1
European N-L1026 members are related to mtDNA D5a3a member of Hongshan culture, China
One D5a3a specimen from the Banlashan site of the Hongshan culture bears especially noticeable relationship to the N-L1026 population.
The Banlashan specimens (China) are older than 5000 years ago, so the N-L1026 population had interacted with some of mtDNA D5a3a-related Hongshan-related populations as a whole.
However, the fate of different N-L1026 branches was also different.
The members of the European N-Z1936 branch and N-VL29 branch retain at least some traces of Hongshan-related Banlashan-related ancestry, and they contributed to the Shandong-related populations (China) and Xinjiang-related populations (China), so their ancestry, having become part of the Even-related ancestry should be also connected to Shandong and Xinjiang, it should arrive to the Even from the faraway southwestern direction which is consistent with the spread of metallurgy (the copper artifact remains of the Hongshan civilization was not redated to the Bronze Age so far). So there is no need to posit that those N-Z1936 and N-VL29 had to go to the Bronze Age Ymyyakhtakh first, because they could much easier reach Europe from that faraway southwestern direction.
The members of the N-B202 branch retain at least some traces of Hongshan-related Banlashan-related ancestry, but they participated in the formation of the Even-related ancestry in a different way and they contributed to the Itelman and other Chukotko-Kamchatkans, but , without D5a3a contribution, their contribution to the Even-related ancestry was qualitatively resemblant of the ancestry included in the Nivh population (the Sakhalin island near the Lower Amur). However, they also interacted with female mtDNAs from populations which were closer to those included in ancient Mongolia_Northeast, Mongolia_North, Baikal-related populations, Haminmangha of the Liaohe River in China.
The members of the N-F4205 branch (the Avar-related population) also retain at least some traces of Hongshan-related Banlashan-related ancestry, but they did not at all participate in the formation of the Even-related ancestry, but instead mixed with the Northeast Chinese autosomal component, part of which was first detected in the AR19K-related population of the Heilongjiang (Amur) River, so they should be connected to Northeast China and at first only distribute to the territories close to Northeast China (there is no modern population to retain the substantial trace of this AR19K-related Heilongjiang-related component).
This piece of information is detailed enough to be described in Chinese research. The European N-L1026 members have a right to know about it. The Hongshan culture is not really considered Altaic or Transeurasian within the borders of China. Chinese researchers point that the Hongshan culture importantly contributed to the Chinese civilization.
The ancient East Asian component which is also related to the N-TAT population ancestral to N-L1026 is the mtDNA G2a population. The East Asian population on the banks of the Yellow River split into the ancestry which later contributed to USR1 and AR14K populations related to Native Americans, while another branch of this ancestry split into the ancestry that contributed to Han Chinese dominated by mtDNA D (Lajia and Shimao ancestry) and yet another branch that contributed to the ancestry which split between hg N-rich Shandong_EN ancestry (mtDNA G1a-related) and Yumin-related ancestry (mtDNA G1c-related). The mtDNA G2a-related ancestry related also to N-TAT populations split slightly before the split between Shandong_EN (G1a-related) and Yumin (G1c-related). However, some of the G2a1 members happen to share A16463G mutation found in the mtDNA M40. Similarly, the Shandong Bianbian of the N-M231 haplogroup has mtDNA B5b2 which also shares A16463G mutation found in the mtDNA M40. Nonetheless, the mtDNA M40 is found in the Pauri Bhuiya Indo-European-related/ Dravidian-related population and in the Austroasiatic Munda population from India which is different from other Austroasiatics being an agglutinative language as Dravidian languages are. However, the Pauri Bhuiya population also contain an mtDNA M* specimen that shares one mutation with mtDNA M76, all branches of which can be found in China as well. The mtDNA M76 also shares a mutation with mtDNA M80 of M80’D haplogroup, the most abundant mtDNA in East Asia. The mtDNA M40 also shares a mutation with some mtDNA D branches. The topology of mtDNA trees is not well established yet and can be different. What is important for N-M231 haplogroup members: the N-M231 and O-M175 haplogroups split 41900 years ago, and Onge/Longlin ancestry separated from Tianyuan-related ancestry 41900 years ago, BUT living N-M231 and O-M175 BOTH prefer to be modeled with Onge/Hoabinhians (yDNA C1b/D haplogroups) , but not with Tianyuan (yDNA K2b). Therefore, living N-M231 and living O-M175 ancestors both separated into the Onge-related population, whereas dead branches of N-M231 and O-M175 separated into Tianyuan-related populations. The situation with the female mtDNA is the opposite. The modern N-M231 and O-M175 ancestors conquered the women from men of dead lineages of N-M231 and O-M175, so the modern mtDNAs in East Asia are closer to Tianyuan than to Onge and even modern mtDNA M80’D branches prefer to be modeled with mtDNA of Tianyuan (mtDNA B, a branch of mtDNA R) rather than with mtDNA M in Onge.
On the contrary, ancient mtDNA M8’CZ populations shared some ancestry with Ust’ Ishim rather than with Tianyuan. This ancient DNA is also preserved in some East Asian-related populations. However, even modern and ancient mtDNA C4 and G from Sino-Tibetans should be closer to the mtDNA of Tianyuan. Similarly, all mtDNAs from ancient N-M231 and O-M175 populations should initially be able to cluster with the mtDNA of Tianyuan, rather than with the mtDNA of Ust’ Ishim, Onge or Indus Valley populations, thus they could only contribute their initial ancestry to Longlin or some populations that dwell in India today, not being entirely equal to Longlin ancestry or AASI ancestry. Those geographically peripheral populations who preserve some more ancient ancestry shared with Ust’ Ishim (Japanese or Koreans (relative to Han Chinese) and some Southeast Asian-related groups) appeared to possess some of such mtDNAs C, M8 and G which would cluster with Ust’ Ishim rather than with Tianyuan. On the contrary, mtDNA D and M80’D (Shimao_LN, Higa20 specimens) should be closer to Tianyuan than to Ust’ Ishim.
This is the information the European haplogroup N-M231 members should know as well, so that they did not become prey to the ydna D-centered Japanese world view or ydna C-centered world view of some members from Korea.
Reply With Quote
Srbija
Bookmarks