Peninsular Malaysia have the basal lineage of yDNA N-M231* and the mtDNA lineage M21a.

It was especially shown in “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, that certain mtDNA R9’F haplogroups have mutations, (for example a mutation related to G16145A), the presence of which may cause the appearance of the small amount of the Native American-like ancestry, likely because of the association of these particular mutations with deeply diverged basal mtDNA R*-rich populations who lived in the geographic proximity of mtDNA R9’F populations, while another part of such deep populations contributed to Native Americans. This observation fully applies to the Austroasiatic Orang Asli population where a deep branch of yDNA N-M231 was recently found:
ID MT haplogroup Y haplogroup
(ISOGG Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2018） Y mutation
BTQ016 M21a N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-)
BTQ038 M21a N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-)
BTQ055 M21a
As those Orang Asli had mtDNA R99’F and G16145A mutation in their representatves, this should explain the tine Native American affinity in one of their samples in view of the relevant observation in Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”.

Thus, those basal yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli as bearers of basal yDNA N* were completely unrelated to Native Americans. Thus, their small interaction with the proto-Austronesian component in the relevant article, where a tiny part of autosomal DNA of yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli as bearers became a part of the Proto-Austronesian-like component independently supports the idea of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" that the genetic “Austronesian-relatedness” of the most ancient yDNA N-M231 was mediated by shared mtDNA haplogroups such as M23’75, etc, who were at first more likely to be accompanied by some yDNA O-M175 bearers because of the closer geographic proximity of mtDNA M23’75 to the homeland of O-M175.

mtDNA M21a shares the mutation C16256T with mtDNA R23a which does not have apparent Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations in its main sequence.

In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the cline of yDNA N-M231 ancient samples started very close the Cambodian having mtDNA R23.

Interestingly, it was reported in “The Y-chromosome landscape of the Philippines” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/ that the Austronesian Surigaonon people from the Philippines' Visayas had 13% of yDNA NO-M214(xO-M175). Interestingly, the study Karmin et al, 2022 "Episodes of Diversification and Isolation in Island Southeast Asian and Near Oceanian Male Lineages" failed to observe any NO-M214* lineages in the Philippines, though such lineages were observed in Indonesia by this study. Thus, it is likely that 13% of yDNA NO-M214(xO-M175) in the Austronesian Surigaonon are actually N-M231.

The study “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” reported that the Austronesian Surigaonon have the mtDNA lineage M21a (sample GU733805). This lineage belongs to the same branch of mtDNA M21a as the lineage detected in those basal yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli. According to “Investigating the modern human settlement of Mainland Southeast Asia using mitochondrial DNA” this Austronesian Surigaonon M21a lineage separated from those basal yDNA N-M231* Orang Asli mtDNA M21a lineage 10100 years ago. Thus, it is likely 13% of yDNA NO-M214(xO-M175) in the Austronesian Surigaonon are actually N-M231 and then their yDNA N-M231 branch is related to the basal yDNA N-M231* of Orang Asli at least with the depth of 10100 years ago.

However, the Austronesian Surigaonon are not the Negrito group, and their yDNA O-M175 lineages include only O-M122 and O-M119 which is typical of Austronesians, but not of the Austroasiatic-speaking Orang Asli. Thus, the population history and the genetic ancestry of the Austronesian Surigaonon likely belonging to the basal yDNA N-M231* should be independent of Negritos and Austroasiatics. Instead of being Negritos and Austroasiatics, these Philippines' yDNA N-M231-related populations of the sort not observed in Mainland China can only be a substratum which joined some of the Austronesians at a certain point. The Ancient East Asian ancestry described on the Philippines was called the “Cordilleran” ancestry, and it separated from the mainland ancestry related to the East Asians 32000 years ago. In case such a Philippines' yDNA N-M231 population participated in the Austronesian substratum on some islands, it is not surprising that languages of other yDNA N-M231-rich populations may bear some resemblance to some of the Austronesian languages. mtDNA M21a and mtDNA M21b separated 56000 years ago. Another mtDNA M21a lineage was listed by “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” in Myanmar in order not to confuse mtDNA M21a and the Negrito lineages.

Oasis

09-27-2023, 08:09 PM

In accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, Amur AR14K’s mtDNA D4h3 is related to Paleosiberian ancestry, while Neosiberian Devil’s Gates mtDNA D4 bearer’s ancestry formed a cline with ancient mtDNA D4h4 bearer’s ancestry, which is further supported by “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.
Thus, it is not surprising that Neosiberian can be modeled as Paleosiberian by Choongwon Jeong, because Neosiberian was formed by mtDNA D4h4-related peoples while Paleosiberian was formed by mtDNA D4h3 peoples: These two populations still had a common ancestor, though they might have separated ca. 32390 years ago (“Mitogenome evidence shows two radiation events and dispersals of matrilineal ancestry from northern coastal China to the Americas and Japan” where it is assumed that male yDNA C2-M217 was the lineage to accompany female mtDNA D4h individuals).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2211124723004242-fx1.jpg

We can safely rule out a major ANE influence on the formation of the so-called languages with “M-T pronouns” (such as Mongolic), because it appeared that yDNA R*ANEinfluenced Native American ancestry present in the Paleosiberian AR14K had an Eastern Eurasian part which likely derived from basal O1b2-P49* and mtDNA M74-related population which interacted with Native American-related mtDNAs such as A2 and B2 (B4b):
https://i.ibb.co/Fb5p0pb/20.png
According to Katsumi Matsumoto, 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. As the source of Native American-like ancestry (which also forms a part of the Paleosiberian genetic drift) in Neosiberian Devil’s Gate and Paleosiberian AR14K was an yDNA O1b2-P49-related mtDNA M74-related East Asian population, it is likely that this ancestry which interacted with ANE should be characteristic of Native American population who have “N-M Pronouns” in their languages, but not “M-T pronouns” as Mongolic.

Thus, we can assume that another type of ancestry which contributed to Paleosiberian AR14K is responsible for the formation of languages with “M-T pronouns” such as Mongolic and lots of eastern “Nostratic” languages. This is the ancestry which separated prior to the split of Northern and Southern East Asians and contributed to Paleosiberians via AR14K. AR14K’s mtDNA D4h3a shares A16241G mutation with mtDNA R2’JT branches, and mtDNA T branch with A16241G mutation is maximized in Kartvelians, speakers of a language with “M-T pronouns”. However, this ancestry does not have substantial contact with ANE during at least 19000 years, it was another sample AR19K that interacted with ANE. Thus, eastern languages with “M-T pronouns”, such as Mongolic and some other Eurasiatic languages should have started to form in Northeast China at least 19000 years ago in the AR14K-related population of northern yDNA C2-M217 haplogroup (which was reported also from autosomally Steppe-rich populations in ancient Kazakhstan). A reader can find a relevant cline for the formation of core Mongolics involving the ancestry which separated prior to the split of Northern and Southern East Asians on the posted PCA above (from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”).

It is assumed in the Chinese linguistic work that it is Mongolic (a language of yDNA C2-M217-related population) that shares a lot of features in common with languages where there is a high share of initial Steppe ancestry in their bearers.

