Genetics and Eastern Eurasian Archaeological Cultures and Ancient Populations

Added inscriptions for the yDNA N-M231 Longshan culture PLTM311 and the yDNA N-M231 Longshan culture PLTM312 (https://www.theytree.com/tree/N-MF21116 ) who are located along an yDNA N-M231 Boshan - yDNA N-M231 Bianbian cline on Figure S1C of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”.

Also added inscriptions for “A Han Chinese from the Sichuan Province” who is also located along an yDNA N-M231 Boshan - yDNA N-M231 Bianbian cline on Figure S1C of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”.

The Thai sample located along an yDNA N-M231 Boshan - yDNA N-M231 Bianbian cline contains the mutation G11914A! in the mtDNA which also became common in Yumin-related post-LGM Uralo-Siberians (though mtDNA C was not found in Neolithic Shandong) and is also found in Egyptian-related populations.

https://i.ibb.co/PtTqfd7/7.png

In China, it is thought that Ancient East Asians and people, who contributed to Afroasiatic, interacted along the Southern Route. Usually it is held that Afroasiatic and Eurasiatic (Indo-European, Uralic, Yukaghir, Altaic, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan) were not related (Greenberg is an example of such views). However, some other scientists (Allan Bomhard, etc) have found a connection between Afroasiatic and Eurasiatic. As it is thought in China that Ancient East Asians interacted with people contributing to Afroasiatic via intermediary populations, what Ancient East Asians could contribute to Eurasiatic (Indo-European, Uralic, Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan) after the Last Glacial Maximum should be consequently related to Afroasiatic: Ancient East Asians are a chain in a link between Afroasiatic and Eurasiatic, they contribute Afroasiatic-like linguistic components to Eurasiatic.

I noticed that, on the PCA from “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago” the conflux of the yDNA O1b2-rich Japanese nationality and the yDNA O1b2-rich Korean nationality ended up on the cline rooted in O1b1-related ancient samples and modern Austroasiatic populations such as O1b1-rich Htin Mal, while the cline includes two Tai-Kadai specimens closer to the PCA conflux of Japanese and Koreans. This may imply the interaction of died-out Lower Yangtze Austroasiatic with Tai-Kadai-related populations who separated from Austronesians whose continental ancestors lived in the Fujian Province.

Furthermore, on its way to the PCA conflux of Japanese and Koreans, the yDNA O1b-related cline passes between the Jiangsu Han specimen and two Hubei Han specimens, that is, if Anhui Han were present, the yDNA O1b-related cline would be expected to pass through Anhui Han specimens, as the Anhui Province is geographically intermediate between the Jiangsu Province and the Hubei Province, which should also influence the population history. However, an Anhui Han specimen sat closer to the yDNA N-M231 Boshan – yDNA N-M231 Bianbian cline on the PCA of a different Chinese article of the same scientific team, so it is possible that if the mentioned Anhui Han appeared on the PCA of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, the Anhui Han specimen would shift to a slightly different location than expected because of the the yDNA N-M231 Boshan – yDNA N-M231 Bianbian influence.
https://i.ibb.co/3MKYRc4/9.png

Now what is the most interesting part.

The Anhui Province is a homeland of the Lingjiatan “proto-civilization” which might be based on rice farming on the one hand, but was influenced by the Hongshan culture, which would explain the appearance of the Anhui Han sitting close to to the yDNA N-M231 Boshan – yDNA N-M231 Bianbian cline on the PCA of a different Chinese article of the same scientific team. Moreover, the Lingjiatan “proto-civilization” is thought to influence the formation of the later Liangzhu Civilization, which is a dream of at least part of the Japanese people. However, yDNA O1b2 was not reported from the site of the Liangzhu Civilization, but rather Austronesian-like yDNA O1a-M119 was reported from this site. However, the passing of O1b2-K10-related cline between Hubei and Jiangsu specimens on the PCA (that is, via the logical place for the Anhui Province specimens) may imply that an ancient homeland for at least some O1b2-K10-related people should be in the Anhui Province, and after the Lingjiatan period they disseminated in other directions, for example, along the Yangtze River, where one Chongqing Han was also placed on their cline.

