Palaeolithic small flake tool industries of yDNA NO-M214 populations

[Oasis]

In China, it is thought that the appearance of small flake tools are associated with the emergence of modern humans in China.

“Zhijidong has a very thick cultural deposit ranging from the Middle Paleolithic through to the Upper Paleolithic. It documents repeated human occupations over a long term in the cave, and the change of lithic industry. In the lower unit, local raw materials were exploited and large expedient tools were produced. It is suggested that human activity took place near the cave. However, the lithic industry and human behavior changed remarkably in the upper Unit after layer 7. The occupants exploited chert and quartz from a long distance from the cave, and produced small-sized tools. Human behavior is likely to have become complex: the activity territory expanded to 6 or 7 km away from the cave, and the toolkit became diversified (Wang, 2008a, 2008b). The findings of Laonainaimiao and Zhaoshuang show a similar lithic industry to the upper unit of Zhijidong. In addition, the high frequency of herbivore remains implies specialized hunting practices. The paleoenvironmental record shows a forest-steppe landscape from 50 ka BP to 40 ka BP (Liu et al., 2008). The Zhijidong occupants from the lower unit and upper unit did not witness any major change of environment. Among the various symbols of modern behavior, the transport of raw material over a long distance, the high frequency of well-retouched tools and the expansion of territory are identified in the upper unit of Zhijidong. We suggest the new attributes of human behavior at Zhijidong appeared as a result of the emergence of modern humans in the area.”
Source: New evidence and perspectives on the Upper Paleolithic of the Central Plain in China
Youping Wang*, Tongli Qu
School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, Beijing, China

Unlike this, as for Late Middle Palaeolithic pebble stone tools/gravel stone tools, their makers are described as “hominins” by Chinese researchers:
“According to the analysis of the gravel samples from two exposed sections(less than 1 km straight-line distance from the Fangjiagou site), the hominins mainly chose the rock types with relatively good quality from the gravel layer, and probably procure gravels by collecting ones eroded and peeled from stratum.”
Source: Sources of lithic raw materials of the Fangjiagou site in Dengfeng county, Henan Province
LIN Yi, LIU Tuo, GU Wanfa, WANG Songzhi, WANG Youping

Hence, the Palaeolithic distribution of yDNA NO-M214 population during the period, when there began the separation of yDNA O-M175 and yDNA N-M231*, observed in Peninsular Malaysian Orang Asli (BTQ016 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-), BTQ038 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-), is characterized by the distribution of small flake tools from the territory of China to Southeast Asia:

---------

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.

---------

The Vietnamese and Thailand Upper Palaeolithic locations of small flake tool makers, migrating via the territory of Southwestern China from the territory north of the Five Ridges (that is, north of the Wuling Mountains of the Hunan Province), mentioned in the text above, are not far from the Southeast Asian place in Indochina, where the most ancient part of Japan Jomon autosomal component started to form, according to the model of human dispersals by Naoyuki Takahata, supported by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Nonetheless, these “Japanese” Palaeolithic migrations “Via Iran => via India => via Southeast Asia to China”, proposed by Naoyuki Takahata, are only viewed as migrations of yDNA K2b* Tianyuan-related and Papuan-like yDNA C populations by Chinese researchers as well as they are viewed as the source of (44%Tianyuan+56%Papuan) component in "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia".

It is not a big loss, since Japanese-devised Palaeolithic migrations presupposed that only Japanese ancestors should have been unadmixed with archaic humans.

Unlike this, Homo Sapiens makers of medium-sized stone flakes appeared to be related to the yDNA DE*-related population, surviving in the Upper Yantze River basin ( “New perspectives on the Late Pleistocene peopling of the Tibetan Plateau: the core-and-flake industry from the Tongtian River Valley”). Unlike their 40000-year-old ancestral populations, Boshan-Bianbian populations were already admixed with such 73300-year-old yDNA DE* populations in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" (11% admixture in https://i.ibb.co/Vjqjf9D/php-Icy-JRX.png) . The mixture of Upper Yangtzean yDNA DE* population with Boshan-Bianbian-related populations is consistent with the appearance of Late Palaeolithic medium-sized stone flakes in the Yi river basin of the Huai river system, to where Bianbian ancestors migrated after the contact with the Upper Yangtzean yDNA DE* population.