The linguistic feature “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] some Indo-European languages, such as Russian
[2]Kamchukotic languages
[3]Kartvelian languages (a language family in West Asia)
[4]Uralic languages
[5]Turkic languages
[6]Mongolic languages
[7]Tungusic languages
[8]Eskaleut languages
[9]Yukaghir languages
etc

------------------------
------------------------
Unlike this, the ancestry of AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier is different from both the Neosiberian D4h4-related population and Paleosiberian D4h3-related population in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. As for the Nanai-related Hezhen, they form a cline with an AR7.3K_outlier: apparently, such a 7300-year-old ancestry did persist till the preriod of their formation in accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, whereas the initial core Tungusic-speaking Ulchi/Oroqen occupy the Songnen Plain yDNA C2-M217 autochtons’ ARpost9K position in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. An AR3.4K_outlier/AR7.3K_outlier-related population contributing to Buryat and Altaian outliers forms one cline with one of the Hongshan mtDNA D5a3a1 samples, Thus,on the one hand, AR3.4K_outlier/AR7.3K_outlier-related individuals were related to their own AR3.4K_outlier/AR7.3K_outlier population slightly shifted in the direction of Ikawazu Jomon, and on the other hand, AR3.4K_outlier/AR7.3K_outlier-related individuals were related to the Hongshan-related group which contributed to the Buryat to a certain degree and to some representatives of the nationality “an Altaian” to a small degree in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.
Let us consider the interaction of various population with the Hongshan-related individual as depicted on the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”:
[1] European-related AR3.4K_outlier/AR7.3K_outlier-related yDNA N interacted with the likely female-related ancestry included in their mtDNA D5a3a1 Hongshan culture relative who derived from the mtDNA M11a2-related population living within the Yangshao Yellow River Middle Neolithic (speakers of the Sinitic language). Interestingly, mtDNA A12 individuals living in China bear traces of interaction with the mentioned Hongshan/Yangshao-related lineages, so even a recent southern traveler such as yDNA N1c-Z1979/mtDNA A12 N4b2 from the Middle Bronze age site Kyordyugen in Yakutia, which was dated ca.4200 years ago and yielded bronze artifacts and is incorrectly presented as Belkachi-related Ymyyakhtakh in the American press, was likely to have ancestors whose relatives lived in the Yangshao culture and in the Hongshan culture.

[2]The Hongshan relatives of the Turkic nationality named “an Altaian” in Russia derived from the Yangshao’s Miaozigou culture yDNA C2-F1067*/ mtDNA D4b2* population. Some branches of C2-F1067 contributed to the Koreans and mtDNA D4b2* was found in Japan Jomon. It was claimed in the Japanese article that they migrated to their Japan Jomon location from a more drawback territory of Japan which yielded the most archaic and primitive Yadegawa type microblades. Members of these haplogroups can verify the Japanese claims by checking clines of yDNA C2-F1067*/ mtDNA D4b2* Miaozigou individuals in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", that is, whether such yDNA C2-F1067*/ mtDNA D4b2*-related individuals could rather produce other more important types of microblades? It is apparent that such yDNA C2-F1067*/ mtDNA D4b2* individuals contributing to the Hongshan culture from the Yangshao Maozigou population, while a variety of the Hongshan culture related to them contributed to a Turkic nationality such as “an Altaian” may represent the East Asian part of Turkic-Koreanic-Japonic connection. Unlike this, most derived branches of yDNA C2-F1067/ mtDNA D4b2 were incorporated into the Sinitic populations. The Miaozigou branch of the Yangshao culture represents a northern peripheral variant of the Yangshao culture related to the Altaic population, the existence of such an Altaic-related part of the Yangshao culture is speculated in the West. Unfortunately, it appeared impossible to correctly model more Shandong-like yDNA N-M231 sample using a sample related to a more yDNA C2-F1067-rich population in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, probably because yDNA C once considerably participated in the gene pool of Western Eurasians, so a more yDNA C2-F1067-rich population produces a more Western Eurasian-like affinity which is not present in more Shandong-like yDNA N-M231 samples. This also means that, in yDNA N-M231-related populations of the Shandong Houli culture, there was no significant presence of yDNA C2-F1067, and mtDNA D4b2 lineages were added to Shandong-like yDNA N-M231 population from a population where the ancestors of the bearers of these mtDNA D4b2 lineages were already considerable assimilated by other ancient East Asian NO-M214-related populations. One more point about the Yangshao Miaozigou-contributed Hongshan relatives of the Turkic Altaians: they included mtDNA R-T16189C*-related populations. The Sumerian language is sometimes thought as being a sort of a basal Palaeolithic language, and it is thought in China that such basal mtDNA lineages such as mtDNA R-T16189C*-might have preserved those “Sumerian-like” basal Palaeolithic linguistic properties. Shandong-like yDNA N-M231/Japonic populations also acquired such mtDNA R-T16189C* lineages. As for the rise of nomadic pastoralism on the territory of Inner Mongolia, aside from theories involving Western Eurasian influence, there is a theory of indigenous origin in 8000+-year-old Yumin-trelated populations. Also a smaller part of Turkic Altaians have an influence from the Palaeosiberian AR14K independently of the Hongshan culture.

[3]The female Hongshan relatives of Mongolic peoples lived close to the same Hongshan population that contributed to the European yDNA N-M231-related populations, but Hongshan relatives of Mongolic peoples were influenced by the Yangshao Miaozigou population containing yDNA C2-F1067 and mtDNA C4a1a2. However, according to the study financed by the Japanese, the female side could not participated in the formation of Mongolic languages. The northern yDNA C2-M217 of Mongolic populations probably originated from the population close to AR14K. However, the influence of ancestry prior to the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians on both AR14K and Hongshan-related ancestors of the Mongols also existed and, having united with mtDNA R2*-related population in the Palaeolithic and having contributed to the AR14K, this ancestry prior to the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians was crucial for the formation of populations speaking languages with “M-T pronouns” (Nostratic languages). The northern yDNA C2-M217 Mongols also form a cline with both Northeast Asian AR14K sample and an AR14K sample that additionally contained some ancestry participating in the late formation of the Native Americans. Probably this wide Pan-Eurasian geographic scope of some proto-Mongoloid populations contributing to the discussed AR14K sample united the AR14K-related Mongol-related Northeast Asian populations with ancestors of speakers of Nostratic languages in Western Eurasia (the earliest archaeological correlate for such a Pan-Eurasian migration would be the dissemination of Eastern Eurasian types of microblades, the most ancient forms of which had appeared in Northeast Asia).

