Genetics and Eastern Eurasian Archaeological Cultures and Ancient Populations

The mysterious culture of Upper Xiajiadian of Xilamulun and Laoha rivers and the slightly earlier Weiyingzi culture of the Linghe rivers… Who were they?

Since 1987 the understanding of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and its external connections and similarities expanded completely and was redefined.

Sample name WLR_BA (West Liao River Bronze Age)
91KLH18 内蒙古赤峰市龙头山遗址 夏家店上层文化 1000-600 BC
AU number
AU34727
Sample Type
Ancient
Reference assembly
hg19 / GRCh37
Y-haplogroup
N-Y125670
MT-haplogroup
D4j14
Gender
Male
Quality
Coverage: 20.32％ Average Depth: 1
Scientific institution
Country
中国
Native place
龙头山遗址位于赤峰市克什克腾旗土城子镇南 6 千米处的龙头山北坡，东邻西拉木 伦河支流苇塘河。
Ancient culture
Upper XiaJiaDian 夏家店上层文化
Ancient period
2851-2775 cal BP
Data source
Ancient genomes from northern China suggest links between subsistence changes and human migration https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16557-2

Two WLR_BA (West Liao River Bronze Age) samples were carefully chosen to represent the local Xilamulun (Upper Xiajiadian Longtoushan) population. One of them predates the introduction of Bronze Daggers, the other slightly postdates the introduction of Bronze Daggers, but they cluster together. If one of them arrived with Bronze Daggers, clustering together would not be possible. One should not exaggerate the uniqueness of WLR_BA samples; despite their uniparentals, they are already not too alien to the Yellow River samples on “tighter” PCAs, at least in Chao Ning’s article. The Laoha river population should be expected to be more deeply influenced by the Gaotaishan culture migrants, whose ancestors came from the area of Liaodong slightly closer to Korea. The WLR_BA_outlier (the Amur ancestry) judging by the source of “Amur-related” archaeological materials in the Xilamulun river basin of that period, probably came from the Nen River Basin (the Heilongjiang/Amur River Basin). Is it possible that he might have been somehow autosomally similar to the Xituanshan culture (the purported ancestor of the Puyo State)? Maybe this motivated the choice of WLR_BA_outlier to autosomally model the Yayoi culture population in Japan in “Tripartite structure” article.
WLR_BA_outlier Sample name
91KLM2 内蒙古赤峰市龙头山遗址 夏家店上层文化 ~3000-2300ybp
AU number
AU40335
Sample Type
Ancient
Reference assembly
hg19 / GRCh37
Y-haplogroup
C-F9721
MT-haplogroup
B4c1a2
Gender
Male
Quality
Coverage: 44.09％ Average Depth: 1
Scientific institution

Country
中国
Native place
LongTouShan 龙头山遗址位于赤峰市克什克腾旗土城子镇南 6 千米处的龙头山北坡，东邻西拉木 伦河支流苇塘河。
Ancient culture
Upper XiaJiaDian
Ancient period
3000-2300 BP
Data source
Ancient genomes from northern China suggest links between subsistence changes and human migration https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16557-2

The Upper Xiajiadian culture in the narrow sense started from the Xilamulun River basin (including the Longtoushan site and Dajing copper mine) and later distributed to the Laoha River Basin and started to influence nearby cultures.

The mystery of the Upper Xiajiadian culture is the cultural factors of the Late Shang Dynasty in the Xilamulun River Basin which are slightly older than the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The Pre-Upper Xiajiadian Late Shang Dynasty cultural factors are presumed to be transmitted by the way of the more southern slightly older Weiyingzi culture. The neighbors of the Weiyingzi culture, the Baifu M2 and M3 rich tombs where people were buried in Weiyingzi-like wooden coffins, represent the local elites who partially adopted Late Shang Dynasty traditions (for example, dog burials, one dog burial is later found in the earliest known site of the Upper Xiajiadian culture), but mixed them with local traditions. The elites buried in the Baifu site adopted one type of Bronze Daggers from the more westerly Xiaohenan site to the northwest of Beijing (Xiaohenan is probably connected to the expansion of peoples later known as Shanrong). Bronze Daggers of this type are thought to be brought from the Karasuk culture of Russia, but its prototype for the Karasuk culture is thought by several researchers to come from the territory of China. Two of the described Bronze Daggers from the M3 tomb of the member of the elite buried in the Baifu site are thought to become a prototype for the main diagnostic bronze daggers of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, which distributed from the Longtoushan site to the Laoha River basin sites and later appeared in more southern places.

Meanwhile, the Shanrong tribes of the Yuhuangmiao culture fought with the state of Yan during the Zhou Dynasty. At a certain period the Yan state extended its influence as far as part of the older Weiyingzi culture territory, but the shrinkage of Yan’s archaeological presence on the territory of the Weiyingzi culture was accompanied by stregthening of the Upper Xiajiadian archaeological presence on the territory of the Weiyingzi culture. The Upper Xiajiadian culture did not experience direct losses from the state of Yan, because the Upper Xiajiadian was separated and defended by mountains inhabited by Shanrong of the Yuhuangmiao culture who fought with the state of Yan. The Upper Xiajiadian culture flourished. Whether the Shanrong were actual allies of the Upper Xiajiadian culture or not, the defeat of Shanrong by Duke Huan of Qi led to the decline not only of the Shanrong tribe, but to the obstacle for the southern expansion of the Upper Xiajiadian culture because of the strengthening of the State of Yan, and later the Upper Xiajiadian culture declined as well, while the Weiyingzi culture declined even earlier, but was partially reborn as the Shiertaiyingzi culture, which is thought by Koreans to represent their first state of Go Joseon.

However, the Korean records mention the appearance of the “Gija Joseon” state (during the transition period from the Late Shang to Zhou Dynasty), headed by “Gija” who displaced the original Korean ruler. “Gija” is known by Chinese records as Jizi, the imprisoned relative of the last tyrant ruler of the Shang Dynasty, who was released by King Wu of Zhou and was dispatched by him to Joseon (Chaoxian). It is possible that the appearance of the Late Shang Dynasty cultural factors on the territory of the richest Baifu site, also on the territory of the Weiyingzi culture, also on the earliest territory from which the Upper Xiajiadian culture originated, is a prototype for historical records of Jizi’s expansion to “Go Joseon”. The political system which later emerged out of this, became a rival for the very Yan State of Zhou.

So from what kind of ancestry could the WLR_BA specimen trace its ultimate origin? This should be a type of ancestry which separated from the Shandong branch after KolymaM, but prior to the split between Boshan and Xiaogao. It probably occupied the geographically intermediate position between the area of the most ancient type of East Asian ancestry which preserved in Yumin of Inner Mogolia and the area of the most ancient type of East Asian ancestry which came along with the AR19K to the Songnen Plain (the Heilongjiang/Amur river basin). An intermediate geographic position would allow this type of ancestry to mix with various mtDNA D4h* populations whose ancestors had before incorporated the autosomal component of mtDNA M8’CZ bearers’ populations whose samples have connections to Ust-Ishim.

On the heterogenity of hg N-M231-related populations in China

The members of N-L729 branch, which also includes N-M46+, are related to the ancient Shandong Xiaojingshan series of specimens of the Houli culture. Recently the autosomal connection between DA245 (N-L729) of the Baikal region and one of Xiaojingshan specimens was confirmed in "Ancient Genomes Reveal Coexistence of Demic and Cultural Diffusion in the Development of Neolithic Mixed Millet and Rice Farming in Southwest China". The Xiaojingshan series is heterogenous: one Xiaojingshan sample clusters with Shandong Xiaogao_EN on the PCA and the admixture in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”; one Xiaojingshan sample is related to DA245 (N-L729) in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, which can be observed through the analysis of admixture percentages; one more Xiaojingshan sample has a similar Northern East Asian ancestry as the Xiaojingshan sample related to DA245 (N-L729), but it is not accompanied by Western Eurasian-related ancestry in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. Furthermore, Xiaojingshan, Banlashan_MN (the Hongshan culture’s site) and AR7.3K_outlier and AR3.4K_outlier share an autosomal connection in “The deep population history of northern East Asia…”, and AR7.3K_outlier AR3.4K_outlier derive 67,7% ancestry from Xiaojingshan, and AR3.4K_outlier belongs to mtDNA D4b1a2a* which is observed in the N-M46+ Buryat population.

Unlike this, the AR9.2K_outlier individual, belonging to yDNA P (likely related to Q-M120) and sitting on the Northeast Asian cline where Siberian KolymaM is also located on the PCA in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, despite AR9.2K_outlier’s more southern ancestry found in East Asians in the Admixture model, cannot be modeled using Xiaojingshan, proving that Xiaojingshan, AR7.3K_outlier, AR3.4K_outlier share a certain ancestry alien to Siberia.

Despite this, te Chinese linguistic concepts do no exclude that certain branches of hg N-M231 bearers participated in the formation of Uralic languages. The populations of the culture mentioned in this context include the populations deriving from the Zhaobaogou culture, which is spatially connected to the Xiaojingshan-related populations.

“Kingdom of Puyŏ”-related populations scattered by Xianbei or incorporated into Xianbei (incl. Daur/Buryat-related ones

According to Mark E. Byington (“The Ancient State of Puyŏ in Northeast Asia”), the Xituanshan culture of the Jilin province is a partial archaeological correlate for the origin of the later Puyŏ/Fuyu/Buyeo state (“the pre-state Puyŏ society represented in part by the Xituanshan archaeological culture in central Jilin Province”)

Thus, the geographic location of the Puyŏ state is not very far from places were ancient samples were collected for “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.
The location of ancient DNA samples is on the map below:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...54-gr1_lrg.jpg
On the map below, Puyŏ=Buyeo
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Sanguozhi.svg

Interestingly, there are two main types of populations. The main “Amur” population (https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-M130, AR19K (N=1) C-M1373*; AR14K (N=1), AR13-10K (N=2), AR9.9K (N=1), ARPOST9K (N=2) C-M1373>C-F3447; AR14K (N=1) C-M1373>C-F1699; AR13-10K (N=1) C-M48 (yDNA C-M48 is often found in Tungusic populations).


Unlike them, the main outlier (non-local) population AR7.3K_outlier (7300 years ago) and AR3.4K_outlier (3400K) is shifted on the PCA in the direction of ancient Shandong Xiaojingshans, who have autosomal connections to diverse yDNA N-M231 bearers’ populations. AR7.3K_outlier (mtDNA D4e5) and AR3.4K_outlier (mtDNA D4b1a2a) derive 67,7% ancestry from Xiaojingshan and occupy the intermediate position on the PCA (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...54-gr1_lrg.jpg), which would be expected of the intermediate geographic localization of populations ancestral to populations of the Xituanshan culture, the Puyŏ state, in the future.

As for the fate of the Puyŏ state population, Mark E. Byington writes the following:

“Although Puyŏ was flanked by hostile neighbors, its alliance with Chinese courts, through the agency of the Chinese commanderies in the Liaodong 遼東 region, enabled Puyŏ to thrive in a very dynamic political environment. However, when a Xianbei leader managed to gain effective control over the Liaodong region in the late third century, Puyŏ’s leaders could no longer fall back on their alliance with the Chinese court. This marked the beginning of a long period of decline for Puyŏ’s fortunes. In 285 a Xianbei strike at the heart of Puyŏ crippled the state so severely that it survived only with Chinese intervention. A second strike in 346 destroyed the state’s infrastructure and deprived it of its king, and the state ceased to exist as an independent polity. The territories of Puyŏ were soon occupied by a re-ascendant Koguryŏ, and for a time a Puyŏ polity continued to exist as a dependent tributary of Koguryŏ. At the end of the fit century, however, an invasion of Mohe 靺鞨 people from the northeast drove the Puyŏ government of Koguryŏ out of the central Jilin region, and from this time forward only the Puyŏ name survived as a regional designation under a succession of later states. Some scattered remnants of the Puyŏ populations can be traced after the second Xianbei strike in 346 destroyed the state. A number of groups fled to the north and east, and many members of the ruling clan were taken by their Xianbei conquerors and continued to hold positions of status under a succession of Xianbei states in central China.”

mtDNA D4e5a was one of the lineages to be reported from the modern Daur. “The Daur were said to be the descendants of the Khitan people in the Liao Dynasty (916–1125 AD), and Khitans were said to have had relations among the Xianbei people (Lin, 1989).” (Wang et al, 2007)

As for Central Chinese Xianbei-led states, the Tuyuhun Empire was established in the Qinghai province. The Han Chinese mtDNA D4b1a2a* person was reported from the Qinghai province, and his or her mtDNA D4b1a2a* lineage can be united with mtDNA D4b1a2a* lineages attributed to Han Chinese from Northeast Chinese Liaoning and Heilongjiang provinces; moreover, the Qinghai D4b2a2a* lineage had the same mutation as one of the mtDNA D4e5a lineages.

Both D4b1a2a* and D4e5a were reported from the Buryat people.
--------------------------------------------
For a more full picture, there goes the distribution of D4b1a2a and D4e5 in Han Chinese

The whole distribution of D4e5 in Han Chinese:
Shandong 0,16%
Henan 0,1%
Shanxi 0,15%
Shaanxi 0,18%
Hebei 0,45%
Beijing 0,11%
Jilin 0,26%
Heilongjiang 0,23%
Jiangsu 0,04%
Hunan 0,12%
Jiangsi 0,2%

Th whole distribution of D4e5a in Han Chinese:
Shandong 0,11%
Henan 0,1%
Shanxi 0,15%
Hebei 0,18%
Beijing 0,22%
Inner Mongolia Neimenggu 0,57%
Hong Kong 5,56% (if it is not a mistake)
Tianjin 0,29%
Liaoning 0,15%
Jilin 0,26%
Heilongjiang 0,23%
Jiangsu 0,12%
Chongqing 0,22%
Guangdong 0,13%
Fujian 0,16%
Zhengjiang 0,05%

Th whole distribution of D4b1a2a (minus D4b1a2a1) in Han Chinese:
Shandong 0,05%
Shaanxi 0,18%
Gansu 0,32%
Qinghai 4%
Hebei 0,09%
Tianjin 0,29%
Beijing 0,22%
Inner Mongolia Neimenggu 0,57%
Liaoning 0,15%
Heilongjiang 0,46%
Anhui 0,27%
Hunan 0,12%
Guangdong 0,06%

--------------------------------------------
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.

Three main genetic components participating in the formation of the Hongshan culture: Sinitic-related ancestry, Amur-related ancestry (those who acquired the Altaic languages), Xiaojingshan-related ancestry of hg N-related populations

In “Ancient genomes from northern China suggest links between subsistence changes and human migration”, the dating of the Hongshan culture (the West Liao River Basin Neolithic) is 6500 – 5000 years ago, which is older than the Indo-European Yamna-related Afanasievo culture (5600-4500 years ago), the Okunevo culture (4500-3800 years ago), the Abashevo culture (4200-3850 years ago), the Sintashata culture (4000-3600 years ago), the Seima-Turbino phenomenon (4150-3600 years ago according to the newly accepted chronology, ca. 3500 years ago according to the old traditional chronology) and the American Mayan civilization (from the Archaic period 4000 years ago till the 17th century).