[Oasis]

A Papuan, an Onge vs. populations, contributing to Hoabinhians.

While the deeply diverged clade of another branch of yDNA NO-M214, than O-M175, could reach a homeland in Southeast Asia, from which Onge’s yDNA D-Y34637 (a brother of yDNA D-M64.1) separated, according to Naoyuki Takahata, such an event could only happen as a part of small flake tool makers’ migration, such as the one in the direction of Thailand’s Lang Rongrien rocksheter 43000 years ago (the component, relevant for such a migration, was observed in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago").

The age of 43000 years ago should predate the final separation “To yDNA C1b Papuans” of some yDNA O-M175* representatives before 41000 years ago (their component was found in ancient Guangxi Dushan in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago").
Also, the age of 43000 years ago should predate the final separation “To Onge” of some yDNA O-M175* representatives before 40000 years ago (their component was found in ancient Fujian_Late_Neolithic in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" and “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”).

The joining to Papuan- and to Onge-related populations of two above-mentioned yDNA O-M175* representatives’ components in China should predate the end of migration via Southern China to Northern China of Papuan- and Onge-related populations, which is considered by Chinese researchers to have occurred as a part of yDNA K2b* Tianyuan-/Papuan migrations along the route, established by Naoyuki Takahata, and one of the manifestations of those migrations was the appearance of large stone tool industries of Southern China’s type in Northern China ca. 41000 years ago, followed by adoption of local denticulate stone industries by new Papuan- and Onge-related migrants ca.40000 years ago in Northern China. In terms of genetics, the described process of migration of Papuan- and Onge-related populations to Northern China manifested itself as:
[1] in accordance with one of the genetic studies by the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, the most important manifestation is the appearance (as an inbuilt part of Papuan- and Onge-related populations migrating to Northern China via Southern China) of two “more southern” ca.41000-year-old and ca.40000-year-old autosomal components, preserved in China almost exclusively in the ancient sample of Yumin, whereas these two new “more southern” ca.41000-year-old and ca.40000-year-old autosomal components should correlate with the appearance of yDNA C1b2a1c - B460 signal in ancient DNA in SS Ebenesersdóttir et al, 2018 (related to 41000-year-old “Papuan” component) and yDNA D-M64 signal in ancient DNA in SS Ebenesersdóttir et al, 2018 (related to 40000-year-old “Onge” component). [2] in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the most important manifestation is the appearance of the genetic “Onge-Tianyuan clade”, which correlates with the adoption (by 40000 years ago in North China) of local denticulate tool industries also by some yDNA D-M64 and yDNA C1b migrants, and this denticulate tool industry started to flourish in the Japanese archipelago 38000 years ago. [3] Moreover, the development of this layer of yDNA D-M64 and yDNA C1b migrants did not stop, because finally their 41000-year-old “Papuan” component and 40000-year-old “Onge” component started to participate in the formation of “Native American-related” genetic drift, resulting in the appearance of the signal of (44%Tianyuan+56%Papuan) population and the signal of Onge population in some Native Americans, according to “40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia” and “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas” by Pontus Skoglund. It is accompanied by the correlation of yDNA C1b 41000-year-old “Papuan” component and yDNA D-M64 40000-year-old “Onge” component with the appearance of a later component of makers of the yubetsu microblades, which, later having settled in the Japanese archipelago, migrated from the Hokkaido island to the Honshu island. The participation in the formation of the component of makers of the yubetsu microblades means that at least some yDNA D-M64 and yDNA C1b bearers started to interact with makers of Suyanggae blade technology of Palaeolithic Korea, makers of Suyanggae small blade technology of Palaeolithic Korea and with makers of Xishantou EUP/MUP technology in Northeast China.