[4] Some Tungusics derive from the Hongshan culture’s yDNA O-OM175>M134-related population which interacted with both female Hongshan relatives of Mongolics, female Hongshan relatives of European yDNA N-M231 and with female Hongshan relatives of Turkic Altaians. The described Hongshan culture’s yDNA O-M175>M134-related population also interacted with yDNA Q-M120-related population which settled in Northeast China somewhere between the Hongshan culture and Korea. As for the Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic core of Tungusics which started to interact with The female Hongshan relatives of the European yDNA N-M231-related populations, this yDNA C2-M217 Tungusic core forms a cline with: [1] a type of yDNA C2-M217 found in the Boisman culture; [2] A type of yDNA C2-M217>M48 found in AR10-13K; [3] A “non-Native American” C2-M217 AR14K. The amalgamation of C2-M217 from these three main sources started to interact with female Hongshan relatives of Mongolics/ female Hongshan relatives of European yDNA N-M231 and produced one of the core components of Tungusic peoples along with the mentioned Q-M120/ Hongshan O-M175 component. One of yDNA C2-M217-related substrata for Tungusic languages (the Kamchukotic-like substratum, according to the Western hypothesis) was related to ARpost9K, an yDNA C2-M217-rich Amur population which clustered with some Northeast Chinese Tungusics between the Kamchukotic samples and the Tungusic Boisman-AR10-13K-AR14K-Hongshan cline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes”
This known article by Michael Hammer contains a mystery:
In one table, he reports that the Japanese people had 2,3% of the “basal” lineage NO-M231* and listed the mainstream N lineages such as N-M128, N-LLY22g*, N-P43, N-Tat*, N-M178.
In another table, 2,3% of the “basal” lineage NO-M231* turns into 2,3% of the lineage N-M231.
Thus, this 2,3% of the lineage N-M231 should be N-M231(xLLY22g*, xM128, xP43, xTat*, xM178) excluding the listed mainstream N lineages.
As the old position of N-LLY22g* was very basal as such, the specially selected way of data representation in Michael Hammer’s article probably implies at the presence of quite rare or very basal yDNA N-M231 lineages in Japan.

The Chinese researchers list at least some ancient N-M231 in virtually all cultures related to the formation of the continental component of the Japanese ethnogenesis. For example, the mentioned in another topic N-L729*/D4+T195C sample occupies an early pottery-making cline autosomally related to Jomon Ikawazu in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, thus, this N-L729*/D4+T195C-related population which came to Japan via Korea should have participated in the formation of the early Jomon pottery to some degree. It is not difficult to list even more spectacular examples, for example, the earliest finding of rice close to the sea coast of Northern China, which was being domesticated in Southern China by yDNA O-M175-rich populations, was nevertheless reported from the yDNA N-M231-rich Houli culture. Such an approach implying gradual accumulation of results of the likely yDNA N-M231—related populations’ influence on different layers and stages of the ancient Japanese-related development from the Palaeolithic till the Early Medieval Period (the Kingdom of Puyo influenced by the likely autosomally yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-like Machengzi culture) is not surprising, if one finds in the Chinese linguistic article that the Japanese language occupies there a cline between the Chinese language and the Finnish language in terms of the quantity of shared linguistic features, that is, the numerous waves of coming of yDNA O-M175-rich populations to Japan during different stages of history should have been accompanied by some ancient yDNA N-M231 companions, even if N-M231 remains an underreported haplogroup in Japan, as the Japanese nation claims indigenous relationship to all major economically important East Asian haplogroups.

It was already mentioned about the possibility of the basal N-M231* lineage in the Austronesian-speaking Surigaonon of the Philippines, which would be related to the Orang Asli of the Peninsular Malaysia within the time depth of at least 10000 years and would have been accompanied by mtDNA M21a shared with the Orang Asli within the time depth of at least 10000 years.

However, the article “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" implies another possibility to explain the mysterious appearance of N-M231(xLLY22g*, xM128, xP43, xTat*, xM178) in Michael Hammer’s article.

In “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" the ancient yDNA N-M231 cline started close to the Cambodian mtDNA R23 sample (while yDNA N-M231-related Orang Asli have mtDNA M21a which shares a mutation with mtDNA R23a with no apparent Neanderthal or Denisovan mutation), but it passed via the Thailand mtDNA M91b-related sample along the direction of samples whose mtDNA have mutations typical of mtDNA N9 (a Jomon-related lineage). Thus, some basal mtDNA N-M231 would not be related to the real N9 which had a southern origin, migratead along the sea coast, but at first interacted with yDNA A somewhere to the west of Japan, according to some Japanese views, but they might have been related to basal N9*(xN9a, xN9b, xY1, xY2) which interacted with mtDNA M91 populations and these mtDNA M91 popultions in turn interacted with mtDNA M21 populations. Not only the Chinese article “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” turns attention to the possibility of migration of the Southeast Asian island variety of M21a from the territory from which a deep branch of M21a could settle in Myanmar, but also the Japanese article showed that M21a clustered with M13’46’61 which had occurences in Myanmar as well (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91357-2/figures/4). There is a Neanderthal-like mutation in mtDNA M91a which is however well represented in African mtDNA L3 branches, thus it might be a a common heritage of Homo Sapiens contributed to a Neanderthal in a similar manner as in Kuhlwilm et al https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Nature/Kuhlwilm_Ancient_Nature_2016_2248716.pdf (in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", ancient samples carrying mtDNA with similar mutations were modeled using the same percentage with the percentage of the East African Agaw ancestry which separated to the Agaw as a part of the rather ancient trifurcation “Mota-West African-East African Agaw” in “Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history”), and the deepest 27700-year-old branch of mtDNA M21a in the Philippines shares the described mutation with the mtDNA M91a branch in Myanmar, which should be autosomally related to the Thailand mtDNA M91b-related sample on the ancient yDNA N-M231 cline in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". If the mtDNA M21a-related Surigaonon/Orang Asli-related branch of basal N-M231* had “older brothers”, they could have accompanied the mtDNA 27700-year old branch of M21a to the Philippines. As there is an implication of the older N-M231(xLLY22g*, xM128, xP43, xTat*, xM178) in Japan in Michael Hammer’s article, the Southeast Asian route unrelated to the Ainu would be possible for such a Southeast Asian basal N*-M231 (accompanied by mtDNA M21a), whose existence is implied by the ancient yDNA N-M231 cline in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

UPDATE: There is one more point worth mentioning. In “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” Chinese geneticists pointed to a Tibeto-Burman speaking Lahu of mtDNA M13 (M13c), which clusterered as a basal branch of the Burmese mtDNA M13c in their "Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4,000 years". This mtDNA sample is rather unique as mtDNA M13c is distributed in the Burmese and distributed to some Austronesians as well, but the selected by “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” Tibeto-Burman Lahu sample of M13c rather shares mutations with lineages of the Uralic Khanty-Mansi, Japanese (but not Koreans), Tibeto-Burman Burmese, Indian Dravidians (including the Malayalam people) and it shares mutations with mtDNA B5b2 related yDNA N-M231 Shandong Bianbian , who settled in the area where there used to be remains of the died-out yDNA C2-F1067 population which, according to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” contributed some DNA to the Piapoco Native American ancestors (they have no mtDNA B2) when some Piapoco ancestors still lived in Asia, and yDNA N-M231 Boshan/Bianbian-related populations could not be accompanied by living yDNA C2-F1067 branches as well as by northern “Mongol” C2-M217 branches as such populations did not leave some DNA components specific to them in yDNA N-M231 Boshan/Bianbian-related ancestry according to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.[/b]

Oasis

10-02-2023, 11:05 PM

Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics in the Context of Development of Metallurgy and Siberian Ancestry

Abstract

The Eurasian Bronze Age (BA) has been described as a period of substantial human migrations, the emergence of pastoralism, horse domestication, and development of metallurgy. This study focuses on individuals associated with BA metallurgical production, specifically the Seima-Turbino (ST) phenomenon (~2,200-1,900 BCE) associated with elaborate metal objects found across Northern Eurasia. The genetic profiles of nine ST-associated individuals vary widely ranging between ancestries maximized in individuals from the Eastern Siberian Late Neolithic/BA, and those of the Western Steppe Middle Late BA. The genetic heterogeneity observed is consistent with the current understanding of the ST metallurgical network as a transcultural phenomenon. The new data also shed light on the temporal and spatial range of an ancient Siberian genetic ancestry component, which is shared across many Uralic-speaking populations, and which we explore further via demographic modeling using additional genome-wide (2 individuals) and whole genome data (5 individuals, including a ~30x genome) from northwestern Russia.

