History of yDNA N2-Y6503, including connection of some its ancestors to SEA yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhians

[Oasis]

The materials of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" pointed that the ancient specimen DA247 yDNA N-Y6503>Y147969 had components, geographically distributed from Yunnan to Guangxi and a region adjacent to the Upper Yangtze River basin, that is, Chamdo, which is also bordering Qinghai. From there ancient close yDNA N relatives of the ancient yDNA N-Y6503-related population, as well as the ancient yDNA N-Y6503-related population itself (starting from about 19000 years ago), started to distribute either in the southern direction of the formation of Hoabinhians in Southeast Asia or in the northern direction to the area between Yumin and Haminmangha in China. In North China, the descendant of the remains of the ancient yDNA N-Y6503-related population (along the way of migration already in North China) was the ancient mtDNA M80’D* Shimao_LN specimen. This mtDNA M80’D* Shimao_LN specimen contained components, whose ancestors had to separate into various younger yDNA N-Y6503-related populations. The ancestor of yDNA N-Y6503 settled in the Haminmangha-related area in China (where an ancestor of yDNA N-Y6503>Y147969 was located slightly closer to Mongolia and Yumin, while an ancestor of yDNA N-P189.2 was located slightly closer to the West Liao River, Shandong and future Miaozigou area). In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, ancient neighboring populations of this area conveniently explained various peculiarities, which should also have influenced the modern ca. 13000-year-old kind of yDNA N-Y6503 (including the presence of an mtDNA Z-related population (close to Haminmangha), 8% of whose component reached a Hoabinhian in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). Indeed, in accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, [1] ancient Haminmangha bordered the ancient mtDNA C4-related population, whose pre-C4 ancestors had previously contributed to yDNA Q-M746-related AfontovaGora2, and because of the interaction of the ancestor of yDNA N-Y6503 with the ancient mtDNA C4-related population, a DA247 yDNA N-Y6503>Y147969-related population finally appeared; [2] ancient Haminmangha bordered the ancient mtDNA D4j*-related population, whose mtDNA D4j*-related ancestors had previously contributed to ancestors of yDNA Q-M746-related Kolyma, and because of the interaction of the yDNA N-Y6503-related population with the ancient mtDNA D4j*-related population, mtDNA D4j8a-related HRR579041 yDNA N-Y6503>Y147969-related population, migrating to Xinjiang, appeared; [3] similarly, yDNA N-Y6503-related population started to interact with the mtDNA C-related population of the then widely distributed Yumin culture, whose mtDNA C population’s ancestry had previously reached Western Siberian hunter-gatherers; [4] similarly, yDNA N-Y6503-related population started to interact with the mtDNA A-related population residing closer to the future Xinglongwa and Hongshan cultures’ areas in the West Liao river basin , whose mtDNA A population’s ancestry had previously reached the genome pf the ANE Mal’ta individual; [5] similarly, yDNA N-P189.2-related population started to interact with the mtDNA D4b2-related population residing closer to the future Miaozigou culture’s area , and this mtDNA D4b2* population’s ancestry of East Asian microblade makers had previously reached the genome of the ANE mtDNA R1b-related AfontovaGora3 individual (and since there appeared rich finds of ancient mtDNA R1b in Xinjiang, which used to be one of intermediary points of migration of yDNA C2-F1067/mtDNA D4b2* microblade makers, it is likely that a case of mtDNA R1b1c of the future Botai became affiliated with the Chinese territory during that period), while a part of their mtDNA D4b2* population’s ancestry reached Shandong (whose own Shandong-related local microblade making yDNA C2-F1067/mtDNA D4b2*-related substratum did not contribute to populations in the Western Eurasian direction, but instead contributed to ancestors of Native Americans), and these mutual interactions between yDNA N-P189.2-related ones and yDNA C2-F1067/mtDNA D4b2*-related ones, affiliated with mtDNA R1b1c-related population and contributing to ancestors Shandong’s mtDNA B4c1c-related population, also explain the affiliation of yDNA N-P189.2-related population to the mtDNA B4c1c-related population and explain the appearance of the Austronesian Ami-affiliated component in the ancient Botai (a component, which was discovered by Choongwon Jeong).


Unlike the above descriptions, since the Tibetan Chamdo region, affiliated with yDNA N2-Y6503-related population ancestors, is separated by the mountains, the history of yDNA N1-Z4762 branch of the “mainland China-facing” part of the Upper Yangtze River basin, ancestral to modern yDNA N1 individuals, was absolutely dissimilar. Moreover, the Tibetan Chamdo region has a geographical connection to Southeast Asia, for example, via the Salween River, and it explains why the territory of Hoabinhian ancestors in Southeast Asia was reachable from the Palaeolithic Chamdo, and why, due to later Palaeolithic circulations, basal mtDNA Z* (probably from the region, neighboring Haminmangha’s area, due to the Palaeolithic “There and Back Again” movements) appeared in Thailand and 8% of mtDNA Z population-related ancestry was already associated with the Hoabinhian-related contribution to the ancient Baojianshan.