The above description, including the information from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, is consistent with the formation of the whole “Nihali-Eurasiatic” linguistic macrocluster in Jager, 2017 (“From words to features to trees: Computing a world tree of languages from word lists”) (the influence of mtDNA M21a-related population (some “Orang Asli-related”) was observed by the IVPP for the Nihali ((an outgroup to all Eurasiatic languages, unrelated to Native Americans, in Jager, 2017, and having only little “Onge” component)).

The author of these above mentioned archaeological concepts is the distinguished Japanese archaeologist, who is cited by the following list of scientists:
Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University
Christopher Brian Stringer, Natural History Museum, London
Eske Willerslev, University of Copenhagen
Paula J. Reimer, Queen's University, Belfast
Robert L Bettinger, University of California,
Davis Marcus W Feldman, Stanford University
Michael D. Petraglia, Griffith University
Thijs van Kolfschoten, Leiden University

Nonetheless, this Japanese archaeologist still thinks that flake tool industry from the Yangtze River basin or another location in Southern China (to where the ancient component contributing to Japan Jomon migrated from Indochina, according to the model of human dispersals by Naoyuki Takahata, supported by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) could help in establishing of the younger trapezoid-handaxe industry on the earliest denticulate tool industry of the Japanese archipelago, while the earliest denticulate tool industry of the Japanese archipelago should have been created by yDNA C1b 41000-year-old “Papuan” component and yDNA D-M64 40000-year-old “Onge” component migrants, adopting the denticulate tool industry ca. 40000 years in North China in accordance with the genetic results from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, while the newer genetic Hoabinhian-like connection for the Japanese archipelago appeared similar for Japan Jomon and much younger yDNA N-M231 Boshan in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”.

P.S. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, the percentages in the autosomal profile of available Jomon should have formed due to the retreat of some yDNA D-M64.1 representatives to a refugium during the Last Glacial Maximum and their later reexpansion.

[Oasis]

One more Japanese archaeologist, Hiroyuki Sato, also thinks that the main direction of the Early Upper Palaeolithic peopling of Japan was from the coast of China via Korea towards the island of Kyushu (a part of Paleo-Honshu island).

This is how Hiroyuki Sato described the oldest reliably dated Ishinomoto site:

Hiroyuki Sato: ”At present, the number of EUP sites is estimated to be around 500[4], with the majority on the Paleo-Honshu Island. The origin of the EUP sites on the Paleo-Honshu Island has been estimated at ca. 38 kaBP cal on the calibration curve of IntCal09 and 13[2,4,13,50]. In addition, Morisaki et al[7] gathered detailed stratigraphic and provenience data, lithic raw materials, tool types, reduction technologies, and radiocarbon dates from 42 EUP sites, demonstrating that EUP flake reduction assemblages represented by trapezoids, scrapers, and edge-ground axes emerged ca. 38–37 kaBP cal using IntCal13. Moreover, Morisaki et al[12] obtained radiocarbon dates of eight charcoal pieces from four charcoal concentrations in the earliest assemblage in the archipelago, the Ishinomoto site in Kumamoto Prefecture (Fig.1: 57) [51], the southwestern edge of the Paleo-Honshu Island, which yielded trapezoids, denticulates, and pointed tools. The ages ranged between 38.4-36.3 kaBP cal using IntCal13 (Tab.2). Based on IntCal20, the age range of these dates was calibrated between 39-37 kaBP cal.”

Since the route of the population, contributing to the Japanese Ishinomoto site’s people, bypassed Thailand and Vietnam, it is necessary to explain how the information from Chinese archaeologists, posted in the first post, is related to the described peopling processes. The Vietnamese Nguom culture’s population probably was in contact with the nearby population, in whose assemblage pointed tools (points) predominated, and which later contributed to the formation of the “point-producing” component of the population, related to the Ishinomoto site of Japan:

Nguom rockshelter is located in Northern Vietnam. (…) 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. (…) 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.