https://i.ibb.co/vdLc8qH/22.png

It is not thought in China that this ancestry which separated from ancestors of Han Chinese Beijing to Kolyma ca. 17600 years ago should be considered an ancestry which carried yDNA N-M231- to Europe. In fact, later representatives of that ancestry (such as yDNA C2-M217-related WLR_BA_O, a migrant to the West Liao river basin from the Amur/Heilongjiang river basin) do not show yDNA N1c bearer-specific portion of the component observed in AASI- and Australasian-related populations. A7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier do not join the cline of this B4c1-related ancestry shared with the Palaeosiberian Kolyma and distributing to Eastern Siberia, having the ancient Kolyma-related part and the modern part which lived in the Heilongjiang river basin (ARpost9k samples) and secondarily distributed to East Siberia, including the Itelmen.

Unlike this, A7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier were outliers in respect to ancestries dominant in the Chinese region, from which these ancestries were distributing to Siberia. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to more autosomally East Asian-like outliers outside China, when determining the exact route of N1c-related populations to Europe.

In fact, this ancestry separating from ancestors of the Han Chinese 17600 years ago and contributing to Palaeosiberian Kolyma was related to ancestors of mtDNA B4c1a, whose population went to Northeast China and its neighbourhood, possibly distributing the earliest pottery in this region. This ancestry should have taken part in the formation of one of the earliest Neolithic settlements Nanzhuangtou related to millet domestication. There are western theories that populations related to Nanzhuangtou located close to the ocean, closely to the Lower Huanghe started to migrate along the Huanghe in the inland direction and alledgedly influenced the formation of one of the earliest Cishan agricultural cultures. However, the doings of Nanzhuangtou-related population is not considered fully agricultural in China and Nanzhuangtou-related population is treated as a separate culture.

First such an ancestry interacted with mtDNA Z3-related populations in Northeast China, later its it was incorporated into Transeurasian-speaking populations. Before this happened, mtDNA B4c1a* backmigrated to the Yellow River basin, one appeared in Shandong Boshan, other B4c1a* developed in Northern China. mtDNA B4c1a*-related population, including Boshan ancestors, took the inland route. mtDNA B4c1a1 related to the Japanese, having united with mtDNA Z3, took the coastal route. mtDNA Z3 was reported from the Beiqian coastal settlement on the way to Japan. This should correspond to Whitman’s idea about “Altaic-related” populations living on the coast of Shandong. However, according to the Chinese scientists, the inland Houli culture was quite isolated from coastal dwellers, so the language of the Houli culture, where mtDNA Z3 was not found, should be different from Transeurasian/”Altaic” (including Mongol, Tunguz).

mtDNA B4c1a2 is a representative of the part of such an ancestry which migrated through Northeast China in the direction of Siberia. mtDNA B4c1a2 was incorporated into Transeurasian/”Altaic” populations. mtDNA B4c1a2 has the Denisovan-like C16527T mutation. It is also observed in Kolyma-related branch of mtDNA G1b , this Denisovan mutation has numerous occurences in Western Eurasians, this Denisovan mutation was found in some samples of Kolyma-related/Paleosiberian-related AR14K mtDNA D4h3/D4h3a whose bearers might have been distributing languages with “M-T pronouns” in Eastern Euraisa. So not only autosomal DNA, but also this Denisovan-like C16527T mutation proves that there was interaction between ancestors of B4c1a2 and ancestors of AR14K mtDNA D4h3/D4h3a Paleosiberians in China, likely mediated by the population rich in mtDNA Z3.

There was also interaction of B4c1a-related populations with various mtDNA D4 lineages specific to Northeast China, such is the Chinese branch of mtDNA D4e1. “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” pointed that the Halahaigou Middle Neolithic settlement had 47% mtDNA D4-related lineages, which proves that there was a mtDNA D4-related hub in the West Liao River basin and its vicinities. However, “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" showed that differing mtDNA D4-related lineages had bearers who tend to form various clines different from the discussed Kolyma/B4c1a bearer-related cline, thus, various mtDNA D4-related populations should not be automatically mixed into one stock with speakers of languages with “M-T pronouns” (including Transeurasian speakers such as Mongol, Tunguz) in order to comply with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Oasis

10-03-2023, 08:58 PM

Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages
Tian Chen Zeng, Leonid M. Vyazov, Alexander Kim, Pavel N. Flegontov, Kendra Sirak, Robert Maier, Iosif Lazaridis, Ali Akbari, Michael Frachetti, Aleksei A. Tishkin, Natalia E. Ryabogina, Sergey A. Agapov, Danila S. Agapov, Anatoliy N. Alekseev, Gennady G. Boeskorov, Andrey A. Chizhevsky, Anatoly P. Derevianko, Viktor M. Dyakonov, Dmitry N. Enshin, Alexey V. Fribus, Yaroslav V. Frolov, Sergey P. Grushin, Alexander A. Khokhlov, Egor P. Kitov, Pavel Kosintsev, Igor V. Kovtun, Kirill Yu. Kiryushin, Yurii F. Kiryushin, Nikolai P. Makarov, Viktor V. Morozov, Egor N. Nikolaev, Marina P. Rykun, Tatyana M. Savenkova, Marina V. Shchelchkova, Svetlana N. Skochina, Vladimir Shirokov, Olga S. Sherstobitova, Sergey M. Slepchenko, Konstantin N. Solodnikov, Elena N. Solovyova, Aleksandr D. Stepanov, Aleksei A. Timoshchenko, Aleksandr S. Vdovin, Anton V. Vybornov, Elena V. Balanovska, Stanislav Dryomov, View ORCID ProfileGarrett Hellenthal, Kenneth Kidd, Johannes Krause, Elena Starikovskaya, Rem Sukernik, Tatiana Tatarinova, Mark G. Thomas, Maxat Zhabagin, Kim Callan, View ORCID ProfileOlivia Cheronet, View ORCID ProfileDaniel Fernandes, Denise Keating, Matthew Ferry, Candilio Francesca, Lora Iliev, Kadir Toykan Ozdogan, Kirsten Mandl, Matthew Mah, Adam Micco, Megan Michel, Inigo Olalde, Fatma Zalzala, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Ron Pinhasi, Vagheesh Narasimhan, David Reich

https://i.ibb.co/1dm4Lq4/27.png

There is a new article by very many “American-affiliated” authors.
Their main scheme drawn by hand appears to be based on the original Chinese genetic model from “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”.
It is necessary to describe connection between the new American model and the original Chinese model (see the picture above).
Also it will help to fit “European N1c”-related samples AR7.3K_outlier, AR3.4K_outlier (who are related to yDNA N-L729 population which was named a branch of Shandong ancestry in one of Qiaomei Fu articles) in a broader picture of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” in connection with proposals of “Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages”. It can be seen that AR7.3K_outlier, AR3.4K_outlier were not closely related to main streams of Siberian ancestries described by Americans, because, being a Shandong-related branch, AR7.3K_outlier, AR3.4K_outlier comply with other ancient Shandong-related individuals and, similarly to them, share a certain amount of ancestry with no Western Eurasian influence (ancestry of mtDNA G2-related population contributing to the mtDNA Z4-related population migrating in the direction of Austronesian ancestors through coastal China in the Palaeolithic) with Amur_River19K individual, according to the data of Chinese scientific articles, thus, their actual route to the West should be deduced from the distribution of more southern, more autosomally East Asian outliers.