Evidence for a late onset of agriculture in the Lower Yangtze region and challenges for an archaeobotany of rice
By DORIAN Q. FULLER, LING QIN, EMMA HARVEY
Past Human Migrations in East Asia
Edition1st Published2008 Imprint Routledge
“The sequence of agricultural evolution in the Lower Yangtze makes sense in terms of cultural and social developments in the region during the course of the Neolithic. While earlier sites comparable to Kuahuqiao and Hemudu are still few and far between, from the Majiabang, Songze and Liangzhu phase considerable numbers are known. This includes not only settlement sites but numerous cemeteries, which provide a useful window into aspects of social organization and complexity (Qin 2000, 2003). From the Majiabang period through to the earlier Songze, large cemeteries are known, with the largest ones known having some hundreds to more than a thousand burials, as at Weidun (e.g. Changzhou Museum 1974, 1984, 2001) and Sanxingcun (Sanxingcun Archaeology Team 2004). While finds in these graves include some of the earliest objects of craft production, including jade Jue and Huang, there is little evidence for major stratification within cemeteries in terms of access to wealth nor differences between cemeteries. One exception is the site of Lingjiatan, early Songze period (Anhui Provincial Institute 2000), which is markedly richer than any other site, and included the distinctive object types known as jade figurines, tortoise-with-plaque, dragon, eagle-bearshaped-ornaments, and so on. While this may have been a significant centre of craft production and wealth accumulation, it did not continue in this way into subsequent periods.”




Metamorphic Imagery in Ancient Chinese Art and Religion
Elizabeth Childs-Johnson and John S. Major

Lingjiatan and the Roots of Liangzhu Culture and Metamorphic Belief

“With the gradual disappearance of the Hongshan culture and its replacement by the Xiajiadian culture in the northeast, Liangzhu in the southeast emerged as ancient China’s premier jade-working culture. Evidence that these two cultures may have had contact despite the fact that their urban and sacred centers were hundreds of miles apart and direct overland contact may have been hindered by the Yellow River and the mountainous terrain of Shandong, comes from plentiful data excavated from a pre-Liangzhu southern site at Lingjiatan 凌家灘 in Anhui, and in particular from burial No. 23 (Figure 3.3A–D). Jades from Lingjiatan burials have often been typologically compared to those of Liangzhu and, in this respect, serve as a prototype for those of the Liangzhu period (Zhang Jg 2008). The prominence of stone and jade weapons from Lingjiatan tombs is southern in type and origin. Yet, Lingjiatan’s importance is singular in its role as an intersection point of Hongshan and southern jade-working cultures (Wang Wj 2017: 39–41). As illustrated in Figure 3.4, a whole set of Hongshan-inspired jade types dramatically testify to the strong connection between northern and southern jade-working cultures. Lingjiatan is located in Anhui east of the Yangzi on the Hou River in Ma’anshan County. Lingjiatan jade images which show Hongshan inspiration and prototypes include not only a raptor with boar-headed wings; a pig-dragon; a crown to a hair comb; wrist guards (see e.g., Zhang Jg 2008 (tr): Figures 11–15); a turtle carapace and plastron with emphasis on axial directionality; but what will become ubiquitous as a metamorphic icon, human fiurines with raised arms. All the latter find direct comparison with Hongshan jade types (see Chapter 2 Figure 2.5) and may be defined as Hongshan in influence, and likely are the result of trade or gifting, a friendly and probably robust interaction. The richness of burial no. M23, with some 330 artifacts, includes 200 jades and 97 stone implements, 31 pottery pieces, a bone fragment, and piece of turquoise. The burial was uncovered overlapping a stone circular altar and pit in the center of the cemetery area at Lingjiatan.”

https://i.ibb.co/j30wyDy/8.png

The picture below includes a homeland for ancient East Asians starting from 45000 years ago.
As color gradients imply gene flow according to the picture’s inscription, it is likely that “Ancient East Asian/Ancient Northern East Asian” human migration involved basal mtDNA R* Bacho Kiro Cave CC7-2289 specimen, who is slightly younger than 45000 years ago (Bacho Kiro Cave CC7-2289 44580-43720 years ago or 44980- 43340 years ago).