As for the 43000-year-old part of Thailand’s Lang Rongrien rocksheter population, the article "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" showed that their relatives, having known surviving descendants, to the largest degree distributed in two directions: [1] an area closer to the territory of Malaysia, on which the “Orang Asli” population was later found; [2] an area within the Upper Yangtze River basin in China. It is likely that gravers appeared in the assemblage of Thailand’s Lang Rongrien rocksheter population due to the contact with a neighbouring population, which was capable of producing edge-ground axes (Palaeolithic cultures of the Southern hemisphere, producing edge-ground axes, were detected to have gravers by archaeologists). In Japan, it is considered that the earliest edge-ground axes were already developed by descendants of the population, which at least had settled in the Japanese archipelago’s Ishinomoto site of Kyushu.

While the deeply diverged clade of another branch of yDNA NO-M214, than O-M175, could reach a homeland in Southeast Asia, from which Onge’s yDNA D-Y34637 (a brother of yDNA D-M64.1) separated (according to Naoyuki Takahata), such an event could only happen as a part of small flake tool makers’ migration, such as the one in the direction of Thailand’s Lang Rongrien rocksheter 43000 years ago (the component, relevant for such a migration, was observed in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago").

From “Assemblages of Small Flake Implements from South China and Southeast Asia”:

The reasonable interpretation may be that groups of the prehistoric men from the northern areas (southwestern China and north of the Five Ridges (that is, north of the Wuling Mountains of the Hunan Province)) 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.

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. (…) 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. (…) Types of the tools are choppers, scrapers, knives and gravers with scraper predominant.

[sailormoon]

It is accompanied by the correlation of yDNA C1b 41000-year-old “Papuan” component and yDNA D-M64 40000-year-old “Onge” component with the appearance of a later component of makers of the yubetsu microblades, which, later having settled in the Japanese archipelago, migrated from the Hokkaido island to the Honshu island.

D-M64 (D1a2a) is a Jomon branch primarily found in Japan, while the Onge and Jawara belong to D1a2b (Y34637), which splitted from a Tibeto-Burmese tribe of Northeast India (Riang/Tripuri) about 7,000 years ago. The split in D1a may have occurred near the Tibetan Plateau. D1a1 is found with high frequency in Tibetans and other Tibeto-Burmese populations. The Japanese branch is isolated from other branches of haplogroup D since about 50,000 years ago and may be older than the Onge branch. The Onge are overrated as the original tribe carrying D1a in academic studies. The beginning of the Jomon period is estimated possibly older than 15,000 years ago.

[Oasis]

According to Naoyuki Takahata, whose work was supported by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the split between an Onge-related population and “typically Japanese yDNA D-M64.1” population occurred on the modern geographical territory of Myanmar (after the migration from elswhere). Moreover, some mainstream Japanese archaeologists and geneticists support such a period for this split, when Onge ancestors and East Asian ancestors interacted with each other (that is, ca.40000 years ago), which means that yDNA D-M64.1 population had to have coexisted with the Onge ancestors for a few thousand years after the birth of yDNA D-M64.1, and the interaction between yDNA D-M64.1, Onge ancestors (on the one hand) and yDNA O-M175* East Asian ancestors (on the other hand) was similar 40000 years ago. The alienation of the Jomon-related populations occurred later. However, this alienation should not have been complete, because, according to the model of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" ancestors of Jomon poplations should have acquired ca. 25000-year-old component from yDNA O1b1 population [[[that is, during the Last Glacial Maximum, when there was a more convenient connection between Palaeo-Honshu of the Japanese archipelago and the now-submerged neighborhood of the Lower Palaeo-Yangtze, for example, see here https://i.ibb.co/94QsLsS/75.png]]], another surviving part of which started to be distributed from an area to the south of the Palaeo-Yangtze, being mainly picked up by 19000-year-old yDNA O1b1 populations, and finally reaching 7800-year-old Neolithic Hoabinhian-related Laotians according to “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”.