Oasis

10-09-2023, 07:19 PM

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

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

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

Genetic Structure of Qiangic Populations Residing in the Western Sichuan Corridor
Chuan-Chao Wang,Ling-Xiang Wang,Rukesh Shrestha,Manfei Zhang,Xiu-Yuan Huang,Kang Hu,Li Jin,Hui Li
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103772#s5

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

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

An Ancient Portrait of a Mystery King Has Been Unearthed at the Foot of a 4,300-Year-Old Pyramid in China
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/an-ancient-portrait-of-a-mystery-king-has-been-unearthed-at-the-foot-of-a-4300-year-old-pyramid-in-china-2158819

Archaeologists in China have unearthed what they think could be a portrait of a king carved into the foot of the Shimao Pyramid in the Shaanxi province.

The sculpture is one of 70-some stone carvings discovered at the base of the 4,300-year-old archeological site in recent months and years. But according to Professor Shao Jing, the lead scientist on the Shimao dig, the king portrait is among the largest—and perhaps the most revealing.

Three faces are depicted on the newly excavated, six-foot-tall stone sculpture, with each bearing wide mouths and noses, as well as other adornments, such as earrings. One face, the trio’s biggest, boasts a crown atop its head. But it’s another figure that Shao believes to be the leader.

“The eastern face that has been unearthed appears to be in the center of the whole group—and maybe the image of the king of the Shimao ancestors,” the archeologist, who teaches at the Shaanxi Academy of Archaeology, told the Chinese news agency Xinhua this week.

Located on the southern edge of the Ordos Desert in northwest China, the Shimao archaeological site covers nearly 1,000 acres and dates back to 2000 BC, or the end of Longshan period.

The walls surrounding much of the site were once believed to have been part of the Great Wall of China, but, the recent discovery of jade at the site suggests they were erected earlier, during the Neolithic age, per National Geographic.

Shimao’s stepped pyramid stands at roughly 230 feet, making it nearly half the height of Egypt’s Giza pyramids, which were built just a few centuries prior.

At the foot of the pyramid is a sprawling palace that stretches across more than 800,000 square feet and overlooks a walled city that’s even bigger—50 times so. There, researchers have uncovered roadways, courtyards, and public squares, providing a glimpse into how the ancient civilization operated.

According to the Xinhua report, DNA studies have shown that the majority of the walled city’s occupants were Chinese. As for the ruling class, their identity remains unknown. The community is believed to have died out suddenly 3,800 years ago.

Oasis

10-25-2023, 09:28 PM

Oasis

10-25-2023, 09:29 PM

Rurikovich: the first experience of reconstructing the genetic appearance of the ruling family of medieval Russia according to paleogenomics

ABSTRACT

Representatives of the Rurikovich family were rulers of Russia for seven centuries, from the IX to the end of the XVI century. "The Tale of Bygone Years", the main chronicle source about the first centuries of the history of Russia, traces the origin of this princely family from the Varangian Rurik, called to reign in 862, however, direct genetic evidence of the origin of the early Rurikovich has not yet been received. In this work, for the first time, a full-genome paleogenetic analysis of the bone remains of the founder of the Rurikovich family – the Grand Duke of Vladimir Dmitry Alexandrovich (?-1294), the son of the Grand Duke of Kiev and Vladimir Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky (1221-1263) was carried out. It was found that his Y chromosome belongs to the N1a haplogroup. The majority of modern Rurikovites, who, according to their pedigrees, belong to haplogroup N1a, have the most similar variations of Y chromosomes among themselves, as well as with the Y chromosome of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich. The totality of genome-wide data of medieval and modern Rurik can unequivocally say that their genus, starting at least from the XI century. (since the time of Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise), is characterized by the carrier of the N1a-haplogroup of the Y chromosome. All other alleged Rurikovichi, both ancient and modern, are carriers of other haplogroups (R1a, I2a), have high heterogeneity of the Y chromosome sequence and do not confirm a single origin. The most likely distant ancestors of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich in the male line were men who left the Big Deer Island burial ground on the coast of the Kola Peninsula about 3,600 years ago. Modeling of the genome of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich indicates the contribution of three ancestral components to its origin: (1) populations of the early Medieval population of eastern Scandinavia from the island of Eland; (2) representatives of the steppe nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppes of the Iron Age or the early Medieval population of Central Europe (steppe nomads from Hungary) and (3) the ancient Siberian component. Reliable statistical values were also obtained when replacing the inhabitants of Scandinavia with representatives of the Slavic Old Russian population of the XI century . Thus, for the first time on the example of ancient Rurikovich, the genetic component of the complex nature of interethnic interactions in the formation of the nobility of medieval Russia is shown.

Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich is N-L550>Y4341>Y4338>Y4339>Y10932>Y10931>VL11
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-VL11/

Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich’s mtDNA is F1b1+13720
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1-a3a2a/

One should have already noticed that Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich’s mutation in his mtDNA F1b1-a3a2a is C13720T, which is the same as the mutation in mtDNA D4b1a2a of AR3.4K_outlier.

Let us start from this fact.

The article “Mitogenome evidence shows two radiation events and dispersals of matrilineal ancestry from northern coastal China to the Americas and Japan” ( https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdfExtended/S2211-1247(23)00424-2 ) points that the original male yDNA accompanying mtDNA D4b should have been yDNA C2-M217, and the same article points to earlier Western studies, which determined that the age of such a daughter of mtDNA D4b1a2a as mtDNA D4b1a2a1a actually has a much deeper Paleolithic age than the age of the whole mtDNA D4b1a2a, which was determined by yfull. Thus, Chinese articles view their mtDNA D4b1a2a* (such as the one observed in AR3.4K_outlier) as a Paleolithic relic, which is not closely related to Siberian mtDNA D4b1a2a1 and D4b1a2a1a, which separated to Siberia in the Paleolithic.

Indeed, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” only points to a case of mtDNA D4b1a2a* from China:

NA18535
NChina_Han_NA18535 Han NChina_Han Beijing, northern China China NA18535 D4b1a2a The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al., 2015
A73G A263G 310insC T489C 514delC 515delA A750G C1001A A1438G A2706G G3010A A4769G C4883T C5178A A6881G C7028T G8020A C8414T A8701G A8860G G9142A T9540C C10181T A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T C13720T C14668T C14766T T14783C C14815T A14927G G15043A G15301A A15326G T15440C A15951G C16223T T16311C G16319A T16362C

This Chinese case of mtDNA D4b1a2a is the only case of mtDNA D4b1a2a, which, unlike Siberian D4b1a2a1, D4b1a2a1a, has the mutation T16311C! , also found in Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich’s mtDNA F1b1

It was already explained before that European N1c-related AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier belonged to the Shandong Xiaojingshan-related ancestry of the Zuojiashan culture from the Jilin Province.