On the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the yDNA O1b-related specimens’ cline (which passes through the conflux of yDNA O1b-rich Korean and Japanese populations) also starts exactly from mtDNA R0-related Cambodian specimens. Unlike this, on the PCA of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, the yDNA N-M231 ShamankaEN-Boshan-Bianbian-Longshan Pingliangtai cline starts slightly sideways from those mtDNA R0-related Cambodian specimens, implying that while yDNA O-M175-related proto-population interacted with some R0 mtDNAs (it is consistent with finding ancient mtDNA R0 in Vietnam recently (the Con Con Gua site)), such yDNA as N-M231 coexisted with a similar to R0 but slightly different mtDNA R population. For example, mtDNA R23 also does not have apparent Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations in her main sequence, and mtDNA R23 interacted with some mtDNA M specimens related to hg N-M231-related populations, according to the Chinese data.

Quote:

---

https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Bacho Kiro Cave CC7-2289 44580- 43720 years ago or 44980- 43340 years ago.

Specimen CC7-2289 carries the substitutions defining the R haplogroup (73G, 263G, 750G, 1438G, 2706G, 4769G, 7028T, 8860G, 11719A, 14766T, 15326G) with no private mutations and no additional substitutions that define sub-clades of haplogroup R, suggesting a relationship to the mtDNA ancestral to present-day haplogroup R.

We did not detect any positions where the specimen CC7-2289 would differ from 99% of 311 present-day humans.

---

On the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the yDNA O1b-related specimens’ cline (which passes through the conflux of yDNA O1b-rich Korean and Japanese populations) also starts exactly from mtDNA R0-related Cambodian specimens. Unlike this, on the PCA of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, the yDNA N-M231 ShamankaEN-Boshan-Bianbian-Longshan Pingliangtai cline starts slightly sideways from those mtDNA R0-related Cambodian specimens, implying that while yDNA O-M175-related proto-population interacted with some R0 mtDNAs (it is consistent with finding ancient mtDNA R0 in Vietnam recently), such yDNA as N-M231 coexisted with a similar to R0 but slightly different mtDNA R population. For example, mtDNA R23 also does not have apparent Neanderthal and Denisovan mutations in her main sequence, and mtDNA R23 interacted with some mtDNA M specimens related to hg N-M231-related populations, according to the Chinese data.

Quote:

---

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

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

---

As for 45000-year-old “Ancient East Asian/Ancient Northern East Asian” component in AR33K (mtDNA B), this dead branch of mtDNA B should be related to yDNA C2-M217 population. 45000-46500-year-old mtDNA B*-related population’s DNA preserved in Yumin (Inner Mongolia), but it evolved in Tianyuan who died ca. 40000 years ago. However, Yumin-like/AR33K-like . 45000-46500-year-old mtDNA B*-related population also influenced Tianyuan, though Tianyuan is not so closely related to modern East Asians as AR33K. 45000-46500-year-old mtDNA B*-related population’s DNA became part of a newer “Ancient Northern East Asian component” which separated 19000 year ago from Southern East Asians. This does not mean that bearers of 19000-year-old Ancient Northern East Asian component necessarily correlated with C2-M217, because there could be no real yDNA C2-M217 in some of those populations, but only “ghost” expressed as 45000-46500-year-old mtDNA B* bearers’-related autosomal DNA. The AR33K shared more genetic drift with the Karelia HG mtDNA R1b specimen, but AR33K’s population also occasionally became part of modern mtDNA B populations, which is consistent with the appearance of deep southernmost branches of C2-M217 in Southern China. However, ancestors of modern mtDNA B4 and B5 were not closely related specifically to yDNA C2-M217-related populations.

The article below favours the Middle Yangtze domestication of rice over the Lower Yangtze domestication of rice, mentions acorn gatherers living side by side with rice farmers (acorn gathering was popular in continental cultures with Japan Jomon cultural elements):
”[Middle Yangtze] Baligang provides a long sequence that registers many of the key trends in the Neolithic agriculture of central China. This includes evidence of rice cultivation alongside wild acorn consumption in the 7th millennium BC, even if the new evidence suggests that morphological domestication was more advanced at Baligang than in the Lower Yangtze at that time.”