As for the Tibetic yDNA D-Y15407 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-Y15407/), their ancient samples have a preference for a small Onge-like component in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. However, according to the linguist Roger M. Blench, the Japanese language, a lot of bearers of which belong to yDNA D-M64.1, shares only one Pan-African root (kani “crab”), whereas languages, where yDNA D-M174 is absent among their speakers, can share more such Pan-African roots, according to the linguist Roger M. Blench (“The problem of pan-African roots” in “In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory”). Therefore, surprisingly, the Japanese geneticists actually have to count on the distribution of the remains of their own “pre-Jomon” continental component, akin to yDNA D-M64.1, but not on the distribution of the Tibetic yDNA D-Y15407 alone. It is these “remains after continental yDNA D-M64.1” that Chinese geneticists, such as authors of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, have to deal with, especially when Japanese geneticists are trying to suggest that “remains of now-died out continental yDNA D-M64.1” might have been approaching the ancestors of the Miao-Yao populations and Tibetic populations, partially migrating to Western Eurasia, or the ancestors of the Tibeto-Burman Bai population. Nonetheless, Miao-Yao and Sino-Tibetan languages are not classified as “Nostratic” languages, while Japanese or Tungus-Manchu are classified as Nostratic languages. Let us assume that Miao-Yao might have acquired the component of “remains of now-died out continental yDNA D-M64.1” Then, what such a Miao-Yao can contribute to Tungus-Manchus via Sino-Tibetans??? Another idea, which was adopted by Japanese geneticists, is that the 45000-year-old Ust-Ishim contributed to the formation of Papuans, including yDNA M and yDNA S Papuans. The recent Western article "Genomic portrait and relatedness patterns of the Iron Age Log Coffin culture in northwestern Thailand" pointed to the mutation F14434, shared by yDNA J2a-Y33951, yDNA R1b-BY205506, yDNA O-CTS1642, and yDNA S-Y109640 of the Papuan descent. However, the influence from the Ust-Ishim alone, from whose ancient sample an yDNA, contributing to “non-Nostratic” Native Americans, was shown to separate, can hardly be considered to be the influence of a Nostratic speaker, impeding the “Ust-Ishim-related” way of explaining Nostratic elements in the Japanese language, for which “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations” was preparing grounds in terms of genetics.

[sailormoon]

The age of 43000 years ago should predate the final separation “To yDNA C1b Papuans” of some yDNA O-M175* representatives before 41000 years ago (their component was found in ancient Guangxi Dushan in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago").

Kostenki-14 (~36 cal kyr BP, Russia) carried Y-haplogroup C1b* (F1370) and C1b bearers who migrated to Japan are closely associated with this Paleolithic male from southern Russia. C1a1 is also found exclusively in Japan at 5%, which was possibly introduced to the archipelago by their Paleolithic Jomon ancestors rather than Yayoi rice farmers. Its sister branch, Y-haplogroup C1a2, was a dominant lineage in Paleolithic Europeans before it gradually petered out in Europe. Y-haplogroup C1a2 was found in Goyet Q116-1 (~35 cal kyr BP, Belgium) and Sunghir (~34 cal kyr BP, Russia). Along with Kostenki-14, they may represent the earliest evidence for the separation of Europeans and East Asian lineages.

[Oasis]

Kostenki14 is classified as a non-Asian (that is, Western Eurasian ) in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, but not as a Papuan. His branch is yDNA C1b-Z33130.



As we can see Kostenki14 has a brother branch yDNA C1b-B65, which separated at least 46700 years ago. Two such specimens were found to belong to ancient Kra-Dai in Southern China in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Interestingly, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", their yDNA C1b-B65 got modeled as Western Eurasian, but not as East Asian or Hoabinhian, that is, Western Eurasian and Eastern Eurasian lineages separated at least 46700 years ago (yDNA C1b-B65 being Western Eurasian) and had even managed to acquire qualitative differences in their DNA. The age of 46700 years ago resembles the age of separation between Kostenki14 and Eastern Eurasians in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". If the languages of Western Eurasian Kostenki14-related yDNA C1b-B65 members influenced the formation of the Kra-Dai languages as an independent language family, then yDNA C1b-B65 members contributed whatever Western Eurasian-related elements they could contribute to the Kra-Dai languages. However, Kra-Dai languages clustered with Eastern Eurasian languages in Jager, 2017.

[Oasis]

In McColl et al, 2018 (“Ancient Genomics Reveals Four Prehistoric Migration Waves into Southeast Asia”) East Asian uniparentals were also affiliated with components, which were closer to Eastern Eurasian Tianyuan and Papuans, but not to Kostenki14 (a Western Eurasian).