Then what is the role of mtDNA F1b1 in Northeast China and what is mtDNA F1b1’s connection to Zuojiashan-related populations such as AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier?
According to the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the cline of mtDNA F1b1-related individuals is not alien to mtDNA F1a Southern Chinese populations (we remember that their ancient F1a1’4 sample was detected in the Majiabang culture of the Lower Yangtze), but the northern part of mtDNA F1b1-related cline spans from the vicinity of the Houli culture’s Xiaojingshan in Shandong via the Liao River Hongshan individual towards the Tamsagbulag Mongolia_N_East Neolithic, which had cultural archaeological connections to Northeast China. “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” points that mtDNA F is not an indigenous Shandong lineage, thus, mtDNA F1b used not to be an indigenous Shandong lineage despite its later distribution in the vicinity of a Xiaojingshan specimen. The cline of mtDNA F1b1 would cross the cline of yDNA O-M188 and O-IMS-JST002611 (which started from the Middle Yellow River basin) prior to the separation of yDNA O-M122-related ancestry to Dushan’s O-M7 and to AR19K, so mtDNA F1b once became related to some people of died-out O-M188* and died-out O-IMS-JST002611* in the Paleolithic. Thus, mtDNA F1b spanning through Northeast China till Eastern Mongolia is a relic of such a population, whose yDNA O-M122 lineages went extinct.

The earlier substratum for mtDNA F1b-related populations, which distributed in Northeast China prior to mtDNA F1b, should include yDNA C2-M217 makers of wedge-shaped microblades, who were discovered in the Fenglin site of the Jilin Province:
http://ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/rlxxb/xbwzxz/201904/P020190401393831779414.pdf
吉林抚松枫林遗址细石核研究
A study of microblade cores from the Fenglin Paleolithic site in Jilin Province, Northeast China

In the above article, the Fenglin site is described as a site connecting microblade makers of Northeast China, North China, Russian Siberia, Korea and Japan. It means that the so-called “Siberian ancestry” might be indigenously prospering in China in the microblade Paleolithic. In Japan, the ancient specimens related to microblades, possibly non-wedge-shaped Yadegawa tradition, were determined to belong to mtDNA D4b2 (possibly mtDNA D4b2a, that is, a branch of mtDNA D4b2-a https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4b2-a/). The nearby mtDNA specimens, selected in the Chinese genetic article, point that wedge-shaped microblade makers of the Jilin Province’s Fenglin site were related to a relative of mtDNA D4b2a, that is, mtDNA D4b2-a2 https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4b2-a2/. mtDNA D4b2-a2 has Chinese and Korean representatives. Bearers of the branch of mtDNA D4b1 started to migrate to Siberia as makers of types of Siberian microblades similar to the types of East Asian microblades, while mtDNA D4b2-a2 and mtDNA D4b2a of the same ancestry remained in Northeast China and nearby territories of Korea and Japan.

Unlike this, since N1c-related AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier share with Shandong Bianbian the very ancient human ancestry, which was first reported for the period adjacent to the Late Palaeolithic from the Bianbiandong cave site, it is correct to treat AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier ancestry as a deep branching of Bianbian-related ancestry. Thus, the discussed ancient kind of Bianbian-related ancestry serves as a marker of distribution of AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier-related populations in Eurasia on certain occasions, which correspond to the time since the disintegration of N-L1026-related population: such a cline also additionally got formed in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

As for the role of mtDNA F1b, the N1c-related AR3.4K_outlier formed a cline with an mtDNA F1b1e-related individual and with the Hongshan Banlashan-related population in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. The AR3.4K_outlier is younger than AR7.3K_outlier: therefore, somewhere between 7300 years ago and 3400 ago N1c-related Zuojiashan-related populations in China started to interact with mtDNA F1b-related populations as well as with the Hongshan culture. The best Liao River-related Liaoning Province mtDNA F1b1e individual was especially fully sequenced in one of Chinese articles. Interestingly, this best Liao River-related Liaoning Province mtDNA F1b1e individual shares numerous connections with modern Finns and with ancient samples from various parts of Eurasia, so the scope of actual settlement of recent yDNA N1c branches in Eurasia can be understood.

Nonetheless, apart from the mentioned mtDNA F1b connections and Hongshan connections, the narrow interactions of yDNA N1c-VL11/mtDNA F1b1-a3a2a Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich's ancestors should include the descendants of the described mtDNA D4b2-a/mtDNA D4b2-a2 population from the Jilin Province, where the Zuojiashan culture representatives also settled on mtDNA D4b2-a/mtDNA D4b2-a2-related substratum, and there should be the actual homeland of N1c-related AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier in the Jilin Province (where the Kingdom of Puyo influenced by autosomally Shandong Bianbian-like yDNA N-related populations is later found. According to Christopher Beckwith, the language of the Kingdom of Puyo was Para-Japonic). Since distant relatives of mtDNA D4b2-a/mtDNA D4b2-a2, that is, microblade makers with D4b1 mtDNAs provided for one of the bases for “Siberian ancestry”, and, additionally, mtDNA D4b populations developed on the substratum of even more ancient mtDNA M8’CZ populations, whose influence was shown to cause the appearance of 100% Kamchukchi-looking Admixture component even in southernmost Tibetans and some deep inhabitants of Southeast Asia in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, it is not surprising that we hear western claims about the prevailence of “non-Chinese” “Yakutia” component in Russian Siberia, as some components from China can also look this way.

The important question is the essence of the first Western Eurasians for the discussed yDNA N1c-related population to interact with. “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” points to the Altaian individual with mtDNA U4b1b1+16311, while “16311” is also found as the mutation related to mtDNA F1b1-a3a2a, to which yDNA N1c-VL11 Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich belonged:

AltaianSib_KJ856738 Altaian.Kizhi Altaian Siberia Russia KJ856738 U4b1b1+16311 Derenko et al., 2014
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U4b1b1-a/
mtDNA U4b1b1 is a lineage, to which yfull assigned the Indo-European Steppe Migration age, however, according to scientific articles, it is much older:

Europe, north Balt_Med Baltic Medieval Crusade 1050-1300 AD Hollola Finland MN540492 Hollola8 U4b1b1 Översti et al. 2019
Europe, north Balt_Med Baltic Medieval Crusade 1050-1300 AD Hollola Finland MN540498 Hollola14 U4b1b1b Översti et al. 2019
Europe, north Balt_Med Baltic Medieval Merovingian, Viking, Crusade 600-1200 AD Luistari Finland MN540475 Luistari1 U4b1b1a Översti et al. 2019
Europe, north Ice_M Icelander Pre-Christian non-migrant 975-1015 AD Straumur Iceland STT-A2 U4b1b1b Ebenesersdóttir et al. 2018
Europe, south, east IGHG Iron Gates Hunter-Gatherer Hunter-Gatherer + Mesolithic 6000-5725BC Vlasac Serbia I4880 or VLSC_U62 U4b1b1 Mathieson et al. 2018
Europe, south, east IGHG Iron Gates Hunter-Gatherer Hunter-Gatherer + Mesolithic 6200-5900 BC Vlasac Serbia I4882 or VLSC_U69 U4b1b1 Mathieson et al. 2018
Europe, south, east IGHG Iron Gates Hunter-Gatherer Hunter-Gatherer + Mesolithic 6570-6255 BC Vlasac Serbia I4881 or VLSC_U64 U4b1b1 Mathieson et al. 2018
Europe, central Lang Langobard Longobards + Middle Ages 500-600 AD Szólád , NA Hungary MG182467 Sz 16, LHSZ16 U4b1b1 Vai et al. 2019
Europe, east Ukr_N Ukraine Mesolithic-Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic + Neolithic 5475-5344 BC Volniensky, Vilnianka , NA Ukraine I5870 U4b1b1 Mathieson et al. 2018
Europe, east Ukr_N Ukraine Mesolithic-Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic + Neolithic 6500-4000 BC Volniensky, Vilnianka , NA Ukraine I5869 U4b1b1 Mathieson et al. 2018
Europe, central WHG Western Hunter-Gatherer Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherer 7060-6611 BC Bad Dürrenberg, Saxony-Anhalt Germany BDB001 U4b1b1 Rivollat et al. 2020