From Early Domesticated Rice of the Middle Yangtze Basin to Millet, Rice and Wheat Agriculture: Archaeobotanical Macro-Remains from Baligang, Nanyang Basin, Central China (6700–500 BC)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0139885
Zhenhua Deng,Ling Qin,Yu Gao,Alison Ruth Weisskopf,Chi Zhang,Dorian Q. Fuller
Published: October 13, 2015
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139885
---------------------------------------

The article below discovered that there was an introgression of rice domestication alleles from the variety of rice grown in China (it is called Oryza Japonica in the Western World) into the variety of rice grown in India.

https://i.ibb.co/KwccB51/10.png

“Our results provide support for a model in which different rice subspecies had separate origins, but that de novo domestication occurred only once, in O. sativa ssp. japonica, and introgressive hybridization from early japonica to proto-indica and proto-aus led to domesticated indica and aus rice.”

The Rice Paradox: Multiple Origins but Single Domestication in Asian Rice
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/4/969/2897272
Jae Young Choi, Adrian E. Platts, Dorian Q. Fuller, Yue-Ie Hsing (邢禹依), Rod A. Wing, Michael D. Purugganan Author Notes
Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 34, Issue 4, April 2017, Pages 969–979, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx049
Published: 12 January 2017
-----------------------------------
The yDNA haplogroups of the rice farming populations detected on the territory of Ancient Vietnamese Man Bac from Lipson et al, include:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/...theastAsia.pdf

O2a-IMS-JST002611* and O2a-IMS-JST002611>O2a-F18>O-FGC12511>O2a-F449 (basal O2a-IMS-JST002611* WAS REPORTED FROM AN ANCIENT Miao-Yao/ Hmong-Mien ethnicity representative (the Gaohuahua site in the Guangxi Province)) https://theytree.com/sample/e2a69c38...f6e62c028.html
https://theytree.com/sample/f3dccb29...9e60696d8.html

O1b1-M95>O1b1-M1310>O1b1-F1803>O1b1-M1280 (a typical Austroasiatic) https://theytree.com/sample/78339ac0...b51d216f4.html

This O1b1-M95 Austroasiatic rice farmer had mtDNA M74b which interacted with yDNA N-M231-related populations according to the Chinese data and even provided a part of yDNA N-M231-rich Baikal_EN(Shamanka_EN)/Shandong_EN populations’ genetic drift (included in their 'Ancient Northern East Asian' part, as M74 is geographically widespread in China, including Northern China).

Post Scriptum. The illusion of the theory of origin of hg N-M231 close to the Himalayan mountains arouse because of the existence of mtDNA M42’74, while hg N-M231-related populations interacted with mtDNA M74-related part of M42’74. The M42-related part is distributed in India, the Near East, Australia, the M42’74*-related part is distributed in India. Actually, only very young branches of N-M231 can be found in the vicinity of the Himalayan Mountains. However, the mtDNA M42’74 ethnicities' ancestries would unite yDNA N-M231 ethnicities with the Himalayan-related populations, and this creates the illusion for the theory of origin of hg N-M231 close to the Himalayan mountains.

Ebizur,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ebizur

現代中国では全国男性人口の約2.8%がハプログループQに属し、そのほとんどが下位系統のQ-M120（全体の約2.47%<ref>https://www.23mofang.com/ancestry/ytree/Q-M120/detail</ref>）に分類されるが、Q-M346（約0.18%<ref>https://www.23mofang.com/ancestry/ytree/Q-M346/detail</ref>）、Q-L275（約0.08%<ref>https://www.23mofang.com/ancestry/ytree/Q-L275/detail</ref>）、Q-M25 > Q-L712（約0.04%<ref>https://www.23mofang.com/ancestry/ytree/Q-L712/detail</ref>）も稀に観察される。中国に於けるQ-M242の分布は著しく北方に偏っており、華北では概ね4%以上の男性に観察される一方、華南では概ね2% 以下の男性にしか観察されない。

