Japan
1
Kyushu/Aoya Yayoi, Guangfulin,their connection to Longshan Pingliangtai PLTM312 rice farmer-related
The sample No32, having the "unknown " yDNA, and the Late Yayoi sample No25, having yDNA O1b2a1, clustered the closest of all Aoya Yayoi samples to the yDNA O-M122-related Han Chinese population.Originally Posted by Ebizur
The Aoya Yayoi is a highly dubious and problematic choice for determining ancient DNA.
On the one hand, Aoya Yayoi samples clustered with the modern Japanese, but were claimed by the authors to have a higher Jomon affinity, than the modern Japanese. However, their assessment is also supported by "Cranial morphometric analysis of early wet-rice farmers in the Yangtze River Delta of China" by Mark Hudson, where the Aoya Yayoi’s cranial characteristics appeared to be much closer to Jomon cranial characteristics. The association of Aoya Yayoi with the Inaba Province (where Okuninushi (the only kind brother out of 81 brothers) once traveled, according to the Kojiki) and with the slightly farther Izumo Province, the reported deceased Middle Yayoi person (Y-DNA: O1b2a1a1 MtDNA: D4b2b1d) on the the sandy bank of a stream may serve as an analogue from real life for mythology and cause the loose association with the pacification of Okuninushi’s realm in the Kojiki.
On the other hand, it is known that, much later than the Middle Yayoi period, Izumo’s territory was subjugated by Yamato, whereas the part of Izumo’s population, which did not accept Yamato’s rule, contributed to the Emishi barbarians, whose hideous and disgusting description was written in medieval Japan. Therefore, those, who were found in the Aoya Yayoi group, may get an association with people, contributing to the Emishi in the future. Consequently, in the “Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread” it is said that the Izumo dialect had a combination of several traits; some of those traits were caused by linguistic changes, which are usually considered to be so ordinary and so easily reproducible that it can be considered that such ordinary linguistic changes could happen more than once in absolutely unrelated Japanese dialects, thus, it is impossible to claim that a person, deriving from any area, whose Japanese dialect shares at least one feature with the Izumo dialect, would be a descendant of unsubjugated runaways from Izumo, opposing Yamato’s rule, who might be classified as hideous Emishi barbarians.
===========================================
Unlike the above article only from Japanese researchers, the western researcher Mark Hudson presented a slightly different view of the rice farming Yayoi as a whole in his “Cranial morphometric analysis of early wet-rice farmers in the Yangtze River Delta of China”, coauthored by Kenji Okazaki.
Indeed, the difference between Neolithic Revolution in the Near East and “Neolithic Revolution” in China is a little bit blurred in Mark Hudson’s article, so a tiny association that “Neolithic Revolution” might have been one and the same process in both parts of the continent, might appear.
In addition, in China and in the West there are different views, which type of economy was observed in Neolithic sites, such as Guangdong’s 6000-year-old Liyudun site. Was it a maritime hunter-gatherer economy, different from economies of rice farming societies of the Lower and Middle Yangtze River basins? Was it an ecomony, characterized by the accumulation of a considerable amount of plant foods? It is considered that tropical agriculture developed at some point in the Pearl River basin in Southern China. These asides should be mentioned, because there is an mtDNA F2h individual at the Longshan Pingliangtai site, and the Pingliangtai cranial series showed the presence of a combination of at least some cranial features, shared with the inhabitants of the Guangdong’s Liyudun site. So, in China, it is considered that rice farming originated in the Yangtze River basin, and yDNA O-M122-related population initiated rice farming. Therefore, the early arrival of southern populations from outside of the Yangtze River basin, such as ancestors of the mentioned ancient mtDNA F2h bearer, should be viewed in such a manner that an arriving “Tai-Kadai-related”mtDNA F2h-related population had to adopt rice farming, which had already been developed in the Yangtze River basin.
