Oasis
10-19-2023, 08:23 PM
It has long been known that yDNA O1b2-P49 in general shares some at least 31108-year-old DNA sequences (O1b2-P49 originated 31108 years ago), e.g. "tg…aggacagtaagtacaca", etc, with a Western Eurasian haplogroup Q-M242 (a haplogroup maximized in Native Americans), but also simultaneously with African yDNA A and African yDNA B.
It is known from the previous review of achievements in the field of ancient DNA by Qiaomei Fu and Melinda A. Yang (year 2018) that the Native American ancestry was placed (as an approximation) on the territory of Japan, where a branch of O1b2-P49, such as O1b2-47z, was found. The second branch is the Korean O1b2-L682.
The most detailed admixture model is present in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. There are 4 Japanese samples belonging to O1b2-47z (which is maximized in the Japanese), and 2 Japanese samples belonging to O1b2-L682 (which is maximized in the Koreans) there.
In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the only Native American ancestry shared by all 6 Japanese-related O1b2 samples is the ancestry maximized in the 100% mtDNA D1 Surui Native Americans , who have 4% admixture from (56% Papuan + 44% Tianyuan) population (according to "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia"), where Papuan is connected to “Southeast Asian branch of yDNA C1b, that is, Australasian C1b” and mtDNA M42’74 (interestingly, the “Southeast Asian” ancestry, which separated prior to Jomon was recently discovered in Siberia) and Tianyuan is connected to mtDNA R-T16189C, which was also reported from Africa. Moreover, the Surui Native American component found in Japanese-related O1b2-47z samples and O1b2-L682 samples appears to be defining for the Northeast Asian ancestry, that is, Northeast Asian ancestry is formed as a mixture of East Asian and the “Siberian” ancestry which split from Native American Surui. The (56% Papuan + 44% Tianyuan) can also be a proof that the ancestry maximized in Surui was related specifically to yDNA O1b2-P49, but not to any other male haplogroup, since Papuans can harbour ancestry related to yDNA A and yDNA B populations, while Tianyuan (yDNA K2b) can also denote the Q-M242-related ancestry or yDNA P-related (for example, in David Reich’s Dzudzuana article K2b Tianyuan appeared to be interchangeably used to model 4% of male DNA of yDNA R-M207 of Malta1, another suitable sample to model yDNA R-M207 of Malta1 being Kostenki14). Thus, it is only yDNA O1b2-P49 that had connections simultaneously to African yDNA A and African yDNA B and to yDNA Q-M242; therefore, it is only yDNA O1b2-P49 which can be reliably connected to Northeast Asian (“Siberian”) ancestry “separating” from Surui Native Americans, and the early back migration of O1b2-P49 in Late Paleolithic to mainland China was bringing Northeast Asian (“Siberian”) ancestry “separating” from Surui Native Americans to China as the Second Layer population. However, the scope of this migration is exaggerated by the advertised on the Internet Japanese-American author Hirofumi Matsumura. Such specimens as Qihe3 from the coastal zone of East China yielded very little such Northeast Asian ancestry, which is consistent with the rarity of distribution of yDNA O1b2-P49 in China.
P.S. The described story of yDNA O1b2-P49 (observed in both Japanese and Koreans) is different from the story of mtDNA M7a specific to Japan and Japan Jomon. Ancient more than 20000-year-old mtDNA M7a was reported from the Ryukyu Islands. "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" points to a sample from ancient Taiwan as a sample which shares some DNA specifically with Japanese mtDNA M7a-related individuals, thus, the initial population directly ancestral to M7a died out in the mainland China in the Paleolithic. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” points that Japanese mtDNA M7a-related sample acquire on certain conditions their own genetic connection to Uto-Aztecan-related Pima individuals, but not to Southern Native Americans. Thus, in order to comply with the findings of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it is possible that mtDNA M7a bearers migrated “out of Taiwan” in the Early Upper Paleolithic, reached the Ryukyus and other Japanese Islands, where the population of mtDNA M7a bearers multiplied, and there was migration from the Japanese Archipelago to Korea, and, from Korea, mtDNA M7a-related ancestry only managed to reach ancestors of Northern Native Americans who still remained in Asia. Uto-Aztecan languages clustered with the Japanese language in Gerhard Jager’s work of year 2017; however, the M7a population influence might not have been the only reason for this. In other respect, Uto-Aztecan languages are not particularly close to the Japanese language. Thus, the migration of mtDNA M7a bearers better resembles the migration “Out of Japan” described in the Kojiki. In accordance with the Chinese materials, there should have been one more migration (Neolithic migration) of mtDNA M7a bearers out of Japan, which led to the appearance of such branches of M7a as M7a1a7. It is not impossible that Japonic languages prevailed in the coastal areas of Korea where there was migration of mtDNA M7a bearers, while in the inland areas of Korea, Koreanic languages were spoken by O1b2-L682 bearers. The Neolithic migration of mtDNA M7a bearers might be partially contemporaneous with the Zuojiashan/Hongshan-related migration in the direction of the Lingjiatan culture whose influence was later found in the rice farming Lower Yangtze Liangzhu culture. This should explain the having been observed similarities between the mythology of Zuojiashan/Hongshan-related populations and the mythology of rice-farming groups migrating to Japan, expressed in the Kojiki.