For the context of the discussed branch of N1c, except for https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U4b1b1-a/, there is also one isolated branch of mtDNA U4b1b1, represented by an ancient genome from Finland. There are also a few isolated Caucasian U4b1b1 who share the DNA with Bianbian, defined by “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Apart from this, the SMV001 Shmakovo (from the Kurgan region of Russia in the vicinity of Kazakhstan) sample is claimed to belong to both mtDNA U4b1b1 and yDNA N1c-L1026:

“Shmakovo ●Shmakovo #26/1, mound 1 (SMV001.A): 2288±22 14C years BP; 401-236 cal. BC (2-sigma) ●Shmakovo #26/2, mound 2 (SMV002.A) The Shmakovo burial ground (Shmakovo village, Ketovsky district, Kurgan region) consists of three mounds. The studied mounds 1 and 2 were strongly destroyed and plundered (V.F. Gening, 1961). The burial ground is attributed to the Gorokhov culture and dated to the IV century BC - early II century BC (107).”

Oasis

11-07-2023, 09:40 PM

Daur Y-DNA (Chi-Zao Wang, Shi Mei-Sen, Hui Li 2018)

Daur Y-DNA (Xue et al. 2006)

Hulunbuir Daur Y-DNA (He Guanglin et al. 2022)

Qiqihar Daur Y-DNA (He Guanglin et al. 2022)

HGDP Daur Y-DNA

Daur Y-DNA total

One should remind that ancestors of the Daur assimilated other ethnicities, including some inhabitants of the Kingdom of Puyo/Fuyu in the Jilin Province, the likely initial homeland of ancestors of AR7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier. According to the Chinese mtDNA articles, the Jilin Province’s branch of mtDNA R11* and the Jiangsu Province’s branch of mtDNA R11* shares a mutation with some mtDNAs M7b2a, the mtDNA M7b2a is observed in Tai-Kadai (according to “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”) and the mtDNA M7b2a is observed in Japonic-speaking Ryukyuans (Tanaka et al, 2004).

The study below is newer than previously published studies on the Lamadong cemetery in Western Liaoning, and the buried Lamadong persons were largely classified as migrating inhabitants of the Fuyu/Puyo state in this newer study, and the modern Mongolic Daur people clustered with these Puyo-related people buried in the Lamadong cemetery (https://i.ibb.co/2WvN7KH/php43qxb-U.png), implying that some of the Fuyu/Puyo populations were incorporated into the Daur nationality.

Bio-Archaeological Research of the Ethnicity of Lamadong Sanyan Burials
ZHU Hong，ZENG Wen，ZHANG Quan-chao，CHEN Shan，ZHOU Hui
Abstract: Lamadong cemetery is so far the largest Sanyan Culture cemetery in northern China There is ongoing debate among scholars regarding the ethnicity of Lamadong Sanyan burials The major two opinions are Xianbei and Fuyu. To put together evidences from physical anthropologymolecular archaeology and stable isotopic analysis,we tried to reinvestigate the ethnicity of Lamadong Sanyan residents from the perspective of bio-archaeology, The ethnicity of Lamadong Sanyan residents are unlikely Xianbei based on our analysis. The majority of Lamadong Sanyan residents are probably Fuyu originally from 2nd Songhua River, others are the descendent of aboriginals in western Liaoning Province, some individuals could be Xianbei.

Since I have touched the question of yDNA N1c once again and mentioned mtDNA R11, let us consider, from where this should have arrived in the direction of the Jilin Province.

https://i.ibb.co/rfzVsC3/37.png

yDNA N1c has a brother branch N-Y149447, whose territory is limited to China so far. This brother of N1c predominantly lives in the Anhui Province, Jiangsu Province, Hubei Province, Sichuan Province, that is, in the provinces, whose territory is predominantly located in the Yangtze River Basin. Where there is Hubei and Sichuan, Chongqing is in between.

https://i.ibb.co/wsTYCPW/38.png

(the total amount of yDNA N-M231 Han Chinese from Chongqing is 6,98% (“Forensic characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of the Chinese Han population from Chongqing Municipality, Southwest China”)

https://i.ibb.co/SJbNW0N/39.png

It is worth mentioning that mtDNA R11* and East Asian branches of mtDNA R* are considered southern by authors of "Maternal genetic structure of a Neolithic population of the Yangshao culture" from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, so the direction of movement was from south to north.

Oasis

11-09-2023, 09:28 PM

https://i.ibb.co/jGqNz3W/41.png

There are a lot of flattering remarks directed towards the Late Palaeolithic – Early Neolithic site of Amur River’s Xiaonanshan in the Heilongjiang Province near the border with the Russia’s Oshipofka culture.

“The Niuheliang Temple of Heilongjiang”, “a pyramid on the Ussuri River”, “the fishing and hunting economy can also give birth to ancient civilization”: those are praises directed to the ancient Xiaonanshan site. Consequently, there are some calls to acknowledge a greater role of “the Amur hunter-gatherer-related” Tungus-Manchu nationalities in the formation of ancient civilization of the Chinese people.

The sensationalist article was published, which claims the insights into Xiaonanshan archaeological excavations from years 2018 and 2019, whose results have not been fully published yet. Interestingly, this article is more often dealt with by Western scientists than by scientists in China.

https://m.fx361.com/news/2021/0406/8062142.html

http://www.soolun.net/periodical/5aa50b9d56e13a7c00f8293eff10bfe2.html

The article claims that very ancient agricultural remains were discovered at the Xiaonanshan site. Also the article reports the discovery of new tombs, covered with stone cairns, which date to a much older period than those ones that were reported previously.

What we have known before is that the age of new Xiaonanshan pottery remains was determined at ca. 14000 years ago by the previous new excavation, making the Xiaonanshan culture independent of the neighbouring Russian Oshipofka culture. The age of pottery 14000 years ago is consistent with AR14K-related populations, who were viewed as pottery makers in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Also, what we have known before from the excavation of year 2015 is that the Xiaonanshan site yielded a collection of jade artifacts of a different type and earlier age than the type and age of Xinkailiu/Xinglongwa jade artifacts. The Xinkailiu-like/Xinglongwa-like jade artifacts only appeared at the Xiaonanshan site later.