According to “Ancient genomes from northern China suggest links between subsistence changes and human migration”, “The establishment of the Middle Neolithic complex societies appears to have been associated with rapid population growth and cultural innovation, and may have been linked to the dispersal of two major language families, Sino-Tibetan from the Yellow River and Transeurasian from the West Liao River. (…) Linguistically, the West Liao River Basin has been associated with the origin of the Transeurasian language family and the mixture between Amur River and Yellow River groups may find a correlate in the borrowing between Transeurasian linguistic subgroups and Sinitic ones, becoming more intensive from the Bronze Age onwards”.

However, according to Melinda Yang, Shandong Bianbian (yDNA N-M231/mtDNA B5b2) represents a type of the Yellow River ancestry older than the Yangshao (7000-5000 years ago) Yellow River Middle Neolithic (“Yellow River ancestry—ancestry associated with populations in the Yellow River region, with the oldest individual sampled to date represented by a 9,500-year-old individual from the lower reaches of the Yellow River in Shandong, i.e. Bianbian [68]. Populations associated with this ancestry greatly impacted most present-day East and Southeast Asians.” A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia. Melinda A. Yang. Department of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, USA. http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html). The model in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” makes it more clear that the ancestry included in the Lower Yellow River Shandong Neolithic separated during the different period than the ancestry of Shimao_LN, ancestral to the Han Chinese. Shandong Bianbian (yDNA N-M231) is not similar to the Amur populations (see his position on the PCA https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...54-gr1_lrg.jpg in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”). The “male side DNA” 49% of Bianbian were modeled using Onge/Laos Hoabinhian in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. The “male side DNA” 49% of Bianbian was used to model the ancient Thailand male of mtDNA G2b2a in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". This is not similar to genetically Amur-like populations. Xiaogao_EN (mtDNA N9a) separated from the Shandong Houli culture’s Boshan (also yDNA N-M231). mtDNA N9a is one of the prominent female lineages in the “Liao civilization” cultures. Besides O-M122, the detailed male lineage reported from the late Liao Lower Xiajiadian culture was N-L727. The separations of Xiaogao_EN ancestors and Boshan_EN ancestors is consistent with the advantage for the spread of N-L727 in Northeast China. In the models of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the “culture-triggering” autosomal component in Boshan_EN formed in the Late Palaeolithic with the participation of branches related to yDNA N and yDNA O-M122 populations, and autosomally Bianbian-like populations also interacted with this component. As Shandong and Liaohe cultural development activated during the Neolithic period, the berarers of the Late Palaeolithic “culture-triggering” component created their Neolithic cultures with their own hands. As late as the Dawenkou culture, ancient DNA yielded one N haplogroup and one O haplogroup (50%/50%). There was Neolithic southward coastal migration of Shandong_EN-related populations, and one of them interacted in the Guangxi province with the population which interacted with the ancient type of local Longlin whose Longlin-like ancestors contributed to KolymaM ancestors 34000 years ago. So if ancient samples yield KolymaM component, it may also be this rare Longlin type from Guangxi. These Shandong populations were assimilated by Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic speakers.


Even not taking into account the ancient Yangshao contribution to the Hongshan culture, the ancient Chinese civilization from the Yellow River and the ancient Egyptian civilization are being compared to each other.

5,000-year-old "Pyramid" Found in Inner Mongolia
(Xinhua News Agency 07/09/2001)
http://www.china.org.cn/english/15802.htm
Chinese archaeologists has discovered a pyramid-shaped building, dating back more than 5,000 years ago, in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, in north China.

The "pyramid", located on a mountain ridge one kilometer north of Sijiazi Township in the Aohan Banner (county), is a three-storied stone building, with the bottom layer being more than 30 meters long and 15 meters wide.

The "pyramid" belongs to the Hongshan Culture period of 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, according to Guo Dashun, a famous Chinese archaeologist who works in Liaoning Archaeological Research Institute.

Seven tombs and ruins of an altar were found on the top of the "pyramid." At the site of the altar there are many fragments of broken pottery carved with the Chinese character “mi" (rice). Archaeologists said that the character "mi" may have something to do with people's understanding of astrology in ancient times.

In one of the tombs, archaeologists found a bone flute and a stone ring, and they unearthed a stone sculpture of a goddess the size of a human body in another tomb.

Archaeologists were surprised to find a stone-carved linga on the wall of a tomb and a small stone statue of a goddess below the linga in the same tomb.

Archaeologist Guo said that many of the relics were first-time discoveries and they are of great significance in studying the burial customs, religious and sacrifice rituals, and the social structure of the Hongshan Culture.

He pointed out, the discovery of the "pyramid" is also of great significance in exploring the origin of the Chinese civilization.

The Hongshan Culture, belonging to the Neolithic culture, is mainly distributed in the juncture area between Inner Mongolia, Liaoning and Hebei provinces.

The surprising similarities between ancient Egypt and China
https://www.dw.com/en/the-surprising...ina/g-39635826
How ancient China and Egypt developed similar structures
Tina Hüttl
https://www.dw.com/en/how-ancient-ch...res/a-39641948
07/12/2017 July 12, 2017
Although ancient Egypt and China never communicated with each other, they had many things in common. The exhibition "China and Egypt. Cradles of the World" shows inventions made in both countries a long time ago.

Plagiarism and industrial espionage may in some cases explain why a particular invention turns up far away from where it was originally invented. But what about such cases when these possible explanations have been ruled out and two inventors incidentally develop the same idea?

Take, for example, horse snaffles - a longish mouth piece made of bronze that is kept flexible by two interlocking rings in the middle enabling the rider to steer the horse to the right or left. Two such snaffles can be admired in the special exhibition "China and Egypt. Cradles of the World" that runs in Berlin's Neues Museum from July 6 to December 3, 2017. One of them, dated to 1,200 BC, was found in Egypt, and the other one, dated a bit later, in China. The possibility that the Chinese copied the invention from the Egyptians has been ruled out as these two ancient civilizations had no contact with each other at this stage.

The same solutions to the same problems

Back then, traveling merchants and couriers were capable of bridging enormous distances of up to 3,000 kilometers. But they could never have overcome the 8,000-kilometer distance between China and Egypt. And yet, these two civilizations seen as the world's earliest ones, developed numerous similar inventions, institutions and traditions - not only concerning instruments of daily life, but also religious rites like the death cult and other religious concepts.

"When people feel an urge for having a stable roof over their heads, or cloth that embellish and protect them, they are quite likely to come up with similar solutions," explains Friederike Seyfried who, together with curator Mariana Jung, is in charge of the exhibition. Sooner or later, almost every culture has invented the needle after experimenting with fish bones, pin feathers or little bones. And in the same way, people came up with similar answers to abstract questions about God and the hereafter.

From Shanghai to Berlin

Friederike Seyfried is the director of the Egyptian Museum and the papyrus collection. Roughly half of the 250 exhibits of the current Berlin exhibition originate from there. The other half comes from loans of the Shanghai Museum with whom Berlin's state museums are cooperating. Both museums came up with the idea to initiate a common exhibition including items from 4,500 BC until 300 AD in the Greek-Roman era.

After all, it's an important social anthropological question that makes this exhibition so interesting. How do human civilizations develop? And what are man's solutions to particular problems?

The exhibits are not presented chronologically, but in terms of five big topics: daily life, writing, power, death cult and deities.

Differing luxurious goods

Fireclay models in one of the first display cases show that the structure of simple dwellings in China resembled the ones used in Egypt. And in both cultures, people kept dogs. A wide variety of statues, jewelry, ceramics and cosmetic vessels illustrate daily life patterns of the societies of both countries.

The Chinese and the Egyptians used pretty much the same type of instruments for washing, a set consisting of a vessel with a handle, and a water bowl. Almost the only thing that differs is how these bronze vessels were decorated.

What also differs are the materials used by both cultures, as available local raw materials were different. Along with bronze, the Chinese used varnish for their typical luxurious goods. In Egypt, by contrast, this material was not available. That's why the Egyptians resorted to glass for their luxurious objects, as demonstrate 3,500-year-old bottles of opaque glass that were used to keep oils and perfumes.

'For eternity'
A comparison between Chinese and Egyptian cultures is particularly interesting when it comes to death cults. As precious burial objects show, both societies developed very complex rites and funeral customs. One of the most impressive loan items from Shanghai is a jade robe in which a man called Liu He was ceremoniously buried in the era of the western Han dynasty. The greenish robe made of 2,216 little jade plates held together by silver threads recalls a suit of armor intended to protect the soul and the body of the dead in the afterworld. After all, the Chinese considered jade as a symbol for immortality.

Contrasting with this Chinese exhibit is a mummy casing of an Egyptian woman called Nes-Chons-pa-cheret who is believed to have died 700 years earlier than Liu He. Winged deities painted on her cartonnage were believed to protect and conserve the mummified body for eternity.

The exhibition "China and Egypt. Cradles of the World," running from July 6 until December 3, 2017, shows exhibits from ancient Egypt and ancient China, some of which are shown in Europe for the very first time.
__________________________________________________ _

As for the last article, its materials do not mention the Hongshan culture. This means that the ancient Chinese civilization in the Yellow River Basin shared sufficient similarities with the ancient Egyptian civilization, while the Hongshan culture represented just one of branches of influences from the Yellow River civilization (other branches being distributed along the southern route).

It is believed that populations that split from the Yangshao ancestors ca. 9000 ago migrated first, later became a substratum for the Tibetans and initiated the connection with yDNA J2-rich populations of the Near East, while Shandong Bianbian-related populations initiated the connection with the Neolithic yDNA T-related individual found in Ain Ghazal, Jordania and another nearby Neolithic yDNA T individual. This is different from Western Eurasian mtDNA R-related GonurBA1-related populations distributing to China since the Palaeolithic and influencing Austronesian and Austroasiatic ancestors via ancient Qihedong3 and Liangdao2.

Physical anthropology and the “Sumerian problem”
http://www.antropologia.uw.edu.pl/SHA/sha-04-07.pdf
“Another way of reasoning has been presented by Samuel Kramer. This author has also agreed with Speiser that the Sumerians were not the aboriginal inhabitants of Mesopotamia and that they had come not long before the Late Uruk period (1948:156–157). In his opinion the reminiscences of their early history had been preserved in the tales of Sumerian legendary kings, Gilgamesh, Enmerkar, and Lugalbanda. Kramer has struck upon the idea that the invasion of barbarous tribes to more civilised country is often recorded in heroic age epics – as known from the Greek, Germanic, and Aryan traditions (1948:159). If the Sumerians produced such kind of literature, it meant for Kramer, that originally they must have been the barbarians who invaded the Mesopotamia. In Kramer’s reconstruction Mesopotamia was first settled by immigrants from Iran who had painted their pottery. Somewhat later they mixed with the Semites who came from the west. Both ethnic groups created a civilisation, which expanded and eventually came into contact with early Sumerians, the nomadic tribes from Transcaucasia or Transcaspia. These Sumerians were initially defeated by the Mesopotamians, but later they learned the more advanced art of war and finally conquered Mesopotamia. After the “heroic age”, the time of regress and perturbations, the Sumerians restored the civilisation, established their cities, invented the cuneiform script, and eventually were defeated by other barbarians, the Aryan tribes (1948:160–163). (…)”

Those immigrants from Iran mentioned by Kramer were probably related to those bearers of CHG who belonged to yDNA J2. J2a was determined in Minoan Civilization samples, J2b in a representative of Etruscans.

Unlike languages spoken by these ancient “Iranians”, Gonzalo Rubio found Semitic etymologies for alleged non-Sumerian words in the Sumerian language:

On the Alleged "Pre-Sumerian Substratum"
Gonzalo Rubio
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 51 (1999), pp. 1-16
The American Schools of Oriental Research
doi: 10.2307/1359726
(…). Thus, we are left with the issue of the traces a previous (substrate) language might have left in Sumerian as we know it, that is, with the question of the alleged pre-Sumerian substratum.(…)

(…)If one looks carefully at Landsberger's list of substratum words, many of them happen to be Semitic loanwords (baihar, ugula, ga-ba-ra, sabra, and perhaps also i--hu-in).(…)


Early Nile Valley farmers from El-Badari
S. O. Y. KEITA
National Human Genome Center at Howard University
Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution

(…)
The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).
(…)
Recent studies in historical linguistics do not support an agro-Nostratic hypothesis that postulates Afro-Asiaticspeaking farmers coming into the Nile Valley from Europe. There are several reasons. The date of ancestral Afro-Asiatic is likely to be as much as 15,000 BP and possibly more (Ehret, 1979, 1984, personal communication; Fleming, 1974, personal communication). Conservative estimates place the date at 12,000 BP. There is no archaeological evidence for agriculture in Africa, Europe, or Asia consonant with these dates. More important, reconstruction of ancestral Afro-Asiatic (irrespective of its date) using all of the family’s members does not reveal terms for plant or animal domestication (Ehret, 1979, 1984, 1995, personal communication). In other words, speakers of Common or proto-Afro-Asiatic cannot be shown to have been food producers but were apparently intensive users of wild grasses. The dates and reconstructions fit with the archaeological findings of intensive plant use in the upper Nile Valley (see Wetterstrom, 1993).

The evidence is also consistent with Africa being Afro-Asiatic’s place of historical differentiation and source of spread (see Bender, 1975; Blench, 1993; Diakonoff, 1981; Ehret, 1984; Greenberg, 1966, 1973; Ruhlen, 1991). The location of ancestral Afro-Asiatic was likely in the northeast quadrant of Africa, in or near the Horn, but also possibly the Sahara, based on the principles of greatest diversity and least moves (cf. Bender, 1975; Ehret, 1984; Nichols, 1997). Five of the six branches of this family are only found in Africa (Omotic, ancient Egyptian, Chadic, Cushitic, and Berber). Semitic alone is found in Asia (Diakonoff, 1981; Greenberg, 1973). Omotic, found only in Ethiopia, has characteristics likely to be relatively similar to those in ancestral Afro-Asiatic. At a time before postulated movement into Africa (of a Nostratic branch), there is evidence for substantial movement out of Africa, specifically the northern Nile Valley, into the Levant (Bar-Yosef, 1987). (This archaeological “signal” may connote the movement of preproto-Semitic speakers into the Near East; however, caution is in order when looking for such correspondences.)
(…)
The archaeology of neolithic and predynastic Egypt does not support mass migration from outside of Africa. The earliest evidence for farming in the Nile Valley indicates that local people incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an indigenous foraging subsistence strategy (Wetterstrom, 1993) that, over time, developed into more reliance on farming. This is not consistent with a Neolithic revolution that would have occurred if there had been mass settlement by farmers! Settlement patterns and artifacts do not suggest the wholesale settler colonization of the Nile Valley by a community of alien origin. In northern Egypt, the earliest sites evincing food production at Fayum and Merimde show some Near Eastern, but not European, influence during the earlier part of the neolithic; chronologically later neolithic artifacts from the same sites indicate a strong regional African (Saharan/Western Desert) influence (Kobusiewicz, 1992). The Badarian, in upper Egypt, is culturally interpretable primarily as a synthesis of indigenous Saharan and Nilotic traditions that incorporated some Near Eastern domesticates perhaps adopted from northern Egypt (Hassan, 1988; Hoffman, 1979) and apparently did not have a single simple antecedent (Holmes, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------
One of words which Gonzalo Rubio considers Semitic rather than a borrowing from the pre-Sumerian substratum into Sumerian and into Semitic via Sumerian, is nangar:

nangar (to be read nagar, see Sollberger 1966:155) "carpenter":' According to Diakonoff (1975:225) it is an Arealwort, related to Egyptian ndr ("to do carpentry,' "to work wood"; see Wb. 2: 382; Hannig 1995: 450a7; see also von Soden 1981: 171 n. 8). The resemblance to Arabic najara (Semitic 1 ngr) "to carve" (najjlar "carpenter" etc.) is clear (see Wehr 1976: 944). This is a well-attested Semitic root (Ugaritic ngr, Aramaic naggara, etc.), but Salonen (1952: 10-11), who also takes into account Egyptian ndr, regards it as a pre-Sumerian word borrowed from Sumerian by Semitic languages.
---------------------------------------------------------
Of these languages, the Semitic Aramaic language was spoken in Mesopotamia as well, a variety of Aramaic was spoken by ancient Assyrians and modern Assyrians. Some ancestors of speakers of Yiddish are thought to speak a variety Aramaic before the formation of Yiddish.