It is known from the previous review of achievements in the field of ancient DNA by Qiaomei Fu and Melinda A. Yang (year 2018) that the Native American ancestry was placed (as an approximation) on the territory of Japan, where a branch of O1b2-P49, such as O1b2-47z, was found. The second branch is the Korean O1b2-L682.
The most detailed admixture model is present in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. There are 4 Japanese samples belonging to O1b2-47z (which is maximized in the Japanese), and 2 Japanese samples belonging to O1b2-L682 (which is maximized in the Koreans) there.
In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the only Native American ancestry shared by all 6 Japanese-related O1b2 samples is the ancestry maximized in the 100% mtDNA D1 Surui Native Americans , who have 4% admixture from (56% Papuan + 44% Tianyuan) population (according to "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia"), where Papuan is connected to “Southeast Asian branch of yDNA C1b, that is, Australasian C1b” and mtDNA M42’74 (interestingly, the “Southeast Asian” ancestry, which separated prior to Jomon was recently discovered in Siberia) and Tianyuan is connected to mtDNA R-T16189C, which was also reported from Africa. Moreover, the Surui Native American component found in Japanese-related O1b2-47z samples and O1b2-L682 samples appears to be defining for the Northeast Asian ancestry, that is, Northeast Asian ancestry is formed as a mixture of East Asian and the “Siberian” ancestry which split from Native American Surui. The (56% Papuan + 44% Tianyuan) can also be a proof that the ancestry maximized in Surui was related specifically to yDNA O1b2-P49, but not to any other male haplogroup, since Papuans can harbour ancestry related to yDNA A and yDNA B populations, while Tianyuan (yDNA K2b) can also denote the Q-M242-related ancestry or yDNA P-related (for example, in David Reich’s Dzudzuana article K2b Tianyuan appeared to be interchangeably used to model 4% of male DNA of yDNA R-M207 of Malta1, another suitable sample to model yDNA R-M207 of Malta1 being Kostenki14). Thus, it is only yDNA O1b2-P49 that had connections simultaneously to African yDNA A and African yDNA B and to yDNA Q-M242; therefore, it is only yDNA O1b2-P49 which can be reliably connected to Northeast Asian (“Siberian”) ancestry “separating” from Surui Native Americans, and the early back migration of O1b2-P49 in Late Paleolithic to mainland China was bringing Northeast Asian (“Siberian”) ancestry “separating” from Surui Native Americans to China as the Second Layer population. However, the scope of this migration is exaggerated by the advertised on the Internet Japanese-American author Hirofumi Matsumura. Such specimens as Qihe3 from the coastal zone of East China yielded very little such Northeast Asian ancestry, which is consistent with the rarity of distribution of yDNA O1b2-P49 in China.
P.S. The described story of yDNA O1b2-P49 (observed in both Japanese and Koreans) is different from the story of mtDNA M7a specific to Japan and Japan Jomon. Ancient more than 20000-year-old mtDNA M7a was reported from the Ryukyu Islands. "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" points to a sample from ancient Taiwan as a sample which shares some DNA specifically with Japanese mtDNA M7a-related individuals, thus, the initial population directly ancestral to M7a died out in the mainland China in the Paleolithic. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” points that Japanese mtDNA M7a-related sample acquire on certain conditions their own genetic connection to Uto-Aztecan-related Pima individuals, but not to Southern Native Americans. Thus, in order to comply with the findings of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it is possible that mtDNA M7a bearers migrated “out of Taiwan” in the Early Upper Paleolithic, reached the Ryukyus and other Japanese Islands, where the population of mtDNA M7a bearers multiplied, and there was migration from the Japanese Archipelago to Korea, and, from Korea, mtDNA M7a-related ancestry only managed to reach ancestors of Northern Native Americans who still remained in Asia. Uto-Aztecan languages clustered with the Japanese language in Gerhard Jager’s work of year 2017; however, the M7a population influence might not have been the only reason for this. In other respect, Uto-Aztecan languages are not particularly close to the Japanese language. Thus, the migration of mtDNA M7a bearers better resembles the migration “Out of Japan” described in the Kojiki. In accordance with the Chinese materials, there should have been one more migration (Neolithic migration) of mtDNA M7a bearers out of Japan, which led to the appearance of such branches of M7a as M7a1a7. It is not impossible that Japonic languages prevailed in the coastal areas of Korea where there was migration of mtDNA M7a bearers, while in the inland areas of Korea, Koreanic languages were spoken by O1b2-L682 bearers. The Neolithic migration of mtDNA M7a bearers might be partially contemporaneous with the Zuojiashan/Hongshan-related migration in the direction of the Lingjiatan culture whose influence was later found in the rice farming Lower Yangtze Liangzhu culture. This should explain the having been observed similarities between the mythology of Zuojiashan/Hongshan-related populations and the mythology of rice-farming groups migrating to Japan, expressed in the Kojiki.