Interstingly, the question of the Xiaonanshan jade (nephrite) culture was addressed by “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

“ The earliest archaeological occurrence of nephrite has been identified at the Xiaonanshan site, dating to ca. 9 ka (Jiamusi Cultural Relics Management Station and Raohe County Cultural Relics Management Institute, 1996; Zhao et al., 2013), also in the Amur region, signaling not only the exploitation of this new resource, but also, potentially, the establishment of trade networks, further enhancing nascent regional social connections (Heilongjiang Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology Commission for Preservation of Ancient Monuments, Raohe County, 2019).”

https://i.ibb.co/SJbNW0N/39.png

Indeed, the closest temporal match of the appearance of the jade culture at Xiaonanshan ca. 9000 years ago is the ancient 8900-year-old genome of an mtDNA R11* person from the above cline involving AR7.3K_outlier and individuals related to Yangtzean ancestors. Indeed, the oldest use of a tool made of jade was reported at the 10000-year-old Xiaogushan site, Haicheng, Liaoning not far from sea and Shandong, which in turn neighbours Jiangsu:

https://i.ibb.co/w0mMymZ/40.png

Indeed, the later Hemudu culture from the Lower Yangtze River is a different culture, which also produced jadeware, including the use of some methods of its own. Interestingly, the Hemudu culture and the mentioned Northeast Chinese jade cultures used one of methods of jade cutting, which was much later used for stone cutting by the Mayan civilization in Mesoamerica.

Oasis

11-12-2023, 09:42 AM

https://i.ibb.co/FBsxYgQ/42.png

Here goes the story of AR7K_deleted, a D-M64 Japan Jomon-related individual, who may be related to yDNA D-M64 of the Jilin Province of China and who might be possibly related to yDNA D-M64 of the Japanese imperial family, though the truth about the most exact lineage of the Japanese imperial family is not known.

This Vietnamese-Cambodian D-Z3660-related Hoabinhian-connected part of the yDNA D-M64 cline contains Southeast Asian samples possessing autosomal remains of the ancient yDNA D-Z3660-related population as well as some autosomal remains from the "tropical" "Orang Asli-related" branch of yDNA N-M231 (such as BTQ016, BTQ038 Y-DNA Haplogroup N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-)), accompanying ancestors of D-M64. This part of yDNA D-M64 cline shows that Austroasiatics had a substratum related to ancestors of yDNA D-M64, and the affinity between the Ainu and the Austroasiatics should be explained by the participation of D-M64-related ancestry in the formation of Austroasiatics and by the participation of D-M64-related Jomon ancestry in the formation of the Ainu people. D-M64 does not need yDNA O1b2 to explain the Austroasiatic-like connection (as well as other so-called “Greater Austric”-like affinities). As Austronesian languages having open syllables are also included in “Greater Austric” hypothesis, it is not impossible that D-Z3660>D-M64-related substratum from died-out branches acquired in coastal Fujian and Southeast Asia by East Asian-related language families might produce such a feature, thus, the tendency to open syllables in the Japanese language might have been caused by the D-M64-related Jomon-related substratum. The Yangtze River Basin Sinitic speakers who are related to the most famous rice farming Neolithic cultures, do not have this open syllable linguistic feature, which also means that their non-Sinitic neighbours (with whom Sinitic speakers interacted) in the Yangtze River Basin did not have this open syllable linguistic feature.

The Southern Chinese Sinitic O-M134 sample (with mtDNA having a connection to yDNA D-M64-related population), having an affinity to Fujian and other southernmost Chinese Provinces, shows that trade contacts since Late Neolithic, in which Sinitic-related individuals containing DNA from the D-M64-related substratum (e.g., from coastal Fujian) participated, are sufficient to explain the late (starting from Late Neolithic) affinities shared by late yDNA D-M64 branches (especially yDNA D-M125 branches) with some southern Western Eurasians, for whom participation in long distance trade contacts can be presumed.

AR7K_DELETED, the Chinese Amur sample related to Japan Jomon, which may be ancestral to the yDNA D-M64 branch observed in the Jilin Province, former Manchuria. D-M64 can reach the Amur River Basin from the Honshu Island, because this sample has a connection to the mtDNA D4l2 Boisman outlier, while Boisman culture is considered a culture of Neolithic seafarers. AR7K_DELETED has a connection to mtDNA D4h4 related to the “Xiaonanshan civilization”. The mother of AR7K_DELETED belonged to “Paleosiberian” AR14K mtDNA D4h3. mtDNA D4h3 also influenced the formation of Tungus-Manchu populations in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. While mtDNA D4h3a AR14K has a mutation, occurrence of which is maximized in speakers of languages with “M-T pronouns”, the mtDNA D4h3 AR14K is a relative of D4h3a, who does not have this mutation, which is consistent with the absence of clearcut “M-T pronouns” in the Japanese language. The D4h3 mother and consequent “Tungusic-like” affiliation is likely to modify the initial language of D-M64, therefore, it supports the incorrectness of the popularized view, induced on Japanese masses by some Western missions, that D-M64 brought its language from the vicinity of Africa in Incipient Neolithic period, whereas actually the D-M64 ancestor and E-M96 ancestor separated 76500 years ago and had separate migrations since that period, which is supported by DNA studies.

This [“continental Jomon D-M64”- Zuojiashan-related yDNA N AR7.3K_outlier-Hongshan culture] cline “To Himalayas” can explain: [1] the change of affinity (relevant for Indian N-Y24317) from Shamanka_EN to Japan Jomon in mtDNA U2b2 Rakhigarhi Harappan Civilization sample in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" (for the case when N-Y24317 also interacted with “continental Japan Jomon” along with Zuojiashan-related yDNA N AR7.3K_outlier). [2] the appearance of strictly Tibetic mtDNA M13a2 in the Yakut. [3] the appearance of ancient genetic connection to a more ancient layer of the “Xiaonanshan civilization” (which proceded in the direction of Qinghai Tibetan Plateau, intersecting on its way the Upper Yellow River, where “northern agriculture”unlike Yangshao is claimed to appear according to Western-related scientists) in Zuojiashan-related yDNA N AR7.3K_outlier yDNA N populations. [4] the Japanese theories about the Japanese yDNA D-M64 (distributed almost exclusively in Japan, Jilin and some Koreans) starting to travel across the whole of China (the tracer dye here should be mtDNA B4d123, who initially came to AR7.3K_outlier-related Zuojiashan populations via Shandong Xiaojingshan, popped up in the Boisman culture, popped up in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau populations connected to Upper Yellow River and distributing to Upper Yangtze River and Middle Yangtze River, which is consistent with final occurrence of B4d123 with relevant mutations in the rice farming Jiangsu Province). The Jilin Province yDNA D-M64 is sometimes claimed to be a relative of yDNA D-M64 family of the Japanese emperor, but the truth is unknown. It requires further investigation if any D-M64 might have proceded via AR7.3K-related Zuojiashan via Hongshan directly to the rice farming Lingjiatan and Liangzhu cultures. It requires further investigation if any D-M64 might have reached via the discussed Qinghai-Tibetan route the Harappan Civilization along with Indian N-Y24317 who should have the Japan Jomon affinity in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The appearance of D-M64 in India via such a route involving the highly spiritual Hongshan civilization would be a much better explanation for the theory connecting the Japanese imperial family, including Amaterasu goddess, to the place of the origin of Buddhism, unlike the most recent “Buddha is a Scythian” hypothesis by Christopher Beckwith, a MacArthur Fellow (Christopher Beckwith’s innovative hypothesis was met with harsh criticism from western researchers).

Such a story can be supported by the above PCA from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.