Genetics and Eastern Eurasian Archaeological Cultures and Ancient Populations

[Oasis]

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.

[Oasis]

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.

[Oasis]

“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.

[Oasis]

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).

[Oasis]

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.

[Oasis]

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".

[Oasis]

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.

[Oasis]

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.

[Oasis]

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.

[Oasis]

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.