Indeed, it appeared possible to determine Tianyuan’s yDNA as yDNA O-M175 instead of his usual assignment as yDNA K2b, which, being combined with the relative closeness of Tianyuan, Papuans and East Asians, implies that Tianyuan, Papuans and East Asians shared DNA, related to an yDNA O-M175-related population.
Tianyuan Tianyuan bone .. 1240K.capture YangCurrentBiology2017 39475 36880-38170 calBCE Tianyuan Tianyuan China 39,39 115,52 M .. O2a2b2 .. 4,754 901237 .. All https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior.../322347-5.xlsx

However, it appeared in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” that Tianyuan only shared with some East Asians a component, which was contributed to GoyetQ116-1. It appeared possible to determine GoyetQ376-3 as mtDNA M74, distantly akin to Papuans and an Australian branch of mtDNA M42’74 (https://www.theytree.com/tree/C) and it appeared possible to determine GoyetQ116-1 as mtDNA M32’56, also observed in some Australasians (https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-A22263). Nonetheles, “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” made it clear that GoyetQ116-1 was slightly closer to an ancient yDNA O-M175-related East Asian population, carrying female mtDNA N, rather than mtDNA M, which means that GoyetQ116-1 was likely related to mtDNA M32’56a branch (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/M32'56a/), which additionally has the basic mutation of mtDNA N, such as G8701A. Consequently, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” the component, which was contributed to GoyetQ116-1 from Tianyuan, who appeared to be distantly related to an yDNA O-M175-related populations, contained both DNA, related to mtDNA M-related Papuans (in Jager, 2017, the Nivkh and other Paleosiberian languages clustered with them, that is, with languages of Papuan mtDNA Q-rich Papuan Finisterre-Huon populations and Papuan mtDNA Q-rich Papuan Torricelli populations ), and to Papuan mtDNA N-related Papuans (in Jager, 2017, Korean and related Northeast Asian languages of “Fujiwara-related” territories clustered with them, that is, with Papuan North Maluku languages, such as Tobelo and Galela).

“Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” pointed to mutations C61T G62A, connecting GoyetQ116-1-related mtDNA M32’56, Papuan mtDNA Q and Paleosiberian-like mtDNA C and mtDNA D branches, and to mutations C64T and C63T connecting Eurasian and Papuan female mtDNA N-related lineages. Similarly, in the Japanese Tajima et al, 2004, 28,6% Nivkh belong to yDNA O-M175* instead of their usual yDNA C2 (which may mean the presence of actual yDNA O-M175* in the Nivkh before, which was replaced by yDNA C2 later), and two Japanese, an yDNA O1b2-47z/mtDNA F1a1b1 individual carrying mutation C64T, as well as one yDNA O1b2-47z>CTS713 individual formed a cline with the Nivkh-related Neolithic seafaring Boisman culture samples, which means the unity of GoyetQ116-1-related yDNA O-M175*-related population, a part of which (also containing individuals with Papuan mtDNA Q-related C61T G62A mutations) contributed to ancestors of the Nivkh (showing an yDNA O-M175* signal in Japanese Tajima et al) and to ancestors of Papuan mtDNA Q-related Papuans, while another part of this GoyetQ116-1-related yDNA O-M175*-related population (also containing individuals with Papuan mtDNA N-related C64T and C63T mutations) contributed to ancestors of an yDNA O1b2-related population (as a substratum) and to ancestors of Papuan mtDNA N-related Papuans. Thus, both linguistic superunits of Jager, 2017, related to female mtDNA N-related Papuans (as well as relevant Native Americans and Palaeosiberians), interacting with yDNA O-M175*, and female mtDNA M-related Papuans (as well as relevant Native Americans and Palaeosiberians), interacting with yDNA O-M175*, acquire an explanation and can be both connected to languages of a later yDNA O1b2-related population as its direct substratum and this substratum's distant relative, contributing to other East Asians, respectively, because the relevant DNA connection was shown in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.