According to “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”,
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Uzbekistan.pdf
“In comparison with BMAC populations which contained 2% ancestry being derived from Onge, an f4(Rabat/Serk; Gonur2_BA/Saidu_Sharif_H, Mbuti) statistics test of Uz_IA with other BA populations shows more shared drift with Onge for the Serkharakat compared with the Rabat (supplementary fig.S13, Supplementary Material online). Therefore, we find relatively more East Asian ancestry in Uz_IA compared with theBMAC populations and relatively similar amounts of South Asian HG ancestry.”

The only known East Asian sample to interact with the Onge-related Hoabinhians is Baojianshan.

The formation of Baojianshan is described in detail in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Baojianshan should influence Onge-related populations who transmitted East Asian-related ancestry farther to the west.

Baojianshan has a component which split before the separation of Southern and Northern East Asians, and, according to the main text, both Northern Shandong_EN and Southern Fujian_EN can be said to split from the undivided Baojianshan ancestry as a result of the natural course of development of Southern and Northern East Asians. It is very likely that this undivided component of Baojianshan contributed to the speakers of Caucasian languages, at least the undivided “Tibetan-like” component was reported from Western Eurasian Botai specimen.

However, the method of glottochronology obtained several dates for the alledged “split” of Caucasian languages from Sino-Caucasian languages. One split of Basque-Caucasian was dated to 19000-21000 years ago as estimated by the Kassian team. The alledged split between Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan estimated by another linguist Starostin was just ca.7000-8000 years ago. Thus, there probably should be more than one wave of East Asian-related ancestry to the West.

Thus, the specimen of Baojianshan “paves the way” for this younger East Asian ancestry during its journey to the West, while populations genetically related to Botai “pave the way” for this older East Asian ancestry during its journey to the West.

Despite the fact that Boshan and Baojianshan shared yDNA O population-related autosomal ancestry (Boshan being N-M231) and some other common ancestries in the natural course of prehistorical development, the formation of Baojianshan is different from the formation of Boshan. Baojianshan and Boshan have different 1% of Tianyuan-related ancestry similar to the ancestry contributed by Palaeolithic Tinyuan-related poplations to Neolithic Iranian populations. The East Asian ancestry related to this 1% of Tianyuan (yDNA R) can be thought to be related to populations which would speak languages with similar characteristics to the characteristics of Near Eastern Western Eurasian languages of mtDNA R-rich populations. As Baojianshan’s 1% of Tianyuan-related ancestry separated prior to the split between Northern Boshan and Southern Liangdao2, we cannot say that Boshan would exert any linguistic influence on Sino-Tibetan languages. The influence of Boshan/Xiaojingshan-related populations and the influence of Baojianshan-related populations were independent from each other.

The formation of Baojianshan is generously described in detail in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Early migrations of East Asian-related populations

https://i.ibb.co/Vjqjf9D/php-Icy-JRX.png
Actually, this ca. 73300-year-old female-mediated 11% of West African-related DNA in Mbuti, which yDNA N-M231 Boshan acquired, can “evolve” in other Qiaomei Fu’s qpGraph models into 7% of female-mediated DNA of Yumin (mtDNA C5d) or 6% of female-mediated DNA in Tianyuan (mtDNA R (mtDNA B)). In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the fact that mtDNA C ancient specimens show an affinity to Ust-Ishim hints that mtDNA CZ, one of which is found in Yumin, multiplied in the Ust-Ishim-related mtDNA R* population, replacing Ust-Ishim-related mtDNA R* lineages. The fact that the Boshan individual can show this [11% L3-related] [7% Ust-Ishim R*-related] [6% Tianyuan B-related] sequence may hint that mtDNA R settled in the mtDNA L3 population on the territory of China.

So West African-like DNA in China can be evolving, and one of results of this evolution already appeared as a component in the ancient Tianyuan genome 40000 years ago. As the Boshan specimen proves that such female-mediated DNA existed, it is quite likely that there also existed West African like male-mediated DNA, which also could evolve into something related to Tianyuan.

The age of 73300 is the age of the yDNA DE* population before the split into D and E (“A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa”). yDNA DE* was only found in a Tibetan and Nigerians. However, as such a female population could evolve into mtDNA B-related population which contributed to Tianyuan, it is likely that such West African-like DNA could also evolve into DNA of populations with other yDNA lineages than DE*. Layers of these populations should have become “ghosts”, because their yDNA was substituted by O-M122 and other lineages. As yDNA has a pseudoautosomal region, perhaps this can blur the work of DNA predictors.


The fact that Boshan has 73300-year old population’s DNA means that Boshan acquired one of the oldest type of DNA related to mtDNA L3 Africans.

On the contrary, Japanese Jomon yDNA D was modeled using yDNA of Qihe3 which was modeled using yDNA CF of La368 (Laos Hoabinhian) plus some Longlin-related drift in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Interestingly, yDNA N of Bianbian and yDNA O-M122 of Shannan3K was similarly modeled using yDNA CF of La368. However, La368 who may be yDNA C1b does not require any contribution from yDNA C1b Kostenki14 in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". It is thought in China that yDNA D in China and yDNA C in China were already qualitatively similar to yDNA F population ancestral to NO-M214.

So it is interesting to know among which mtDNAs yDNA D might have settled in China. The mtDNA paper by Qiaomei Fu mentions the age of mtDNA B as ca. 50000 years ago, which would be quite similar to the the 50000-year-old age of yDNA D branches living in Eastern Eurasia. However, there is a discrepancy between a wide distribution of mtDNA B and the scarcity of yDNA D.


In Fig.2e https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/...add5582-f2.jpg
In Fig.2e above, there are three branches.
One branch (male Laos Hoabinhian/female Onge) is related to 49% DNA (which should include yDNA as well) in Bianbian(yDNA N-M231) and Shannan3K (O-M122).

One branch (Tianyuan) is related to 51% IN Bianbian (mtDNA R/B5b2), Yumin (mtDNA C5d related to mtDNA R*in Ust-Ishim), (51%-3,2%) in Chamdo_2.8K_1 (mtDNA B4d123 with 3,2% affinity to GonurBA_1, and mtDNA B4d123 specimen had 3,2% affinity to Jomon in “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations”).

The last branch should be related to mtDNA N9b-like population of Jomon and to mtDNA M of Longlin (when Longlin is independent from Hoabinhians and forms a trifurcation with Tianyuan and Hoabinhians as is mentioned in the main text of in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"; mtDNA G, which possibly distributed with dead branches of NO-M214, is also such an mtDNA M lineage independent of Hoabinhians and Onge). Interestingly, Jomon affinity was detected in southern Central Asian Gonur-related populations, but the model was inferred to be not accurate.

So it is interesting to know the population of which female mtDNAs is responsible for the distance between La368 and female Onge samples in Fig.2e https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/...add5582-f2.jpg

mtDNA M40 which has a connection to Bianbian’s mtDNA B5b2 is capable of being one of such mtDNAs. In China, mtDNA M40 did not preserve (the same as male lineages which went in the direction closer to the coast near the Andaman Islands) and M40 was substituted by mtDNA M76 which also mixed with Longlin. mtDNA M76 disintegrated ca.39000 years ago, the branch M76a went to Dushan ancestors, the branch M76b went to Jomon ancestors, and M76* went to Boshan (N-M231) ancestors. M76* is found in China not far from the Shandong Province and this M76* has a connection to both B5b2 of Bianbian as well as D4e5 related to AR7.3K_outlier.

mtDNA M40 has a connection to mtDNA R24, a sister branch of mtDNA B. mtDNA R24 has a connection to mtDNA M77 which may be one of the island components of Jomon. So it is possible that some of yDNA D branches distributed with mtDNA R24, interacting with NO-M214, some of whom distributed with mtDNA M40 and M76. The absence of R24 in modern China is correlated with the absence of those yDNA D lineages during the ancient period.

The archaeological correlate for the distribution of NO-M214 “towards the continental homeland of Onge ancestors” is briefly described in the following English abstract:

XIE Guangmao, Guangxi Institute of Cultural Relic Protection and Archaeology, China; LIN Qiang, Guangxi Institute of Cultural Relic Protection and Archaeology, China; Wu Yan, Chongqing China Three Gorges Museum, China; Li Dawei, Guangxi Museum of Nationalities, China

Assemblages of Small Flake Implements from South China and Southeast Asia

In South China (defined here as an area in the south of the Five Ridges) and Southeast Asia, the Paleolithic industries are known as Chopper-Chopping Tool Complex or Pebble-Tool Industry. Stone tools are often made on cobbles, and most of them are choppers. They are large and heavy. However, in the Upper Palaeolithic, small flake implements dominating the assemblage were found at some sites in this region. These sites can be represented by Bailiandong in South China and Nguom, Lang Rongrien in Southeast Asia. Bailiandong cave is located in Liuzhou of central Guangxi, South China. It is a prehistoric site which spans in time from late Palaeolithic age to Neolithic age. Human fossil teeth, stone artifacts, pottery and animal fossils were unearthed from this site, which can be divided into five phases. Phase 1 phase 2 and phase 3 belong to Upper Palaeolithic age, while phase 4 and phase 5 Neolithic age. Two series were identified in the stone artifacts: pebble tools and small flake implements. Technologically and typologically, the pebble tool series belongs to the Pebble-Tool Industry in South China, while the small flake implement series is a new assemblage which is rare in South China. The raw materials for making the small flake implements are nearly flint. Direct percussion and rare pressure technique were used to detach flakes. No prepared platform was found with cores. Retouched flakes are in a small number, and are often unifacially made. The tool types are scrapers, points etc., small in size, often with the length between 2–3 cm. This is in sharp contrast to the pebble tools. Although small flake implements continued to exist in phase 2, it decreased in number, and in phase 3 it dropped to a small number and the pebble tools became predominant. Nguom rockshelter is located in Northern Vietnam. Three assemblages from different stratigraphic layers were identified at this site. Stone artifacts from layer 2 and layer 3 belong to Hoabinh Culture and Sonvi Culture respectively, while those from layer 4 and layer 5 belong to a new industry which was termed as Nguom Culture which was dated between 40 000BP and 23 000BP. Raw materials of the stone artifacts are mainly flint. Direct percussion is the only method for tool making. Retouched implements are many, small in size, and most of them were unifacially made on flake. Tools include choppers, scrapers and points with scrapers predominant. Lang Rongrien rockshelter is located in southwestern Thailand near the Malaysian border. Excavation of this site uncovered a 3.5-m-thick deposit comprising 10 stratigraphic units with a time span from 2 530 to 43 000BP. Three phases were identified among the cultural remains. Phase1 is corresponding to Upper levels (unit 1–4) and belongs to the latter half of Holocene. Phase 2 is corresponding to Middle levels (unit 5-6) and belongs to the Hoabinian. Phase 3 is corresponding to Lower levels (unit 8–9) and belongs to Upper Palaeolithic. The stone assemblage of Phase 3 is primarily of small flake tools. Raw materials of the stone artifacts are mainly chert. Direct percussion is the only method for tool making. Retouched implements and utilized flakes consist of the majority of the stone artifacts. Types of the tools are choppers, scrapers, knives and gravers with scraper predominant. Most of the tools were unifacially made on flake. Contrary to the long-standing, uninterrupted Chopper-Chopping Tool Complex or Pebble-Tool Industry in South China and Southeast Asia, the aforementioned assemblages from this region are primarily of flake tools. These assemblages are characterized by an extensive use of small, irregular flake implements. The occurrence of small flake implements in the Upper Palaeolithic in South China and Southeast Asia may be due to the change of climate and migration of prehistoric men. Data from the Niah Cave in Malaysia, the Tabon Cave in Philippines and the Nguom Rock shelter in Vietnam indicates that a cold and arid phase took place from 32000–23000BP. But the degree of climate change was enough to change the subsistence (which resulted in the change of the tool-kit) or not remain to be questioned, for in South China and Southeast Asia, sites from which small flake implements were found are few and far between. Assemblages from many sites of this period, especially the open-air sites in this vast region belong to the Pebble-Tool Industry. The reasonable interpretation may be that groups of the prehistoric men from the northern areas (southwestern China and north of the Five Ridges) migrated into South China and Southeast Asia during the cold phase, bringing their technology with them and made these small flake implements which were suitable to the somewhat changed subsistence strategies at this period.

It is Bianbian (N-M231) who was used to model the “male” 49% part of the Thailand ancient in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". However, the same article insists on the scarcity of Hoabinhian-related “comebacks” to China which were only detected during the Baojianshan period. Populations which did not leave China and survived in China developed together with other East Asians.

The association of Gerhard Jager’s “language trees” with population movements of rare and minor lineages (for example, lineages from the continuum, to which mtDNA M75 ancient Baojianshan was related). Non-mainstream rare lineages may be responsible for Gerhard Jager’s curious “language trees”

https://i.ibb.co/Srfqkyh/phpo0-M1-XI.png
The following qpGraph model from “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia” includes:
[1] Tianyuan (the most ancient division)
[2] G1 Hoabinhians from Southeast Asia
[3] Longlin (who also has a genetic connection as far as KolymaM where KolymaM was not far from the Bering Strait)
[4] Baojianshan (an mtDNA M75 individual who contributed to both Hoabinhians whose populations distributed as far as Indian Ocean islands, and Baojianshan contributed to ANE-related population which also contributed to Native Americans)
[5] Dushan (possibly contributed to the Hmong-Mien populations)
[6] Boshan and Qihe3 whose remains on the territory of China were later assimilated by Sino-Tibetans. Boshan and Qihe3 are joined together, because it is described in the text that Liangdao2 has the excess of Boshan-related Northern East Asian ancestry which as contributed to Qihe3

The American/Eastern Eurasian part of the Gerhard Jager’s “linguistic” tree from year 2016 includes:
http://evolang.org/neworleans/pdf/EV..._paper_147.pdf
“INFERRING THE WORLD TREE OF LANGUAGES FROM WORD LISTS”
[1] The largest part of Papuan and Native American languages (the first division)
[2] Southeast Asian Timor-Alor-Pantar languages which clustered with Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, Austronesian languages;
[3] American Siouan languages; they were available in the full set of Jager’s data http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gja.../worldTree.svg
[4] An interesting node: the Japanese language plus the branch comprising a Native American “nearly isolate” language and an Indian Ocean “nearly isolate” language (like the unclear Shom_Pen language); they were available in the full set of Jager’s data http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gja...worldTree.svg;
[5] Hmong-Mien languages and some Tibetan languages;
[6] the rest of Sino-Tibetan languages.