---

It is doubtful that mtDNA M42'74 population could be connected to yDNA Q populations, as yDNA N-M231 Xiaojingshan, who also contained mtDNA M74-related ancestry as part of his "Ancient Northern East Asian", failed and could not be used to model the yDNA Q-related Amur AR9.2K_outlier in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” the conflux of the yDNA O1b2-rich Japanese nationality and the yDNA O1b2-rich Korean nationality ended up on the cline rooted in O1b1-related ancient samples which continues into the yDNA P (likely Q-M120) sample of the Amur AR9.2K_outlier ancestry, implying that yDNA O1b2-rich populations interacted with Q-M120 (especially the branches which settled in Northeast Asian 19000 years ago with AR19K, as AR19K has an yDNA O1b-rich Htin Mal population’s component in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, and, unlike Koreans, the Japanese are distributed along the cline joining YDNA C2/mtDNA G2 AR19K sample and southern mtDNA G populations). Unlike this, the Amur AR9.2K_outlier cannot be modeled with yDNA N-M231-rich Xiaojingshan implying the lack of interaction between yDNA N-M231 populations and yDNA Q populations, because, if yDNA N-M231 population did not interact with an yDNA Q population, yDNA N-M231 did not contain the autosomal DNA specific to bearers of yDNA Q, that is why it is impossible to model the yDNA Q-related Amur AR9.2K_outlier using yDNA N-M231-rich Xiaojingshan in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. Unlike the yDNA N-M231 cline in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago” depicted in this topic, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” yDNA N-M231 samples of Boshan, Bianbian and Longshan culture are located along the cline which depicts interaction of yDNA O-M122 and yDNA N-M231 populations on the territory of China. yDNA N-M231 Shandong_EN samples already contain autosomal DNA of the Palaeolithic yDNA O-M122 population who became a Yangshao-related population who participated in the formation of the Miaodigou population after the Shandong Early Neolithic period. The Miaodigou population separated into the Chinese part and the Tibetan part. The described yDNA O-M122 population is not the only kind of yDNA O-M122 population to interact with yDNA N-M231 on the territory of China.

EDIT:
As the mtDNA M42a branch has a deep isolated presence in Australia, then the Australian-like yDNA (mostly yDNA C1b-related) bearers should be under investigation as candidates for being early spouses for mtDNA M42’74. One of estimates of the timings of mtDNA M42’74 split 46200 years ago allows for the possible mtDNA M42’74 – yDNA C1b (or yDNA C1) connection.

https://i.ibb.co/FHRW2GD/php-Q407bh.png
This model from “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” also suggests that East Asian populations could not originate from Japan Jomon-related peoples.

Either the most ancient population included in Tianyuan (male yDNA F, female mtDNA N), or the most ancient population included in the Hoabinhian La368 (male yDNA C, female mtDNA M), or a 49% “male Hoabinhian”+ 51% “female Tianyuan” Bianbian (yDNA NO-M214/N-M231, mtDNA N) does not require autosomal DNA from the deeply divergent lineage separating from yDNA F, mtDNA N, yDNA C, mtDNA M modern human ancestors at the very beginning of the history of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia (ancient specimens, who required DNA of this “ghost” lineage, were all intermixed with indigenous Himalayan populations distantly related to ancestors of Japan Jomon; such a component could only appear in Late Bronze and Iron Age Huanghe/Yellow River LBIA peoples together with the Rong populations migrating from the area closer to the “Himalayan Plateau” towards the East). This also explains that the mtDNA mutation of a population which caused joining together of mtDNA M80’D, mtDNA D, mtDNA M7 (in the Japanese Minatogawa article Mizuno et al, 2021) is not related to directancestors of modern East Asians, but is instead included in modern Japanese via Jomon, being a remnant of the discussed “ghost” population which largely only preserved in the autosomal DNA of some “Himalayan-intermixed” ancient specimens and some modern humans (including the Japanese).


UPDATE: On the other hand, Japan Jomon is treated as a population containg ancestry, which separated before the split of Ancient Southern and Northern East Asians. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", it can be deduced from the model for ancient mtDNA G Southeast Asian individual (modeled as “female 51% Jomon”), what sort of mtDNA M populations (that is, mtDNA G-related branch) contributed to Jomon. Thus, the diversity within Japan Jomon could also account for the appearance of some linguistic features similar to the ones detected in Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Yukaghir languages (as examples of languages of mtDNA G-rich populations).