In “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, Ust-Belaya_N of Baikal appeared one of the closest to the Southeast Asian Hoabinhian. The PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" should help to discern that it happened due to Ust-Belaya_N’s connection to one of ancient individuals, affiliated with the relatives of an yDNA N2-Y6503-related population in China, whose component also distributed to the yDNA D-M174 Hoabinhian of Malaysia. The meaning of the Hoabinhian connection was already explained in a different topic:

East Asians and Mystery of (Yale)Kosarek clustering as outgroup of Afroasiatic in Jager, 2017


In Gerhard Jager’s “From words to features to trees…” (2017) the territorially isolated from the sea coast, deeply inland Papuan language (Yale) Kosarek clustered as an outgroup of the cluster of the main Afroasiatic languages.

It might be a chance similarity result. However, we hear that the distinctiveness of the (Yale) Kosarek has been known to Western specialists in East Asian studies well before Jager’s work.

Later, it was published in "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar" that:

“WALS gives 14 languages, all Tibeto-Burman except for Yale (Kosarek), a Trans - New Guinea language , and Rumu , a Tirama - Kikorian language also spoken in Papua New Guinea , with N > Num > Dem and Rel > N order”. (…)WALS gives just one language with Rel > N , N > Num > Dem , and VO order ( i.e. V - to - v movement ) : Bai, a Sino - Tibetan language spoken in Yunnan , China , whose affiliation as Tibeto - Burman or Sinitic is debated [that is, it is not clear, if Bai is a Sinitic language or Tibeto-Burman language]. (…) With N > Rel , N > Num > Dem , and VO order, WALS gives 170 languages. Languages of this type appear to fall into three areal groups: sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia and New Guinea/Polynesia. In the West African areal cluster we find Yoruba, Ewe, and probably Igbo and Gungbe (Gungbe has N > A > Rel > D > Num; see Aboh & DeGraff 2017: 452).”



At the first sight, the (Yale) Kosarek and Rumu localization in Papua New Guinea cause the association with the Papuan branch of yDNA C1b, or with basal C1b observed in a Laos’s Hoabinhian LA368, who should share some genetic ancestry with Papuans. As for the mentioned East Asian Bai people in Yunnan, their male uniparentals were the following in “Genetic substructure analysis of three isolated populations in southwest China”(the Yunnan Province) :
D-M174: 5.88%
C-M217 2.94%
N-M231 8.82%
O-M175 82.35%
In case of the remote Bai neighbours in terms of the feature N > Rel , N > Num > Dem , and VO order, "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar" chose to point to West Africans, such as Yoruba, in the first place. It is consistent with the belief that if a rather late isolated branch yDNA D0 (of yDNA D-M174) was observed to be split between inhabitants of Arabia and West African Nigeria, West Africa should be considered a priority, despite other more diverse branches of D-M174 inhabiting East Asia and Southeast Asia. However, the basal yDNA D-M174* branch was also observed in the Malaysian Hoabinhian MA911.

Thus, if the distribution of Afroasiatic-like linguistic features were not considered, but at least the distribution of the linguistic features mentioned in "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar", shared between different populations of the world, were considered, one might suspect yDNA C1b* Hoabinhians (such as LA368) and yDNA D* Hoabinhians (such as MA911) as mediators for populations living in East Asia. Nonetheless, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" discarded the “Out-of-Papua” scenario and also concluded that there is no reliable genetic data on the coming of the Hoabinhians, born in Southeast Asia, to the territory of China.

Before that, the Chinese geneticists were interested in finding the similarities between LA368 and MA911 Hoabinhians on the one hand and populations in China as well as broad East Asia and Eastern Eurasia on the other hand. “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” produced the following results of genetic similarities of different origin, shared by modern and ancient East Asians with the combined group of LA368 and MA911 Hoabinhians in f3-statistics:



The above article stated that: “The Man Bac result [of similarities, shared with Hoabinhians] is lower than that observed for most other Southeast Asians, and the [Japan Jomon] Ikawazu result is lower or similar to that observed for several present-day East Asians, and ancient individuals from the Tibetan Plateau and coastal northern East Asia.

Thus, the result of similarities, shared with the Hoabinhians, appeared quite similar in the ancient Shandong Boshan (ancient yDNA N-M231-related population from coastal northern East Asia) and the Japan Jomon Ikawazu (yDNA D-M64-related population) in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”. This article also highlighted the role in similarities with the Hoabinhians of the ancient Tibetan Plateau, where not only D-M174-related populations’ ancestries can be observed, but also yDNA CT*, F*, DE*-related populations’ ancestries can be observed in some localizations.

Thus, the search for a more precise route for the distribution of ancient Afroasiatic-like linguistic similarities should continue, in view of the importance of this question for a population residing in China and some other East Asian countries.

For Hungarian members, perhaps, it might be more important to know about mtDNA J1c2, highlighted for Hungarians in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” (see the topic https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...elated-populat).

P.S. Also, according to “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, the component, ancestral to modern yDNA N1 members, is not observed in the ancestry of Sweden_IA RISE174 yDNA R1a-BY29826, mtDNA W1.