Interestingly, according to Gerhard Jager full model from 2017, the Sumerian language was placed by Jager into African Nilo-Saharan languages, but Sumerian of Jager also has a ‘relative’ in “Papunesia”, so at least according to Jager, Sumerians should contain a component which is a very ancient migration which would be present in Africa and even reach some area in Papunesia. The Qiaomei Fu finding of the possible DE* population-related autosomal component to a certain degree mirrors the finding of Gerhard Jager. It is sometimes claimed that Sino-Tibetan languages are related to Sumerian, so the above is the explanation in what form such an African-like ancestry would be present and distributed in China: see https://i.ibb.co/Vjqjf9D/php-Icy-JRX.png The bearer of this African-like ancestry is Boshan (N-M231).

There is a model in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia" where there is trifurcation of the Longlin-related ancestry into Boshan (N-M231), inland Dushan (O-M122) and Austronesian-related Qihe3 (possibly O-M175, related to O-M119 Liangdao1)

https://i.ibb.co/Vjqjf9D/php-Icy-JRX.png

As the Qihe3 population is connected to the populations containing mtDNA M23 haplogroup, the trifurcation should be related to the dessimination of M23’75 haplogroup. There is a connection between mtDNA M23-related populations and the ancient specimen of Oase1 (possibly N-M231), and Boshan branch in the model admixed with deep ancestry is a representative of this mtDNA M23-related population.

Via Liaodong/Bohai seacoast to Korea: Shandong Bianbian-related formation for Liaodong-related populations

Bianbian is a 9500-year-old Shandong individual of yDNA N-M231 and mtDNA B5b2. According to “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, Bianbian’s “pottery shards show similarities to later local vessels from the Houli culture (8,500-7,500 BP) found in the Shandong region, making this the earliest known pottery in Shandong thus far (58).”

According to “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”,
“A previous study speculated that populations carrying haplogroup B5b migrated from northwestern mainland East Asia into other East Asian areas, bypassing Shandong.” (…)
“We also discovered the B5b2 lineage in Shandong populations, with the oldest Bianbian individual likely related to the ancestors of some East Asians and North Asians.” (…)
“Haplogroup B5b is found widely across East Asia, with its highest diversity in present-day Koreans [34].”

Interestingly, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, on the PCA, the Koreans occupy a intermediate position between Bianbian and an individual such as AR19K. So far AR19K was named by the article “the earliest northern East Asian appeared in the Amur region at the end of the LGM”, and, in addition to that, AR19K had a Htin Mal-related autosomal component in the same study, while the Htin Mal are the yDNA O1b-rich population. The Japanese are slightly shifted from Koreans towards Jomon on the same PCA. See the PCA https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...54-gr1_lrg.jpg

The direction of Bianbian-related migration towards the Bohai Gulf coast, spanning from 9500 years ago to 4600 years ago, is shown in “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”, see the northern migration on the following picture https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...57-gr3_lrg.jpg

In his rather new presentation "Recent Japanese / Korean origin theory and the spread of agriculture" (https://q-aos.kyushu-u.ac.jp/wp-cont...6542b24c41.pdf ), Kazuo Miyamoto pointed that “these languages are relatively shallow languages, with Japonic and Koreanic splitting out from Macro-Tungusic family in the chronological scheme (Unger 2009).” (…) “Proto-Japonic and Proto-Koreanic speakers split off the area around the Bohai Gulf from Shandong to Liaoning and moved into southern Manchuria. And Proto-Japonic speakers brought wet-field rice to the Korean Peninsula, and that Koreanic speakers moved into the Korean Peninsula and drove out the Proto-Japonic speakers (Unger 2014).”

However, on the picture drawn in Kazuo Miyamoto’s presentation the territories of Shandong, non-Liao River Basin-related Bohai Gulf coast are exluded from the area influenced by “Altaic” (Mongol, Manchu(Tungusic)):
ETHNOLINGUISTIC SITUATION IN EAST ASIA FROM MIYAMOTO KAZUO’S PRESENTATION https://i.ibb.co/yktsQqx/phpkeonv3.png

This is paralleled by “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...57-gr3_lrg.jpg ), where the Bianbian-related migration was placed to the spot where there was approximately no direct “Altaic” influence, according to Miyamoto Kazuo. The “maritime” placement in the most maritime zone would allow Bianbian-related populations to reach the Liaodong Peninsula avoiding “Altaic” influence.

Interestingly, there is no any sort of any border between Shandong and the Yangtze river basin territory which was named “Pre-Sinitic language situation is unknown” in Miyamoto Kazuo’s presentation https://i.ibb.co/yktsQqx/phpkeonv3.png

However, the Bianbian specimen is capable of introducing a certain limitation. It can be seen that Bianbian is the most “southern shifted” ancient Shandong individual (see https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...54-gr1_lrg.jpg in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”).
It was shown in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” that Neolithic Shandong individuals receive some ancestry from Fujian_Late Neolithic (Tanshishan, Xitoucun) in Treemix, but not from Fujian_Early Neolithic (Liangdao2, Qihe2) in Treemix
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...-phylogeny.ppm
However, Shandong Boshan and Xiaogao have a Fujian Early Neolithic affinity in the qpGraph model (an affinity to Liangdao2). It is Bianbian who has non-negligible additional Southern East Asian affinity in qpGraph (the additional “orange-coloured” ancestry in Bianbian). Thus it is possible that it was Bianbian who caused the shift to the Fujian Late Neolithic source in the Treemix model. Relative to the coastal Early Neolithic Liangdao2 and Qihe2, the Fujian Late Neolithic source should be admixed with the more inland mysterious populations from the Yangtze river basin territory which was named “Pre-Sinitic language situation is unknown” in Miyamoto Kazuo’s presentation https://i.ibb.co/yktsQqx/phpkeonv3.png

Thus, the influence of such populations onto Northern East Asians was very likely to be mediated by their northern neighbours such as Bianbian-related populations, and this Yangtze River Basin ancestry only existed in the form admixed with Bianbian-related ancestry in Northern East Asia in the Neolithic.

As, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, on the PCA, the Koreans occupy a intermediate position between the most southern Shandong Bianbian and an individual such as AR19K, it is very likely that Bianbian-related populations delivered the Yangtze River basin-related ancestry to the Korean Peninsula as well (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...54-gr1_lrg.jpg).

The timing of Bianbian-related migrations in “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” (4600-9500 years ago) also includes the time range for the formation of the Pianpu culture of the Liaodong Peninsula, which is thought to derive from Shandong and is thought by Miyamoto Kazuo to be an important ancestor for Japonic- and Koreanic-related populations. According to models from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the “culture-triggering” autosomal component in Boshan_EN formed in the Late Palaeolithic with the participation of branches related to yDNA N and yDNA O-M122 populations, and autosomally Bianbian-like populations also interacted with this component. Unfortunately, the involved mtDNA lineage is quite rare, so it is hardly possible to say that the “culture-triggering” autosomal component found in Shandong would be directly ancestral to all mainstream Sino-Tibetan populations.

The Shandong Bianbian genome provides a clue what to expect of ancient Liaodong genomes.

The distribution of M7b1a1a1 to Japan and Mongolia via Shandong_EN-related populations
d
The article “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” established by its models that a female Southern East Asian Liangdao2 can contribute “female-related” ancestry to the Siberian KolymaM. In 'Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)' a female Yiyang specimen from Guangxi Province of China belonged to mtDNA M7b1a1a3 and she can be modeled as 96%Liangdao2+4%Kolyma PValue=0,0715; however, Pnest of this model is higher than 0,05, which means that a “one-source” model should be better for Yiyang. Indeed, in the same article, a “one-source” model Yiyang=100%Liangdao2 yielded a higher Pvalue=0,0978. Thus, 4% KolymaM-like “female” ancestry in mtDNA M7b1a1a3 Yiyang specimen should be related to the Liangdao2-related East Asian female contribution into the KolymaM specimen. Interestingly, a sister clade of Yiyang’s mtDNA M7b1a1a3, a clade M7b1a1a1, is predominantly found in Japanese. However, the distribution of M7b1a1a3 in Southern China and Southeast Asia (Yunnan, Taiwan, Thailand, Thaildand Khmer, Laos, Vietnam) is very well represented. So it is unlikely that the introduction of Liangdao2-like ancestry also contributed to KolymaM happened individually to M7b1a1a3 in Southern China and Southeast Asia. When one takes into account the fact that mtDNA M7b was reported from one Japan Jomon site, It is more likely that M7b1a1a3 and Japanese M7b1a1a1 shared the same homeland on the continent from where the territory of Japan Jomon could be reached, and they additionally interacted with the same branch of Liangdao2-related populations which were capable to distribute along the sea coast as far to the north, as a location of KolymaM not far from the sea coast was situtuated. As the direction of distribution of M7b and Liangdao2-related populations would be from south to the north, it does not necessarily involve the considerable mixing of M7b and Liangdao2-related populations with northern C2-M217>C2-F1756-rich populations. The models actually favour their mixing with Bianbian- or Boshan-related populations over Devil’s Gate C2-M217>C2-F1756-rich populations. Indeed, the model Yiyang=72,2%female Liangdao2+(27,3%+0,5%)male Bianbian yielded PValue=0,55, whereas the model Yiyang=72,7% Dushan+27,3%Devil’s Cave yielded a Pvalue=0,07; thus, the Northern East Asian DNA percentage in Yiyang which is likely to be found in male individuals is similar for Bianbian and Devil’s Cave; however, it is much more likely that mtDNA M7b1a1a3 Yiyang would acquire such a Northern East Asian percentage from a geographically closer Bianbian rather than from the more remote Devil’s Cave. There is also one more model for Yiyang involving Devil’s Cave: Yiyang=82,5% Liangdao2+17,5%Devil’s Cave, Pvalue=0,5; however, this model does not necessarily imply direct involvement of Northern East Asian ancestry related exclusively to Devil’s Cave; the reason is the following: there is such a model in qpGraph where all individuals (Boshan, Dushan, Qihe3) are modeled as 83%Tianyuan+17%Longlin, thus, both Northern and Southern East Asians have this 17%Longlin, which is very similar to the model Tianyuan=82%[yDNAC1b Kostenki14/yDNA C1a Sunghir III] + 18%yDNA F-Y27277BachoKiro F6-620 https://www.theytree.com/tree/F-M89 and Figure S6.2 Adding Bacho Kiro F6-620 to the base graph in Hajdinjak et al, 2021, though this BachoKiro/Longlin yDNA F-Y27277 related ancestry in Tianyuan (18%) is slightly more ancient than in later ancient East Asians (17%); so 17% is a generic percentage for some Ancient East Asians, likely including Devil’s Gate, which is qualitatively different in Liangdao2, so this 17% does not imply actual mixing of Yiyang’s ancestors with Devil’s Cave to such a degree; as for the remaining 0,5% of Devil’s Gate ancestry, the model Yiyang=72,2%female Liangdao2+(27,3%+0,5%)male Bianbian yielded PValue=0,55, the model Yiyang=(72,2%+0,5%) Dushan+27,3%Devil’s Cave yielded a Pvalue=0,07, and the models show that Yiyang prefers 0,5% in Bianbian and 0,5% in Dushan to this Devil’s Cave 0,5%; so those 0,5% is another kind of generic ancestry which was already distributed among many ancient East Asian populations across a wide geographic area, while the model with 0,5% of this ancestry for mtDNA M7b1a1a3 Yiyang from Bianbian yielded the highest PValue=0,55, implying that ancestors of mtDNA M7b1a1a3 Yiyang and Shandong Bianbian actually interacted in the past. The fact that the highest Pvalue=0,799 was obtained for the model Yiyang=(66%+0,4%)Dushan +(0,34%+0,6%)Boshan, when compared to qpGraph model Dushan=Boshan=35%Longlin+65%Tianyuan, probably means that mtDNA Yiyang ancestors interacted with more ancient Bianbian-related populations less intensvely than with later populations with increased mtDNA B4a-related Dushan-related Tianyuan-like ancestry and decreased Boshan-specific Longlin-like ancestry, while northern Boshan interacted with other mtDNA M relatives of M7b1a1a3 Yiyang more intensively than Dushan did (0,6% Yiyang-related DNA modeled with Boshan vs. 0,4% Yiyang-related DNA modeled with Dushan), implying a more northern origin for M7b1a1a3 in general than the location of Dushan in the Guangxi Province of China.


To cut a long story short, mtDNA M7b1a1a3 found Yiyang had a more northern homeland than its modern Sotheast Asian distribution, the ancestors of mtDNA M7b1a1a3 interacted with an yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-related population rather than with Devil’s Cave-related C2-M217>C2-F1756-rich population which Devil’s Cave-related peoples possibly included ancestors of very recent C-Y10420 and C-F3830 whose distribution is probably specific to much more recent Altaic migrations, most of which happened during the historical period and are not suitable as a material for ethnogenetic reconstructions for the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period. During the post-Bianbian-period mtDNA M7b1a1a3 Yiyang ancestors started to interact with a more southern kind of Boshan-related ancestry with slightly decreased amount of yDNA N in favour of increased amount of Shandong-related yDNA O-M122 and started to distribute to the south where Dushan-related mtDNA B4a could often be found. mtDNA M7b1a1a3 in Yiyang is related to the Japanese M7b1a1a1, while a case of M7b was also reported from Jomon. Interstingly, in another model from 'Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)' Bianbian rather than Boshan can serve as a better source for a certain portion of Jomon-related ancestry. However, M7b in Japan was found in association with mtDNA M10, and this sort of ancestry is better modeled using later Boshan in 'Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)', implying a more recent connection between the territory of Boshan and mtDNA M7b/M10 population in Jomon (when combined with the fact of a larger Bianbian-Jomon connection not found for Boshan, it probably means that there was a more massive contribution to Jomon from continental Bianbian-related populations, but the very case of mtDNA M7b+M10 observed in Jomon might have been a result of an occasional migration from the territory akin to Boshan). However, it is the Bianbian-related ancestry that distributed to Liaodong according to Chinese articles, where such cultures as the Pianpu culture were also found. It is this Liaodong territory which was later occupied by the Mongol-related populations, part of whom later migrated to territories akin to Mongolia (Miroslava Derenko, Galina Denisova, Irina Dambueva, Boris Malyarchuk, and Boris Bazarov, "Mitogenomics of modern Mongolic-speaking populations." Molecular Genetics and Genomics volume 297, pages 47–62 (2022). Barghut 1/101 M7b1a1a1*, 1/101 M7b1a1a1b*), and it is M7b1a1a1 that is a branch which is more widely distributed in Japanese , and M7b1a1a1 is a branch also found in Turkic-related populations in Xinjiang, while the rare case of M7b1a1a3 in Kazakh which shares 2500-year-old relatives in the Jiangsu Province of China, Thailand and Vietnam was probably related to migrations which were already mediated by populations from China.