--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
The article below additionally hides the Chinese view on the Japanese history, including state formation, echoing the popular Chinese reading of the Chinese name of Tokyo as “Eastern Capital”, while Beijing is “Northern Capital” (“In the second and third centuries AD, state formation processes began with the widespread adoption of mounded tomb building for those Yayoi elites who had risen to high status within the developing agricultural polities. The succeeding Kofun (‘old tomb’) period (Barnes, Reference Barnes2007) witnessed the establishment of a centralized Yamato state in the fifth-century Kinai region. This was also a century of a second wave of immigration from the Korean Peninsula, stimulated by warfare among Peninsular states. In the fifth and sixth centuries, migrations of elites from western Honshu augmented the Kantō population and introduced equestrian culture.”) This passage also includes a view related to the Korean view of the Japanese history and so on.

Quote:

---

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...67519EF7F5AA97
Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2020
Elisabeth de Boer, Melinda A. Yang, Aileen Kawagoe and Gina L. Barnes

---

Most importantly, the article “Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread”, acknowledges the Mumun peoples (“Proto-Japanese speaking Mumun migrants (Whitman, 2011) coming into North Kyushu interacted with Jōmon peoples there, creating an initial admixed Yayoi population which then spread throughout the Japanese islands as they occupied new lands for farming.”) as bearers of the Japanese-related language of the continental origin, while Mumun ancestors were rice farmers having come from Shandong, according to Whitman, 2011. However, the article is not sure, whether only rice farming populations should be considered the ones related to the Proto-Japanese, or populations, which also cultivated other grains, should also be considered the ones related to the Proto-Japanese ("whether it was indeed only associated with rice agriculture or also with other grain crops, and what Jōmon or Epi-Jōmon language(s) might have been replaced or pushed out by which dialect of Japanese"). In both cases, bearers of the Japanese-related language of the continental origin may have included populations related to the Hongshan-influenced Lingjiatan culture, more closely connected to rice farmers and contributing to the Liangzhu Civilization, whereas other non-rice cultivators may have included indigenous Shandong millet farmers.

According to the article, part of Japan Jomon-related populations which had been acculturated by the Proto-Japanese-speaking Mumun farmers, stayed in Izumo, part of them already as Japonic speakers joined the emishi, described as follows by other Japanese groups in “Nihon Shoki”: “Amongst these Eastern savages the Yemishi are the most powerful; their men and women live together promiscuously; there is no distinction of father and child. In winter, they dwell in holes; in summer, they live in nests. Their clothing consists of furs, and they drink blood. Brothers are suspicious of one another. In ascending mountains, they are like flying birds; in going through the grass, they are like fleet quadrupeds. When they receive a favour, they forget it, but if an injury is done them they never fail to revenge it. Therefore, they keep arrows in their top-knots and carry swords within their clothing. Sometimes, they draw together their fellows and make inroads on the frontier. At other times, they take the opportunity of the harvest to plunder the people. If attacked, they conceal themselves in the herbage; if pursued, they flee into the mountains. Therefore, ever since antiquity, they have not been steeped in the kingly civilizing influences.”

According to the article, the Japan Yayoi-related populations were a complicated set of populations, some of whom (e.g. in Izumo) would include Japan Jomon-related populations which had been acculturated by the Proto-Japanese-speaking Mumun farmers. Probably because of the fact that the presence of yDNA O1b2 in Austronesian Indonesia and the presence of yDNA O1b2 (more exactly, the young branch of O-47z) in the Late Japan Jomon Period sea island’s almost pureblood Jomon sample both recquire an explanation, according to the article, the Japan Jomon should include Austronesian-related populations from Southern China. Other Chinese articles can elucidate that Jomon-related “Austronesian-related populations” should include yDNA O1b/O1b2 Austroasiatics/Yangtze Para-Austroasiatics assimilated by continental relatives of Austronesians stretching as far as the Liangzhu culture and contributing to either Japan Jomon or Indonesians or Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai) peoples currently living in Southeast Asia. According to the Chinese articles, it is this Jomon-related Austronesian Tai-Kadai-related/assimilated Yangtze Austroasiatic-related group that intermixed with Haminmangha-related peoples who came to Southern China in the Neolithic and worshipped a wolf/dog (unlike yDNA N-M231 Shamanka_EN who worshipped a boar) and later this wolf-worshipping Jomon-related Austronesian Tai-Kadai-related/assimilated Yangtze Austroasiatic-related group were horticulturalists who mixed with some relatives of ancestors of Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) rice farmers belonging to yDNA O-IMS-JST002611, so this would support the European and American claim that “Japanese grain (rice) farmers once worshiped wolves at shrines and left food offerings near their dens”, but more evidence is needed for the ethnographic claim (opposed by many Japanese) that Japanese commoners associated with a wolf Oyamatsumi deity, the Kojiki mountain deity – the father of a progenitor of some mythical humans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