M7b1a1a with its homeland closer to the territory of rice domestication is probably one of potentially rice farmer-related lineages in the Japanese, and it interacted with Bianbian-related populations which migrated to Shandong, and it is hardly possible to attribute continental cases of M7b1a1a to Mongol, Tunguz, Turk (Altaic-related populations) from the very dawn of Neolithic. M7b1a1a3 probably migrated to the south with Boshan-related populations, M7b1a1a1 probably migrated to Liaodong with Bianbian-related populations.

By the way, regarding a more basal mtDNA M7b1a1, which was found in the Gaohuahua series which fell the closest genetically to the Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao peoples, the model for the Gaohuahua was even quoted in the main text of the article: “The best model is one where GaoHuaHua is a mixture of northern East Asian ancestry (Boshan, 34%) and Dushan-related ancestry (66%, Table S3).”
Gaohuahua includes the following males
HuatuyanNL02 O-M122>O-M7>…>O-N5
HuatuyanNL17 O-M122>O-IMS-JST002611* (a basal lineage)
HuatuyanNL21 yDNA C1b (C-Z33130, likely C-B65)

Unlike this, a series including yDNA O1b (O-M95) (a variety which was not influenced by C2-M217-rich Devil’s Cave) was best modeled using the Qihe3 sample rather than O-M7-related Dushan sample in “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)”:
Ancient Loyang Ujung Karung (Indonesia) G5 series include
In661 Late Neolithic-Iron Age, flexed burials 1866 ± 26 years ago, female, mtDNA F1a1a
In662 Late Neolithic-Iron Age, flexed burials 2199 ± 82 years ago, male mtDNA M20, yDNA O1b https://www.theytree.com/tree/O-M1284
G5=66,5% Qihe3 + 33,5% Hoabinhian. PValue=0,47.

Similarly, Qihe3 yielded better results modeling a series Th521 mtDNA F1f yDNA O1b1a1a1b

Thus, it is more likely that mtDNA M7b1a1 was associated with O-M122 population (likely Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao-related branches) rather than with O-M95 populations.

A different kind of yDNA O1b

yDNA O1b MA912 (ancient from Malaysia) was modeled using Devil’s Gate (Northeast Asia) in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"

MA912 is from Gua Cha (Malaysia). He is buried at the Neolithic farmer cemetery (Phase 2) 2447 years ago. His yDNA is O1b1a1a1b1, his mtDNA is M13c ( https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...374v1.full.pdf )

The best qpAdm model for him in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" is the following:

Ma912_G2=6% Devil’s Gate + 94% Longlin. PValue=0,1.

The model with Devil’s Gate had higher Pvalue than models with Boshan (yDNA N) and Qihe3 (likely yDNA O). Female-only model (Liangdao2+Longlin) had lower Pvalue than models with Boshan (yDNA N) and Qihe3 (likely yDNA O).

Longlin is female. Devil’s Gate male samples usually contained only yDNA C2b (see https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...829v1.full.pdf).

The only sample containing a male y chromosome (yDNA C2b) in this model can be from the Devil’s Cave series. A selection used by Qiaomei Fu for another article was NEO239 (male yDNA C2b/mtDNA D4m) NEO236 (female, mtDNA D4) NEO238 (female, mtDNA D4) NEO240 (female, mtDNA D4m) https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.c...eb61ea22b/mmc2

If Devil’s Gate samples used in this article are the same, then only Devil’s Gate NEO239 (male yDNA C2b/mtDNA D4m) has a male y chromsome C2b. In any case, Pvalue for Devil’s Gate is the highest one and is higher than for female-only models, making it extremely likely that yDNA C2b was present in the model for Ma912_G2 (yDNA O1b1a1a1b1).

Devil’s Gate does not have any male samples with yDNA other than C2b.

Models with Boshan (yDNA N) and Qihe3 (likely yDNA O) yielded lower Pvalue than the model with Devil’s Gate.

Devil’s Gate samples are neolithic (ca. 7500 BP (7500 years before present) ), they are much older than the spread of language families, whose speakers include a lot of yDNA C2b bearers (cf. Martine Robbeets “Language family node ages were informed by age priors (…), Mongolic 750 BP ± 50, Tungusic 1900 BP ± 275, ). These calibrations are supported by chronological estimations proposed in linguistic literature (Supplementary Data 18).”). As it is unlikely that yDNA O1b1a1a1b1 of MA912 was influenced by northern C2b of Devil’s Gate; the other possibility implies the influence from a population of yDNA O1b bearers onto Devil’s Gate’s C2b males.

In order to enhance the mysteriousness of yDNA O1b1a1a1b1 Ma912_G2 Devil’s Gate connection, let us have a look at model for other yDNA O1b samples in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"
Ancient Long Long Rak (Thailand) G4 series include (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...4v1.full.pdf):
Th519 mtDNA B5a1d yDNA N
Th521 mtDNA F1f yDNA O1b1a1a1b
Th703 mtDNA B5a1d yDNA NO
Th530 mtDNA G2b1a yDNA IJK
It can be modeled using Bianbian (N-M231 male) + Longlin (female) (Pvalue=0,082), but a slightly higher Pvalue (Pvalue=0,084) is obtained when G4 series is modeled using Bianbian (N-M231 male) + Qihe3 (likely yDNA O male) (see https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.c...a9bd51a41/mmc3)

Ancient Loyang Ujung Karung (Indonesia) G5 series include
In661 Late Neolithic-Iron Age, flexed burials 1866 ± 26 years ago, female, mtDNA F1a1a
In662 Late Neolithic-Iron Age, flexed burials 2199 ± 82 years ago, male mtDNA M20, yDNA O1b
G5=66,5% Qihe3 + 33,5% Hoabinhian. PValue=0,47.

Thus, G4 series where there is one yDNA O1b1a1a1b is slightly better modeled using Qihe3 (likely yDNA O male), G5 series where there is one yDNA O1b is solely modeled using Qihe3 (likely yDNA O male). Unlike Ydna O1b1a1a1b1 MA912, none of these O1b-related series needs Devil’S Gate to be modeled preferring Qihe3.
The TMRCA of O1b1a1a1b1 is 6300 years ago with MA912 being the basal branch, according to Yfull.
The TMRCA of O1b1a1a1b is 8000 years ago, according to Yfull.

So at least O1b1a1a1b1 MA912 (Malaysia) needs Devil’s Gate population which was possibly influenced by some O1b bearers’ people in Northeast Asia.
Devil’s Gate (7500 years old) is older than the TMRCA of O1b1a1a1b1 (6300 years), so there might have been some closer interaction within the O1b continuum rather than directly between O1b1a1a1b1 MA912 (Malaysia) and northern C2b people of Devil’s Gate proper. Was there any ancient civilization (in the Lower Yangtze River basin?) to mediate such an influence???

The fate of hg N-M231 in Japan

Table 1 Frequencies (%) of Japanese haplogroups in six Japanese populations
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg20068/tables/1

The Aomori prefecture of Japan is not the only place where yDNA N haplogroup was found (probably N-F2905 branch), another place being Shizuoka prefecture to the south of Tokyo (probably also N-F2905 branch) and Tokushima prefecture on the Shikoku island in the southern part of Japan (N-M178 branch in Hammer at el, 2006). Interestingly, in the older mtDNA articles, high shares of rare mtDNA M* was reported for some of ancient Liaohe sites. I noticed that Japanese researchers carefully gathered and tied all rare, but “prospective” mtDNA M branches (formerly designated as M*) found in Northeast China to the mtDNA M* of the ancient Goyet Q116-1 specimen in Belgium, Europe. This is where they probably would see ancient N haplogroup living, rather than in ancient Lioahe River Basin and ancient Shandong sites, simultaneously being suporters of Southeast Asian homeland for O-M175. However, it is unknown if these M* haplogroups were really connected to yDNA N populations (for example, mtDNA M33c which appeared to be a regular Chinese mtDNA haplogroup). Taking the above into account, it is interesting to know the source of higher unspecified yDNA K2 shares in some Japanese pieces of research, where yDNA N does not appear at all.

There are multiple attempts to connect the Japanese language to various languages in the world, including those spoken in ancient civilizations. J. Marshall Unger was mentioned in this topic as supporter of Japanese links with Korean and Tungusic, and, alongside Manchu and Korean, Unger even cites Sumerian (Yoshiwara 1991) or Native American Zuñi (Davis 2001) as two exceedingly far-fetched candidates with which Japanese has been compared.
https://www.academia.edu/79477015/No..._as_an_Isolate
No Rush to Judgment : The Case against Japanese as an Isolate J. Marshall Unger

The territory of the Tokushima prefecture mentioned in the yDNA list above (https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg20068/tables/1) may have been one of the early territories subject to the Yamato kingdom’s rule.

Tokushima site is Japan’s oldest mine, newfound artifacts suggest
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
March 17, 2019 at 07:30 JST

ANAN, Tokushima Prefecture--Ruins found here indicate Japan began mining more than five centuries earlier than thought, and make this southern city home to its oldest mine, officials said.
Earthenware fragments, likely dating to the late Yayoi Pottery Culture period (300 B.C.-A.D. 300), were found at the Wakasugiyama archaeological site, showing that mining had presumably already started by that age, Anan's city government and the Tokushima Prefecture education board announced on March 1.
Ruins of the Naganobori copper mine in Mine, Yamaguchi Prefecture, dating to sometime around the eighth century, had been believed to be the nation’s oldest ore mine.
The Wakasugiyama ruins are thought to be of an ancient mine for the mineral cinnabar, the raw material for vermilion.
Cinnabar is a chemical compound that combines mercury and sulfur, officials with the city government’s culture promotion division and other sources said.
In ancient times, the faces of dead people, caskets, stone chambers of burial mounds and other items were daubed with powder made by grinding rock containing cinnabar.
Vermillion was then seen as a symbol of authority. Weizhi Worenzhuan (Accounts of the Wa people, Records of Wei), a section in a Chinese history book describing the Three Kingdoms period of the third century, says that mountains of Wa (Japanese islands) produced cinnabar, which Queen Himiko of Wa presented as a gift to a Chinese dynasty.
A tunnel, likely used for mining, and a strip-mining site were uncovered earlier at the Wakasugiyama site, Japan’s only archaeological ruins of a cinnabar mine.
The earthenware fragments were excavated during a study earlier this fiscal year, from the ruins of the tunnel on the side of 245-meter Mount Wakasugiyama, which is 0.7-1.2 meters tall, about 3 meters wide in its central section and 12.7 meters deep. Five fragments had features characteristic of earthenware from the late Yayoi Pottery Culture period.
The Wakasugiyama site has also produced earthenware with features associated with other regions of Japan, including Sanin and Kinki. That indicates that interactions involving cinnabar covered broad geographical areas.
“Given that Weizhi Worenzhuan mentions the availability of cinnabar, vermillion production in third-century western Japan was likely drawing the attention of Chinese,” said Hironobu Ishino, honorary director of the Hyogo Prefectural Museum of Archaeology, who is an archaeologist himself. “It is quite significant that the availability of the mineral has emerged more clearly in the form of an archaeological site.”
(This article was written by Tsunetaka Sato and Yoshito Watari.)

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article..._html/-char/en
Determination of Sources of Vermilion Used in Japanese Burial Mound of Yayoi and Kofun Periods
Maya Kawano, Akinori Takeuchi, Kazuya Takahashi, Setsuo Imazu, Takeshi Minami
“In addition, Wakasugiyama in modern Tokushima Prefecture is well known for remains from the Yayoi period and many antiquities, including vermilion, have been excavated from near the Sui cinnabar mine.”
“Although the sulfur isotope ratio did not differ between Yamato-Suigin and Sui mines, it is thought that both were within the radius of the ancient Yamato dynasty.”

Tokushima (TOK)
D-P37.1 – 25.7%
O-P31 – 32.9%
O-M122 – 21.4%
C-M8 – 10%
C-M217 – 2.8%
N – 7.1%

The appearance of ALDH2 and ADH1B alleles (the ones linked by the Japanese scientists with "the distribution of rice farmers to Japan") in the Tibetan Plateau's Zongri culture's yDNA N-M231-rich population

Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese Population: Insights from a Large-Scale Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis
“Both the non-synonymous A allele of ALDH2 rs671 and the C allele of ADH1B rs1229984 affect the retention of acetaldehyde in the body and cause alcohol flush in Asians [17,18]. These alleles have been suggested to be associated with Japanese dietary habits and diseases, such as esophageal cancer [34,35]. Previous studies have hypothesized that positive selection may have acted to maintain acetaldehyde in the blood against parasite infection, which correlates with large-scale rice cultivation [36–39]. We also observed that the increase in the frequency of ADH1B occurred earlier than that of ALDH2, indicating that positive selection began to act at different times for these two genes (Fig 6A and 6B). Based on the geographic distribution of haplotype structures around ADH1B and ALDH2, according to Koganebuchi et al., positive selection on ADH1B rs1229984 started before the beginning of the Jomon period, while positive natural selection on ALDH2 began around 8,000 years ago, in association with the beginning of rice cultivation in China [39].”

The data on ALDH2 and ADH1B in ancient Upper Yellow River Zongri and other “Tibetan Plateau” populations can be observed in Supplementary Table 23 “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”

ALDH2 ADH1B
rs671 rs1229984
Zongri C4783_C202 4,0 17,0
Zongri C050 0,0 4,0
Zongri CSP054 0,0 0,0
Zongri C4776 0,0 5,0
Zongri C4777 3,0 11,0
Zongri C4778 0,0 14,0
Zongri C4782 1,0 17,0
Zongri CSP046 0,0 2,0
Zongri CSP047 0,0 5,0
Zongri CSP057 0,0 0,0
Zongri C4781 0,0 4,0
Zongri C051 0,0 2,0
Zongri C056 1,0 1,0
Zongri C4774 0,0 7,0
Zongri C4775 2,0 10,0
Zongri C4779 0,0 4,0
Zongri C4780 2,0 8,0
Zongri C208 0,0 1,0
Zongri CSP048 2,0 0,0
Pukagongma CSP133 1,0 0,0
Pukagongma CSP134 0,0 0,0
Pukagongma CSP135 0,0 0,0
Pukagongma CSP136 2,0 3,0
Pukagongma CSP137 1,0 23,1
Yushu C514 0,0 11,0
Ousui C3991 2,0 5,0
Butaxiongqu CSP144 1,0 6,0
Gangre C5085 3,0 6,6
Ounie C3993 0,0 0,0
Ounie C5172_C3992 2,0 11,0
Ounie C5173 9,0 25,0
Chaxiutang CSP132 0,0 0,0
Redilong CSP142 2,0 6,0
Redilong CSP141 0,0 1,0
Xiaoenda C1036 0,0 0,0
Xiaoenda C1037 0,0 2,0
Agangrong C3445 1,0 4,0
Agangrong C3447_C5186 2,0 28,0
Agangrong C3444 1,0 2,0
Kangyu C5190 1,0 6,2
Gutong C5169 0,0 0,0
Tingcun C3430 2,0 4,0
Jiesang C3455 0,0 3,0
Jiesang C3456 0,0 0,0
Nudagang C5146 2,0 24,0
Nudagang C5148 2,0 25,0
Nudagang C5149 1,0 0,0
Yusa C5145 0,0 1,0
Dama C5187 0,0 0,0
Dama C5189 3,0 10,0
Gachong C5144 4,0 25,0
Rangjun C5150 0,0 1,0
Shigou CSP130 1,0 10,0
Lajue C1357 0,0 0,0
Latuotanggu C3425 0,0 1,0
Latuotanggu C3426 1,0 4,0
Latuotanggu C3427 0,0 0,0
Latuotanggu C3428 4,0 8,0
Latuotanggu C5171 0,0 19,0
Longsangquduo C5152 0,0 7,0
Longsangquduo C5153 2,0 16,0
Longsangquduo C5154 1,0 3,0
Longsangquduo C5155 0,0 0,0
Longsangquduo C5156 1,0 0,0
Longsangquduo C5157 0,0 10,0
Longsangquduo C5158 1,0 1,0
Longsangquduo C5159 1,0 7,4
Longsangquduo C5160 2,0 0,0
Longsangquduo C5161 2,0 8,0
Longsangquduo C5162 0,0 0,0
Longsangquduo C5163 0,0 0,0
Longsangquduo C5164 0,0 8,0
Longsangquduo C5165 3,0 15,0
Sila C403 1,0 4,0
Sila C404 0,0 0,0
Lubrak LUB001 1,0 0,0
Lubrak LUB002 1,0 1,0
Sding Chung C5417 0,0 15,0
Zhangcun C5184 1,0 8,0
Zhangcun C5185 0,0 0,0
Chokhopani C1 6,1 6,0
Mebrak M63 1,0 0,0
Samdzong S10 1,0 5,0
Samdzong S35 8,0 1,1
Piyangjiweng C4563 0,0 1,0
Piyangjiweng C4564 0,0 0,0
Piyangjiweng C4566 2,0 13,2
Piyangjiweng C4567 0,0 1,0
Piyangjiweng C4569 0,0 2,0
Piyangjiweng C4571 0,0 0,0
Gelintang CSP147 0,0 14,0
Chokhopani CNE1 6,0 8,0
Rhirhi R1 2,0 4,0
Rhirhi R2_R7 2,0 15,0
Rhirhi R8 1,0 1,0
Rhirhi_1drel R5 1,0 1,0
Kyang KM4 9,0 20,0
Kyang KS20_KS25 7,0 32,0
Kyang KS21_KS23_KS4 2,0 20,0
Kyang KS26 13,0 18,0
Kyang KS5 14,0 14,0
Kyang KS9 1,0 1,0
Kyang_1drel KS8 2,0 7,0
Mebrak M2113 4,0 23,0
Mebrak M241 0,0 0,0
Mebrak M295 5,0 14,0
Mebrak M368 3,0 13,0
Mebrak M4580 2,0 1,0
Mebrak M4681 5,1 14,0
Mebrak M63_M339_M359 2,0 6,0
Mebrak_1drel M354 3,0 4,0
Samdzong S10_S13 3,0 12,0
Samdzong S143_S173 6,0 16,0
Samdzong S153_S183 1,0 9,0
Samdzong S8 3,0 9,0
Samdzong S36 0,0 0,0
Samdzong_1drel S18_S20_S21_S22 2,0 7,0
Samdzong_1drel S29_S30 0,0 0,0
Chokhopani CHO002 0,0 0,0
Chokhopani CHO003 0,0 0,0
Mebrak MEB006 0,0 0,0
Suila SUI001 0,0 3,0
Suila SUI002 0,0 1,0
Samdzong SZG006 0,0 0,0
Samdzong SZG007 0,0 0,0

The parallels between Balto-Finnic myths and Tibeto-Burman myths

The author of the article below regarded Balto-Finnic myths as ancient and treated the connection to the Tibeto-Burman myths as a mystery: “There seems to be some kind of affinity between the Balto-Finnic myths and those of Tibet, Assam, and some regions of China, while the Indo-European (Indian) version differs widely from them. […]The Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth can be dated to the period antedating contact between Asia and Europe via the Silk Road.”
https://journal.oraltradition.org/wp...15i/8_valk.pdf
Oral Tradition, 15/1 (2000): 145-158
Ex Ovo Omnia: Where Does the Balto-Finnic Cosmogony Originate? The Etiology of an Etiology
Ülo Valk

The idea that the cosmos was born from several eggs laid by a bird is found in the oldest Balto-Finnic myths that have been preserved thanks to the conservative form of runo song. Different versions of the Balto-Finnic creation song were known among the Estonians, the Finns of Ingria, the Votes, and the Karelians. 1 The Karelian songs were used by Elias Lönnrot in devising his redaction of the myth in the beginning of the epic Kalevala. Mythical thinking is concerned with questions about the origin of the world and its phenomena; etiologies provide the means to discover and transmit these secrets and to hold magical power over everything. The “quest for origins” has also determined the research interests of generations of scholars employing a diachronic approach. The evolutionist school has tried to reconstruct the primary forms of religion, while the structuralist school of folklore has attempted to discover the basic structures that lie latent behind the narrative surface. The etymologies of Max Müller were aimed at explaining the origin of myths; the geographic-historical or Finnish school once aimed at establishing the archetypes of different items of folklore. That endeavor to elucidate the primary forms and origins of phenomena as the main focus of scholarship can be seen as an expression of neo-mythical thinking. It has become clear that the etiological approach provides too narrow a frame for scholarship, since it cannot explain the meanings of folklore for tradition-bearers themselves, the processes of its transmission in a society, and other aspects that require synchronic interpretation. Thanks to long traditions of research, a large body of knowledge has been accumulated about the prehistory of Balto-Finnic runo songs and their relationship with the oral traditions of other peoples. In this article, I ask what we know about the origin of the cosmogonic myth of the “Creation song.” Some previous research is also reconsidered. The corresponding Estonian creation song has been recorded in more than 150 variants. One of the shortest among them is the following text, which presents no more than the fragmentary core of the myth:

Pääsukeine, päevalindu Swallow, the sun-bird Tei ta pesa söödu pääle, Built a nest in the field, Munne kolmi muna sisse. Laid three eggs in it. Üits sai aoss alla ilma One became dawn to the nether world, Teine päevas pääle ilma, The second became sun to the upper world, Kolmas sai kuusse taevasse. 2 The third became moon into the sky.

In versions from western Estonian coastal parishes the bird comes from the sea, flies to “our” paddock, and builds a nest in the bush or a tree. Sometimes the creation begins from an apple tree and an apple that has dropped into the waters. It is probable that the sea here designates the same primordial ocean as in Karelian songs, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the apple tree is a reflection of the cosmic world tree (which can be found in the imagery of some other Estonian mythical songs). The following is a fairly typical example of Estonian runo songs in which the epic plot is presented through lyrical elaboration:

Mõistke mehed, mõistke naesed,— Guess men, guess women— Meri meie õue all, The sea is near our yard, Õunapuu saare keskeel. An apple-tree in the middle of the island. Tuli aga tuul ja tõstis tormi, The wind came and brought the storm, Akkas õuna õõtsutama, It started shaking the apple, Õõtsutas õuna meresse. Until it shook it into the sea. Merest aga tõusis kirju lindu; A many-colored bird rose from the sea, Lendas meie kopelisse, It flew to our paddock, Meie kopli kuuse otsa To the fir-tree growing in our paddock Akkas pesa tegema It started to build a nest Riegudest ja raagudest, Of branches and twigs, Maa murusta, puu purusta, Of grass and pieces of wood, Meie metsa lehtedest. Of leaves of our forest. Tegi kuu ja tegi kaks, It built the nest for a month, for two months, Paari päeva kolmat kuud. A couple of days of the third month. Siis akkas mune munema; Then it started to lay eggs, Munes kuu ja munes kaks, For a month, for two months, Siis akkas poegi auduma; Then it started to hatch young birds Audus kuu ja audus kaks. For a month, for two months. Siis akkas poegi jägama; Then it started to give the young birds away, Jägas kuu ja jägas kaks, For a month, for two months. Ühe andis armuss alla ilma, It gave one graciously (?) to the nether world, Teise pilvess peale ilma, The second became a cloud above the sky, Kolmas koidu tähesse, The third became the Morning Star, Nel’las põhja naelasse, The fourth the North Star, Viies vankriss vaatama, The fifth became the Great Bear, Kuies kuuss kumama, The sixth started to shine as the moon, Seitsmes sõelas seisema. The seventh to stand as the Pleiades. Sest me ajad arvame Thus can we tell the time Ja omad tunnid tunneme. 3 And know the hours.