UPDATE
Ebizur,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ebizur

Kumamoto

---

Instead, a pig/boar was an important animal in some hg N-M231-rich populations in Shandong and the Kitoi culture (Shamanka_EN) ("Wild boar tusks served as a favorite adornment of the Kitoi period in the Baikal region, and are often found in burials of this time").

Burials, Pigs, and Political Prestige in Neolithic China
Carla Antonaccio
Archaeological constructs guided by ethnographic and ethnohistorical information are tested against archaeological data from Neolithic Shandong. The study of Neolithic burials shows that intensive pig production was important not only for human diet and ritual but also for but also for the display of individual power.

This popularity of Sus genus might be one more argument against attempts to trace the origin of some similar Near Eastern-like Shandong and Northeast China’s cultures’ innovations to the Near East or to Ancient Egypt, though there is no reliable information on pig/swine stigmatization in Ancient Egypt, according to some European research.

UPDATE2:

A bear cult.
It is known from some researchers that bear cult can be possibly traced back to Neanderthals. The bear cult is widely distributed in Europe, including Slavic peoples and previously possibly Germanic peoples (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44368362)
According to Youping Wang, Neanderthals migrated to the Jinsitai Cave in Northeast China ca.45000 years ago.
“The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” offers two ancient series of samples, for whom a slight increase in Neanderthal affinity is correlated with their affinity to yDNA R* ANE Malta specimen (but not to Afontova Gora (yDNA Q)). One sample is located quite closely to Jinsitai Cave and is extensively used to model Transeurasian (“Altaic”) populations in Chinese works. This sample has a Palaeolithic Malta affinity accompanied by more elevated Neanderthal-like affinity (described indirectly). Another series of samples have a smaller yDNA R* ANE Malta specimen affinity, but it is accompanied with a really small increase in Neanderthal affinity. If one recalls that in “The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene” yDNA R* ANE Malta specimen has a certain Caucasian hunter-gatherer Western Eurasian affinity, it becomes clear that this second type of affinity in ancient Chinese samples should be related to this sort of European or Central Asian affinity. This affinity possibly distributed in the Late Palaeolithic and it possibly correlates with the flexed burial rite (observed also in Western Eurasian Steppe cultures) which started to appear in Northeast China in the “Altaic”/”Transeurasian” Xinglongwa culture and resurged also in the later Neolithic West Liao Civilization cultures, which, as mentioned in the previous posts, had three main genetic components: northern Amur-like populations, Sinitic-related populations and Shandong-related yDNA N-rich populations. It is the most consistent to associate this newer yDNA R* ANE Malta affinity with Caucasian hunter-gatherer Western Eurasian affinity which contributed to the formation of “Altaic”/Transeurasian languages. However, not all population directly or indirectly connected to the West Liao cultures adopted the flexed burial. For example, Chinese-language versions of articles mention that the Xueshan I yDNA N1c-rich populations were buried in the typical East Asian supine position as well as Upper Xiajiadian WLR_BA N1c specimen was buried in a typical East Asian supine position. Thus, living in this West Liao region during the ancient period does not necessarily mean the Altaic/Transeurasian/Tungusic/Manchu/Mongol affinity. So there are two choices to explain bear worship in Northeast Asia: either it derived from older yDNA R* ANE Malta populations, or, in case this bear worship would have some close connections to ancient European pratices,then this type of bear worship might be connected to this newer yDNA R* ANE Malta affinity associated with Caucasian hunter-gatherer Western Eurasian affinity in yDNA R* ANE Malta. It is important to know that while Koreans have traces of bear cult, there are also Hongshan-related populations in the modern world whose mythology states that it is people of foreign origin that originated from malevolent spirits associated with a bear, which used to influence their older social stratification.