The number three is very common in Estonian songs: often three bushes (blue, red, and golden) are mentioned, the bird lays three eggs, the hatching lasts for three months. Besides this song, there are only a few traces of the myth in Estonian folklore. There was a traditional saying about the period between the old and the new moon, when no moon is visible; people observed that “the moon is in the nest” (kuu on pesas), expressing the idea that the moon is born in a nest, time and again. The sun was also said to be in the nest during solstices. A couple of prose redactions of the myth of cosmic eggs in the Estonian Folklore Archives originate from folklore collectors who were, most probably, acquainted with Kalevala and inspired by this epic. On the basis of different versions of the Balto-Finnic songs, Matti Kuusi has restored the common mythical story: “A heavenly bird (an eagle?) flies above the sea and looks for a place to build a nest. Having found it (a piece of sod?) the bird lays one or three eggs. The wind rolls them into the water and the sun, the moon and the stars (and heaven and earth?) are born of them” (Kuusi 1963:68). Also found in Karelian songs is a motif of the demiurge Väinämöinen uttering the words of creation that makes the earth and the sky from the shells of that egg. The Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth has many international parallels. They are so numerous that it may initially seem that myths about cosmic egg(s) belong to the common traditions of mankind. An egg is a symbol of latent life force, fertility, and resurrection in many cultures, and the word denoting an egg often has sexual connotations. *Muna (“egg”) already had the parallel meaning “testicle” in the Proto-Uralic language (Rédei 1986:285). The Vedic and Sanskrit word an˝d˝a is also ambiguous, denoting egg, testicle, and sperm (Böhtlingk and Roth 1855:86). In the dream omens of Estonian folklore the egg is also connected with fertility: if a young wife dreams of finding a bird’s nest, it foretells pregnancy.4 However, belief in the cosmogonic function of an egg has not been found everywhere; there are, rather, four broad areas where myths about cosmic egg(s) belong to indigenous oral traditions: 1) the Balto-Finnic region; 2) the Eastern Mediterranean lands; 3) South Asia (China, Tibet, Indo-China, India); and 4) the Malay Archipelago, Oceania, and Australia. 5 Geographically, the closest parallels to the Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth can be found in the folklore of other Finno-Ugric peoples. In a Lappish creation story, a duck lays five eggs upon a blade of grass on the ocean; vegetation, fish, birds, a man, and a woman hatch out of these eggs (Ajkhenvald et al. 1989:157). In Zyrjan (Komi) mythology the two dualistic demiurges Jen and Omol are born of two eggs laid by a bird. They break the four additional eggs and thus create sun and moon together with good and evil spirits. In Mordvinian folklore three goddesses or mother-spirits are born of three eggs laid by a bird on the cosmic birch-tree (Napolskikh 1991:29). The Uralic origin of these myths is doubtful because parallels in the Ob-Ugrian and Samoyed mythology have not been found. The Balto-Finnic creation myth is strikingly unique in Europe, with the above-mentioned Finno-Ugric parallels the only clear traces of the egg cosmogony in recent European folklore. Vladimir Toporov has discussed the hypothetical Russian parallels in his reconstruction of the myth of the world egg (1967). He relies upon some motifs in magic tales that describe the transformations of kingdoms of copper, silver, and bronze into eggs (balls, apples) (Aarne and Thompson 1961:no. 301). Eggs and round objects are universal symbols in tales of magic, and contraction is one of the basic rules applied in their artistic language (Holbek 1987:444-46). Attempts to draw conclusions about Proto-Indo-European mythology on such a basis cannot be convincing. As Toporov states (1967:82), explicit formulations of the myth of the cosmic egg have not been found in Slavic folklore. The Latvian version has turned out to be the falsification of a folklore collector, and the myth of the cosmic egg cannot be found in Lithuanian folklore either. The closest Lithuanian parallels are some dualistic legends in which the world is created from an apple floating in the primordial ocean.6 Different versions of the myth of the world egg occur in the mythology of ancient Egypt. According to the priests of Hermopolis, Thoth, the god of wisdom and the moon-god, was the true demiurge who hatched the world-egg on the primordial ocean in the shape of the divine ibis-bird. The sun-god Ra was born of the primeval egg (Viaud 1989:27). A few traces of the myth of the cosmic egg can be found in the Phoenician traditions described by the Jewish philosopher Philo and some Greek authors (see Delaporte 1989:82). The oldest Greek cosmogony, Hesiod’s Theogony, does not mention the cosmic egg; it seems to be a rather specific trait of the Orphic tradition. The speculations of the Orphics about the origin of the world include the motif of the cosmic egg, expressing the notion of implicit totality. The demiurge Eros, Phanes, or Protogonos was said to be born from it. 7 The Orphic cosmogony has been preserved only in fragments and is a metaphysical system rather than a primitive or popular mythology. It is noteworthy that this system has some parallels with the Vedic and epic cosmogonies of India, for example the motif that the world emerges from sexual desire, or passion (ka≠ma in India). 8 But it is probable that the concept of cosmic egg was borrowed from the traditions of other peoples just like many other pieces of Greek mythology, and that it did not emerge from the Indo-European heritage. To emphasize the Indo-European origin of the myth, many authors have cited ancient Indian texts (upanis˝ads, pura≠n˝as, Manu-Smr˝ti, Maha≠bha≠rata). However, the oldest source, the Rig Veda Sam≥hita≠, does not prove that the myth about the cosmic egg was known among the Aryan tribes who invaded India. This collection of 1028 hymns introduces diverse cosmogonic myths, most of them collected in the last and most recent (tenth) mandala, and several presented as fragments of knowledge that lie hidden behind the verses. Two passages formulate the idea of a golden germ, womb, seed, or embryo (hiran˝yagarbha) floating in the primeval water: That which is beyond the sky and beyond this earth, beyond the gods and the Asuras—what was that first embryo that the waters received, where all the gods together saw it? He was the one whom the waters received as the first embryo, when all the gods came together. On the navel of the Unborn was set the One on whom all the creatures rest. (RV X, 82, 5-6; O’Flaherty 1981:36) In the beginning the Golden Embryo arose. Once he was born, he was the one lord of creation. He held in place the earth and this sky. Who is the god whom we should worship with the oblation? (RV X, 121, 1; O’Flaherty 1981:27) The idea of the golden embryo that conceals cosmic potency precedes the later notion of Brahma≠n˝d˝a (“Brahma-egg”), meaning the implicit primeval existence of the world and the whole universe as totality. The demiurge Prajapati, who was later replaced by Brahma, was said to be born of this primordial egg. The fact that it is the abstract god Brahma who is connected with the cosmic egg gives evidence of new developments in mythology in the period of the decline of the Vedic gods and the ascent of the gods of Brahmanism and epic mythology. An explicit formulation of belief in the cosmic egg can be found in later commentaries to the Samhitas of the Vedas. In °atapatha-Bra≠hman˝a (XI, 1, 6, 1-11) the primordial golden germ is replaced by the golden egg (hiran˝maya an˝d˝a) floating on the ocean and giving birth to the demiurge Prajapati (Weber 1964:831-32). The cosmogony of Cha≠ndogya-Upanis˝ad (III, 19, 1-3) also relies upon the concept of an egg (Radhakrishnan 1994: 399): “In the beginning this (world) was non-existent. It became existent. It grew. It turned into an egg. It lay for the period of a year. It burst open. Then came out of the egg-shells two parts, one of silver, the other of gold. That which was of silver is this earth; that which was of gold is the sky.” These texts probably date from between the eighth and sixth centuries BCE and are about five hunded years later than the Rig Veda Samhita. Ma≠rta≠n˝d˝a (“dead egg”) is an occasional parallel name of the Vedic sun-god Vivasvant. Sometimes the expression is rendered as “born of a dead egg” or “egg’s son,” but these are not literal translations. The dead egg probably denotes a bird-egg as opposed to a living egg, a testicle (Böhtlingk and Roth 1868:880). Indian sources do not assert Ma≠rta≠n˝d˝a to be born of an egg but rather to be as the last son of the goddess Aditi. Karl Hoffmann interprets Ma≠rta≠n˝d˝a as an abortion or miscarriage of Aditi (1957:92-93). Ma≠rta≠n˝d˝a as an appellation of the egg can also be understood as a metaphor. The sun resembles an egg, but such a comparison does not prove the existence of a myth that the sun has been born of an egg. Metaphors of that kind referring to the sun (day-egg, sky-egg, and so forth) can occur in the folklore of peoples who do not share the belief in the cosmic egg. Nevertheless, stories about the sun’s birth from an egg-yolk can be inspired by the objects’ apparent similarity, and metaphors can sometimes be seen as potential or latent myths. W. B. Henning (1954) has written about the reflection of the cosmic egg and a hatching bird in Avesta (Yasht 13, 2-3). However, his rendering is based on a single obscure expression and does not derive from the Gathas, the oldest Iranian sources. This piece of evidence is too doubtful to claim the proto-Aryan origin of the myth and to connect it with Finnish folklore, as has been done by Pentti Aalto, who regards the figure of the bird as an exclusive parallel between the two traditions (1987). (As we saw, the bird is common in the creation myths of the Eastern Mediterranean lands as well.) It is probable that the Aryan tribes who invaded India did not know the myth of the cosmic egg. The later myths of Brahmanda are based on the RigVedic concept of hiran˝yagarbha that Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty calls “a truly pregnant term” with complex connotations. She explains that the second element of the compound means “womb,” “seed,” “embryo,” or “child” in the Rig Veda and later comes to mean “egg” (1981:26-27). It is possible that the myth of the world egg, and other cosmogonic myths that are expounded in the Sanskrit sources, have been influenced by the indigenous oral traditions of India. 9 During the period when the Aryan invaders settled in the basin of the Ganges river, they adopted several non-Aryan ideas and religious observances. The myth of the cosmic egg is found in the folklore of several peoples of eastern Asia and Indo-China. The basic motifs of the Indian and Chinese myths coincide: the demiurge is asserted to be born of the primeval egg. In China this divine being P’an-ku was said to be the forefather of all creatures, just like Prajapati in India (Yuan Ke 1965:41-42). P’an-ku was the primeval giant whose body-parts make up the material world, an origin that connects him with Purusha, the primeval man of the Vedic mythology (RV X, 90) and with other proto-men of Indo-European anatomical cosmologies. There are also essentially different versions of the myth of the cosmic egg in Asia. In the folklore of some of the peoples, the number of primeval eggs is more than one (as in Balto-Finnic songs). In the epic songs of the Miaos who live in China, two gigantic birds are born of eggs and hatch out earth and sky (Jia Zhi 1987:374). Several egg cosmogonies are known among the tribal communities of Assam. According to a Bodo-Kachari myth, the Great Lord created two birds whose three eggs gave birth to spirits, trees, and procreators of mankind. In Karbi folklore the mythical bird wo plakpi laid several eggs out of which were born the progenitors of different peoples and tribes of Assam. In Dimasa creation myth gods, spirits, and ghosts are born out of the seven primordial eggs (Datta et al. 1994:39). Complex and elaborately detailed cosmogonic myths can be found in the sacred texts of the Bon religion in Tibet. An offshoot of the ethnic shamanistic religion, Bon competed with and confronted Buddhism for centuries. The two religious traditions share many common elements, and in philosophy the Buddhist influence on Bon is remarkable; however, Bon also has its own special features such as its cosmogonic lore. Bon literary sources relate diverse myths about the origin of gods, demons, humans, and the realms of the world. Sometimes the number of cosmic eggs varies within the same text, the most common numbers being “two,” “five,” and “nine” (Karmay 1975). The cosmogonic doctrines of Bon seem to be genuinely Tibetan; only the dualistic tendency in myths—the oppositions light vs. darkness, good vs. evil, gods vs. demons, and the like—refers to the probable influence of Iranian religious sources. Different myths about cosmic egg(s) were known in the Malay Archipelago, Australia, and the islands of the South Seas as far as the Americas. There are etiological legends about the birth of heavenly bodies, earth, and the first human beings from eggs. The motif that seems to be most well-known—the birth of the demiurge (Tangaroa, Tangaloa, Ta’aroa) from the primeval egg—corresponds to the traditions of Asia. 10 Finally, let us return to the Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth that has often been regarded as an ancient borrowing of Oriental origin. There are, however, several points that contradict this theory. The Balto-Finnic songs do not include the motif of the birth of the demiurge from an egg that is central in India and in some Chinese myths; rather, they present a very different version of a bird whose eggs are transformed into heavenly bodies. There seems to be some kind of affinity between the Balto-Finnic myths and those of Tibet, Assam, and some regions of China, while the Indo-European (Indian) version differs widely from them. All of this makes the possible dynamics of borrowing quite mysterious. Such a central myth as the one explaining the origin of the whole cosmos could hardly be adopted through some occasional folklore contact. If the Balto-Finnic myth about the marvelous bird and its eggs is a borrowing, it should have been borrowed from some ethnic group with whom the Baltic Finns had lasting historical contacts. Who could they be? They probably were not the Indo-Europeans, as the Indo-European origin of the myth cannot be definitively established. Cosmic eggs are known in both the Greek (Orphic) and in Indian traditions, but both cases could have been inspired by the myths of neighboring peoples or the local mythological substratum. We cannot refer to the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European heritage and assert that the Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, and Germanic peoples must have known the myth about the cosmic eggs as well. No reliable data in folklore or literary traditions have been discovered to support such a claim. The Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth can be dated to the period antedating contact between Asia and Europe via the Silk Road. The common form of the runo-song enables us to date it to the first millennium BCE. The prose versions of the myth must have been generally known even before the songs were composed. The scope of variation of different redactions of the Balto-Finnic songs is so remarkable that there is no need to look for one common archetype, a single original form. Martin Puhvel understands the Estonian swallow-song as a basically independent creation, contending that the Estonian and Finnish songs “have fundamentally nothing in common beyond the basic concept of creation of cosmic bodies from birdeggs” (1971:23). True, there are similarities in the composition of the BaltoFinnic songs as shown by Matti Kuusi (1956:83). However, we can suggest that singers of different tribes and localities created their own versions of the songs now and again, as they transformed the sacred etiological lore into the poetic language of runo-song. Among the numerous petroglyphs near Lake Äänisjärv in Karelia are some images that can be connected with the Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth, an interpretation arrived at by the leading expert on the petroglyphs, K. D. Laushkin. One petroglyph depicts a bird who lays an egg that gives birth to the sun and constellations. These pieces of art have been dated to sometime in the period between the middle of the third millennium and 1850 BCE (Laushkin 1962:277-80; Sawwateyev 1984:119). Likewise, it cannot be mere coincidence that some Lappish, Mordvinian, and Komi cosmogonies are based on motifs associated with cosmic eggs. These traditions should be connected with the mythic lore of the Estonian, Finnish, and Karelian “Creation Song.” The Finno-Ugric myths most probably derive from a common heritage and can thus be dated to the third millennium BCE at the latest. Birds and waterfowl are among the most recurrent mythological motifs of Finno-Ugrians and in Northern Eurasia in general (Antanaitis 1998:63). There is another widespread Uralic cosmogonic myth about a water-bird who dives to the bottom of the primordial ocean and brings back some soil to make the earth (Napolskikh 1989). The Balto-Finnic cosmogonic myth can thus be regarded as an indigenous oral tradition of the region where it has been preserved. The possibility cannot be excluded that the myth is a borrowing from the ProtoEuropean tribes who were later assimilated by the Baltic Finns. The belief in the cosmic egg was probably part of the mythology of Europe before the Indo-European invasion, as shown by Marija Gimbutas (1982:101-7). Works by Uku Masing (1985) and Vladimir Napolskikh (1991) point in the same direction: a possible substratum of the folklore of Proto-European peoples that can be recognized in the Balto-Finnic oral traditions. Thus we are dealing with a remnant of the mythology of the European Stone Age, cosmogonic knowledge that has been transmitted through the millennia.

Besides for hg N, which haplogroup O-M175 lineages should have been characteristic of Shandong Neolithic?

f There is a certain limitation in 'Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)' against thinking that Shandong_EN populations might have been directly related to people with modern branches of O-M7. In fact, when Boshan, Dushan (O-M7) and Qihe3 share genetic drift with each other in qpGraph, Boshan separates first, followed by the split of Dushan and Qihe3 before Qihe3’s admixture with mtDNA R9c1b-related population. This would leave O-M7>O-F1276 for Dushan-related populations, while “Austronesian” O-M7>O-Y26395 would be left for Qihe3-related populations, while Shandong_EN Boshan should have been related to some “northern” O-M7*-related population or at least pre-O-M7 O-FGC10545-related individual who is quite rare and was also found in Southern China.

The situation with O-P164 is different. If one accepts the association of Shandong_EN with mtDNA G1a basing on ancient DNA, then, besides northern populations such Koreans, Daurs and Northern Han Chinese, who have mtDNA G1a, the article "Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China" turns its attention to the presence of G1a in Tai-Kadai Dao and Austronesian Makatao from Taiwan. If one looks at yDNA markers of Dao and Makatao from Pingtung (Pingtung location would be comparable with Pingtung Makatao mtDNAs in Ko et al, 2014), one would notice the presence of O-M7 in both Makatao and Dao, but these O-M7 clades would be ruled out by the limitation from 'Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)', and one would notice the presence of O-M4110 in Dao and O-P164(xM134) in Pingtung Makatao, while its absence in Kaohsiung Makatao may point to the fact that O-P164(xM134) is related to mainland populations such as those populations possessing O-M4110.

The history of migration of O-P164(xM134) in China is already being developed (“Phylogeography of Y-chromosome haplogroup O3a2b2-N6 reveals patrilineal traces of Austronesian populations on the eastern coastal regions of Asia”, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5381892/ ), with Shandong being one of the starting points. So O-P164(xM134) such as O-M4110 is probably a candidate to contribute to the Shandong ancestry and to later distribute along with mtDNA G1a within Shandong-related populations and along with yDNA N-M231 included in Shandong_EN populations (N-M231 were also found in Tai-Kadai Dao and Austronesian Pingtung Makatao from Taiwan). Thus, if O-M7-related populations ever lived closer to Shandong in the Late Palaeolithic, they may have been outnumbered by O-P164(xM134) populations.

As for mtDNA R11, which may also influence the formation of Shandong ancestry basing on Xiaojingshan-related populations as a source for mtDNA R11 in the ARpost9K-related Amur individual, mtDNA R11 was only reported from the Middle Yellow River Basin Shimao-related ancient DNA so far, while it would also be considered “southern mtDNA”.according to southern mtDNA description in “Maternal genetic structure of a Neolithic population of the Yangshao culture”.
 
In the post above, I do not insist on the impossibility to think that the Shandong_EN branch (https://i.ibb.co/frctj05/phpil168t.png) might have been influenced by some Late Palaeolithic yDNA O-M7-related population. It is just less likely, if one takes into account various limitations for a closer O-M7 Dushan - Shandong_EN Boshan connection in 'Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia (11000bP)'. For example, if people in Japan projected branches of O-P164 onto Shimao_LN-Lajia4k branch, branches of O-M188 Ydna: O-M7 onto Shandong branch, yDNA O-CTS201(xM159) onto AR19K branch, yDNA O-M159 onto Fujian_EN-Qihe3 branch, they would get that their O-M188> O-CTS201(xM159) members were mixed with ANE, because AR19K was likely to be mixed with ANE.

mtDNA M1’20’51 representatives as relatives of Northeast Asian and Siberian populations.
The Native American lineages bear traces of interaction with previous more northern mtDNA M1’20’51 inhabitants.

In “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia”, as for the “north-south” genetic connection, it appeared to be possible to model Vietnam G2 series containing mtDNA M20 (a branch of mtDNA M1-related mtDNA M1’20’51) as containing DNA of the Siberian KolymaM individual, who is quite likely to be connected to some ancestors of the Yukaghirs.
The source of the model for ancient “Vietnamese” VT_G2=4% Kolyma + 96%Longlin, Pvalue=0,28 or VT_G2=6% Jomon + 94%Longlin, Pvalue=0,12:
https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.c...a9bd51a41/mmc3
The description of the mtDNA M20-containing Vt_G2 series
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...374v1.full.pdf

On the other hand, the Vietnamese Kinh can be modeled in the following variety of ways in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”:
Kinh= 28%Boshan+12%Kolyma+60%Liangdao2, Pvalue=0,89
Kinh= 39%Boshan+23%Ikawazu(Jomon)+38%Liangdao2, Pvalue=0,89
Kinh= 50%Boshan+11%G1 Hoabinhian+39%Liangdao2, Pvalue=0,83 (a lower Pvalue for the use of the G1 Hoabinhian (yDNA C1b) than for Siberian Kolyma and Jomon Ikawazu

mtDNA M20 found in the ancient Vietnamese VT_G2 series (which has a Japanese Jomon affinity as well) is related to mtDNA M1 also found in Afroasiatic-related Egyptian-related populations (via mtDNA M1’20’51). There is also a notion in Western Eurasia about some Palaeolithic Siberians being related to ancient Australasians (for whom G1 Hoabinhian is also a relative). However, ancient Siberian Kolyma provided a better fit for mtDNA M20-related VT_G2 series than a Jomon or a Hoabinhian G1 (see other models in https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.c...a9bd51a41/mmc3 “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia”

The Japanese facial reconstruction of a Jomon female basing on DNA:
https://cdn.mainichi.jp/vol1/2018/03...a012000p/8.jpg

This lineage of G2a1 is unadmixed with Western Eurasian populations in Le Tao et al, 2023 (“Ancient Genomes Reveal Coexistence of Demic and Cultural Diffusion in the Development of Neolithic Mixed Millet and Rice Farming in Southwest China”)

G2a1h in Shandong Han, Tibeto-Burman populations as far as India

The common ancestor of G2a1 existed about 11600 years ago.
The ancestor of G2a1h is G2a1-b (its common ancestor existed about 9400 years ago).
The age of G2a1h is estimated at 4100-5300 years ago.
The list of representatives:
Number0 G2a1-b: Kham Region of Tibet. Nationality: Tibetan. ID: KT726041
Number1 G2a1h: Ancient DNA. Female. Pukagongma sarcophagus tomb, Zhiduo County, Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai Province 2997-2785 years ago. ID: CSP136
Ancestry proportions (Le Tao et al, 2023):
K=2
Western Eurasian 0%
Eastern Eurasian 100%
K=7
[1] Ancient Lhasa/Nagqu/Kyang/Shannan/Lubrak/Suila ancestry: 56%
[2] Middle and Lower Yelow River Neolithic (Yangshao and Houli Cultures): 36%
[3] Total Shamanka_EN ancestry: 8%
K=8
[1] Ancient Lhasa/Nagqu/Kyang/Shannan/Lubrak/Suila ancestry: 72%
[2] Middle and Lower Yelow River Neolithic (Yangshao and Houli Cultures): 26%
[3] DA245 Shamanka_EN ancestry: 2%
Number2 G2a1h: Ancient DNA. Gebusailu Site, Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. 2400 years ago. ID: C3408
Number3 G2a1h Ancient DNA. Gebusailu Site, Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. 2224 BP years ago. ID: C5179
Number4 G2a1h Weihai City, Shandong Province, China. Nationality: Han Chinese. Male. yDNA O-F2527. ID: AU43904
Number5 G2a1h Ladakh Region ID: HM036563
Number6 G2a1h India. ID: FJ383503

The unrelatedness of Korean Han, as in the word Han'guk (Korea), and Mongolic Khan (ruler)

This is connected to the rebuttal of the Japanese theory that Koreans alledgedly derived from Mongols. According to the Chinese views, the Koreans have various Western Eurasian influences (Darividian and Near Eastern influences), but they are not the most important factor in their formation.

“There are two possible interpretations of the word Han 韓 in the replacement toponym 韓多沙郡 Han Tasa-gun. The first and most likely is that it is an inherited Late Old Chinese (LOC) transcription of the early Koreanic word *kara, the oldest word for 'Koreanic' […] attested in the names of the Sam Han 三韓, the 'Three Koreanic Peoples' of the early Korean Peninsula (i.e., Ma Han 馬韓, Chin Han 辰韓, and Pyŏn Han 弁韓), and also in the name of the Kara state, the latter of which is written in many different transcriptions in contemporaneous sources, for example, the Old Japanese transcription of 韓 as Kara [カラ] ~ [加羅] Kara in the Nihon shoki 日本書紀. Through the process of text transmission, this early transcription 韓 later acquired a Middle Chinese -based pronunciation, eventually becoming the Han of modern Han'guk 韓國 (Korea). The Kara toponym Han in Han Tasagun 韓多沙郡 thus denotes 'East-of-the-River Commandery of Kara' or 'The Koreanic East-of-the-River Commandery'.”

The Earliest Koreanic Words for ‘Child’, ‘East’, ‘Mountain’, ‘River’, and ‘Shore’: A Comparative-Historical Linguistic Study of Several Kara (Kaya) Toponyms in the Samguk sagi
Shimunek Andrew
Acta Koreana
Keimyung University, Academia Koreana
Volume 26, Number 1, June 2023

This newest article stated the Dawenkou culture origin for the Pingliangtai population and their closeness to the Dawenkou Xixiahou population.
--------------
Acta Anthropologica Sinica ›› 2023, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (03): 331-341.doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0012
Craniofacial morphology of human remains from the Zhanmatun site of the late Yangshao Period SUN Lei1(), LI Yanzhen1, WU Zhijiang2
http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.163.../AAS.2023.0012
------------
Some ancient DNA from the Pingliangtai site was already known, this was the branch N-M1819, one of the most numerous hg N branches in China.
PLTM311 Longshan Culture of Pingliangtai, Henan 4063 years ago paternal haplogroup N-TYT34032
PLTM312 Henan Pingliangtai site Longshan period 4085-3889 cal BP paternal haplogroup N-TYT54942

The Dawenkou culture origin for this branch of N-M1819, which on the whole has a TMRCA comparable to the age of the Dawenkou culture, probably helps to explain the origin of other branches of N-M1819.

The following ancient sample from the Qinghai province belongs to the basal branch of N-M1819, namely N-F1020* (CSP054 Zongri Cultural Site, Tuanjie Village, Bagou Township, Tongde County, Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai Province 4290-4091 cal BP).

A part of the Tibeto-Burman-speaking Naxi and Yi belong to N-F1020*. The amount of hg N in the Yunnan province Naxi people is ca. 44%.

According to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the highest Pvalue=0,74 for the ancient series containing 4100-year-old N-F1020* CSP054 Qinghai ancient sample is obtained for the model (49%-4%+0,8%)Zongri5,1K+((51%-0,8%)+4%)Shandong_Early_Neolithic, where Shandong Early Neolithic means Bianbian(N-M231/B5b2)+Boshan(N-M231/B4c1a)+Xiaogao(N9a).

This is very interesting, because such a model would mean the preservation of the population in the Qinghai province where females were still predominantly genetically related to the Shandong Early Neolithic (the Houli culture, the predecessor of the Beixin and Dawenkou cultures) in spite of this population’s interaction with some local female Qinghai Tibetan Plateau lineages, while the male lineage such as N-F1020 appeared to be a Shandong_EN introgression into the local Qinghai Tibetan Plateau male population, which implies gradual accepting of the lower status local males into the society, which did not undermine the higher status of the initial male population . Such a society is consistent with the “socially stratified” Dawenkou culture. This model supports the migration of the Dawenkou culture’s people as far as the Qinghai province of Northwestern China which was previously proposed archaeologically basing on the similarities in some burials in the Qinghai province and in the Dawenkou culture (those similarities implied the belief in afterlife). [This situation is not unusual, because the Chokhopani yDNA O-M117 Tibetan sample also presents a case of “introgression”, belonging to the “modern” branch of O-M117, whle autosomally being related to the component which separated from other East Asians at least 20000 years ago, according to “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”]

The age of such a migration from Shandong should predate 4100 years ago, because ca. 4500-year-old Zongri individuals, who were already modeled using the Yangshao culture and belonged to N-CTS4714 deriving from N-F1020 related to 4100-year-old N-F1020* CSP054, preferred the described 4100-year-old N-F1020* CSP054 series as the source containing the maximum amount of the DNA shared with them. Interestingly, according to the article’s calculations, the Yangshao-like contribution in their case should have derived from yDNA O1b1-Page59-related population which was indeed reported from one of the variants of the Yangshao culture (the Wanggou site).

To cut a long story short, hg N seems to have been very much alive in the Dawenkou culture, and the Dawenkou culture is likely to produce one of the most numerous yDNA hg N-related populations in China. The Naxi language, though Tibeto-Burman and not that far chronologically from the Burmese language in Myanmar (their split is less than 3000 years ago (https://media.springernature.com/m68..._Fig1_HTML.png)), should have a lot of features related to the language previously spoken by hg N-M231 bearers, at least according to the linguistic modeling in China.

The described hg N-M1819 samples are located on the tree below:

https://i.ibb.co/55RJKtb/php1evx06.png

Post Scriptum. The mtDNA D4i poulations in general should be related to the Haminmangha branch of Yumin-related populations, according to the modeling of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, but their way to the Tibetan Plateau was likely to be independent from hg N, though some of hg N and D4i members met on of the Tibetan Plateau. The mtDNA D4b1a is considered to be related to hg C2 in China, but it came to the Shandong Beiqian site of the Dawenkou culture.

The new article "Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans" mentions 8000-year-old Shandong Boshan (yDNA N-M231), but not 9500-year-old Shandong Bianbian (yDNA N-M231), as an ancient Shandong individual who already contacted the Paleosiberian ancestry 8000 years ago, which means that yDNA N-M231 individuals as a whole should not be associated with the Paleosiberian ancestry.

Quote:

---

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

---

The Paleosiberian ancestry in question which reached Neolithic Shandong by 8000 years ago was likely to be related to the population containing mtDNA D4e1, which contains a mutation T16093C found in a Denisovan and which is distributed in both China and Russia today (T16093C is found in the sequence of one of B4c1a branches related to Boshan (B4c1a2+T16093C); however, among 220 fully sequenced Han Chinese individuals belonging to Bianbian-related mtDNA B5b2, the mutation T16093C was only found in four individuals (1,8%): two individuals from the Jiangsu Province, one individual from the Henan Province, one individual from the Fujian Province ). According to “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/pd...247(23)00424-2 ), mtDNA D4e as a whole should be initially associated with yDNA C2-M217, while some branches of D4e distributed in China rather than in Siberia may be specifically associated with yDNA C2-F1067. According to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the population containing mtDNA D4e1 can be modeled in qpAdm with the addition of the mtDNA D4h3a-related ancient Native American Clovis’ ancestry. In “Mitogenome evidence shows two radiation events and dispersals of matrilineal ancestry from northern coastal China to the Americas and Japan”, the authors propose that mtDNA D4h related to Paleosiberians did not survive in inland Siberia and was substituted by some other haplogroups.
https://i.ibb.co/dtcD5Gq/phpe-R15-ZP.png
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...004242-fx1.jpg

The Ancient Northern East Asian ancestry
In “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, this article turns attention to the agreement of ancestry percentages obtained using qpGraph and qpAdm for models in this article. In “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, there is a statement:
“GaoHuaHua. GaoHuaHua, like LaCen and Layi, is also best modeled through a 2-way approach. The best model is one where GaoHuaHua is a mixture of northern East Asian ancestry (Boshan, 34%) and Dushan-related ancestry (66%, Table S3).”
https://i.ibb.co/Y82LMFy/php-AGWz-KX.png
Interestingly, the qpGraph model of the same article, 34% of Boshan ancestry has a limited connection to ancient Longlin of the Guangxi Province of China. Longlin belonged to mtDNA M, while Tianyuan belonged to mtDNA N. Interestingly, the phylogeny of such an mtDNA lineage as M13 in “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4,000 years” revealed that a certain mtDNA M clade (for example, M13) clade could initially have a Northern East Asian distribution (however, the northerness of rare mtDNA M clades should be treated with caution as "Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China" listed some rare mtDNA M clades as those characteristic of Southern East Asians). According to "Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China", [i]“The haplogroup analysis found that ancient and present-day Northern East Asians, showed a high proportion of haplogroups A (maximum, 71.43%), C (maximum, 55.00%), D (maximum, 60.00%), and G (maximum, 37.50%) with a north-south declining trend.” However, according to “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”, mtDNA A (and M8) and mtDNA C are alien to initial inland Neolithic Shandong populations. The northern branches of mtDNA M observed in Neolithic Shandong included mtDNA D and mtDNA G1a. Another mtDNA M branch reported from the inland Shandong territory is mtDNA M11a (the ancient Tonglin site), while the frequency of mtDNA M11 is higher in Northern Han Chinese (0,81%) than in Southern Han Chinese (0,51%), which is comparable to the northern mtDNA A with a north-south declining trend (the frequency of mtDNA A is 8,53% in Northern Han Chinese vs. 6,54% in Southern Han Chinese). Similarly, the text of “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago” lists mtDNA M11 in the list of haplogroups which are today characteristic of Northern East Asians, probably due to their appearance in Neolithic Shandong.


Thus, judging by ancient samples obtained so far ( https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...00657-mmc1.pdf ), initial Northern East Asian mtDNA lineages in Shandong-related populations should include mtDNA D4b2b2, G1a and M11, where at least mtDNA D4b should be initially associated with yDNA C2-M217, according to “Mitogenome evidence shows two radiation events and dispersals of matrilineal ancestry from northern coastal China to the Americas and Japan”.

Thus, basing on Northern East Asian mtDNA lineages which joined such yDNA N-M231-related populations as Shandong Bianbian, Boshan and Xiaojingshan, these ancient Shandong yDNA N-M231 individuals should be classified as Northern East Asians. The newest article "Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans" classifies Bianbian, Boshan and Xiaojingshan as Northern East Asians, but not as Paleosiberians.
https://i.ibb.co/cYL6qpz/phpn-UZs4-Y.png

The Ancient East Asian yDNA N-M231 Bianbian-associated mtDNA B5b2 as a migrant from Northwest East Asia

In the Yangshao culture article, mtDNA B5 is described as deriving from southern East Asia:
”Additionally, from the haplogroup composition, we found that the Qingtai population have fewer proportions of haplogroups that mainly distributed in southern East Asians than that of the late Shandong populations (haplogroups B4, B5, F1, F4, N9a, M9a, and R; 40.8%), which imply that the Qingtai population have fewer southern East Asia components than that of the late Shandong populations.
However, mtDNA B5 is described as arriving to Shandong via Northwest East Asia in the Palaeolithic in “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”:

A previous study speculated that populations carrying haplogroup B5b migrated from northwestern mainland East Asia into other East Asian areas, bypassing Shandong (…)

Thus, the pre-Shandong distribution of of mtDNA B5b implies that bearers of Ancient East Asian were expanding out of their Yangtze River Basin-related homeland.
https://i.ibb.co/2gXP6bP/phpq-Rjyxd.png
Another clue for the post-Tianyuan (40000 years ago) expansion of Ancient East Asian individuals beyond their Yangtze River Basin-related homeland of the period 19000-45000 years ago is provided by the ancient European individual Goyet Q116-1 from Belgium (35000 years ago). According to the text of the newest article “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, the most ancient connection between Tianyuan and Goyet @116-1 (1% of mtDNA, while yDNA C1a-V20 Goyet 116-1 (https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-A22263) appeared to belong to mtDNA M32’56* ancestral to some Great Andamanese Onge https://www.theytree.com/mttree/M32'56) was mediated by the BachoKiro-related population (yDNA C1a and F) which circulated between East Asia and Europe. This BachoKiro connection is marked with the violet color gradient on Figure 1A which is reserved for Goyet Q116-1-BachoKiro-Tianyuan connection. The newer Goyet Q116-1-Ancient East Asian connection is marked with a lighter color gradient of the Ancient East Asian shade (absent on the Tianyuan side, but present on the mtDNA B AR33K side, though AR33K did not interect with BachoKiro and Goyet Q116-1 herself according to the article) which is further lightened at the very edge of Goyet Q116-1 which implies the connection between Goyet Q116-1 and Basal Eurasian (the Near East). This newer connection between Goyet Q116-1 and the Ancient East Asian is consistent with the interaction of mtDNA M32’56 bearers (BachoKiro-related, mtDNA M32’56 shared a basal mutation with a Denisovan) and mtDNA M40* bearers without Denisovan and Neanderthal mutations (mtDNA M40 also interacted with some mtDNA B5b2 yDNA N-M231 Shandong Bianbian ancestors).

The possible limited Basal Eurasian connection within Goyet Q116-1 implies that mtDNA M40-related populations traveled via the Southern Route. It would be interesting to know which population history mtDNA M40 bearers’-influenced population had had prior to their possible mixing with mtDNA B5b in Northwestern China. It is possible to find out if one draws 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”, because yDNA N-M231 Shandong Bianbian is known to combine genetic features of mtDNA M40-related and mtDNA B5b-related populations

https://i.ibb.co/2sjqjZm/php4pk-Xoj.png

Post Scriptum. It was already mentioned that 49% of male-related DNA in yDNA N-M231 Bianbian could be modeled in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” using LA368 Hoabinhian and Great Andamanese Onge. However, the newest article "Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans" provided a clue that yDNA C1b LA368 Hoabinhian was already mixed with Ancient East Asians, thus 49% Hoabinhian-related DNA in Bianbian can mean that those 49% derive from a mixture of Hoabinhian-like and East Asian-related ancestry rather than solely from Hoabinhian-related ancestry
https://i.ibb.co/FHRW2GD/php-Q407bh.png

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.