For Mark Hudson, the Lower Yangtze-related Songtze and Liangzhu cultures’ Guangfulin population, likely related to ancient Yangtze rice farmers, should be anthropologically intermediate between an yDNA O-M119 Austronesian-like Tanshishan population and yDNA O-M122 population of more northerly located cultures of China. In addition, it should have a strange component, intermediate between ancient Minatogawa, Gaomiao and Jomon on the one hand and ancient Guangxi’s 68000-130000-year-old Liujiang Homo Sapiens on the other hand, whereas, in western research, at least Minatogawa was shown to harbor at least a certain component, present in the cluster of non-Neanderthal Holocene Eurasian populations, including Western Eurasians, that is, at least Minatogawa, a Palaeolithic outlier of Japan, obtained a certain amount of the component, which was already quite similar to quite modern “real Homo Sapiens”.
For Chinese authors of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the Middle and Late Neolithic Lower Yangtze rice farming Guangfulin-like individual should be similar to an yDNA O-M119 Lower Yangtze-related individual, heavily admixed with the Chinese yDNA O-M122-related population. However, populations of those lineages produced a strong demographic impact on their neighbours. For example, proving, that Zongri5.1K (yDNA N-M231>N-F2905) is related to the populations of the Yangtze River basin, it appeared possible to model the Zongri5.1K’s yDNA N-M231>N-F2905 uniparental (4%) as 1,5% Fujian_EN + 2,5% Atayal Austronesian in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” (100% of the modern Atayal males belong to all major subclades of O-M175 haplogroup, including yDNA O-M265 (both yDNA O-M119 and yDNA O-M268), yDNA O-M122 (including both O-M122*, O-L465 and O-P201)). Consequently, the Yangtze-related yDNA N-M231>N-F2905 Neolithic population can also be counted to a certain degree as a “Austronesian”- “Chinese” mixture, while other materials of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" showed that an N-M231-related population additionally had an Upper Palaeolithic Thailand’s yDNA NO-M214-related component (from which the Southeast Asia’s part of Japan Jomon ancestry partially derived in the Upper Palaeolithic (from an Upper Palaeolithic Thailand’s yDNA NO-M214-related component, which was not yet divided between a population, ancestral to modern yDNA N-M231 members from China, and a population, ancestral to “Orang Asli-related” yDNA N-M231, discovered in Peninsular Malaysia by Chinese scientists (BTQ016 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2291(-), BTQ038 N* M231/Page91(+),CTS11499/L735/M2292(-) ))), and an N-M231-related population additionally had a substratum of a component of an ancient yDNA K2a* population, which separated from East Asian ancestors 54000-45000 years ago, that is, during the period, when the end of commonality led to the split between East Asian languages and ancestors of the so-called “Nostratic” languages, as estimated by some linguists. As for the combination of at least some “modern Homo Sapiens” component and an ancient component , intermediate between ancient Minatogawa, Gaomiao and Jomon on the one hand and ancient Guangxi’s 68000-130000-year-old Liujiang Homo Sapiens on the other hand, the PCA of the Chinese article showed that yDNA C1b and yDNA D-M174* Hoabinhians plotted in the necessary position, so they probably had the necessary combination, but, since the Lower Yangtze rice farming population in question was quite late (Middle to Late Neolithic), the arrival of the Hoabinhian-like component could have only been mediated by such populations as a “Tai-Kadai”-related mtDNA F2h-related population, whose ancestors have managed to contact the Hoabinhians, coming to South China ca. 7000-8000 years ago. From the above descriptions, it should become clear, which constituents the Middle to Late Neolithic Lower Yangtze rice farmer “Guangfulin-like” component should have had in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The mtDNA M7b1a1f-related specimen (see the PCA below) on the “rice farming path” is likely autosomally related to mtDNA M7b1a1h/yDNA N-F2905>N-Y24190 Japanese specimen, since these mtDNA M7b1a1 specimens were bearers of the “Guangfulin-like” component in the interpretation of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The Longshan Pingliangtai’s mtDNA F2h specimen and an yDNA N-F2905 Jiangsu specimen, clustering with it, can be considered a universal representation, containing a rice farmer “Guangfulin-like” component for the formation of the rice farming part of the Aoya Yayoi (Honshu Island) and NK-Y Yayoi (located in Fukuoka/Yamaguchi of the Kyushu Island of Japan) and for the formation of the Japonic-speaking Ryukyuans (since Ryukyuan mtDNA B5*, Ryukyuan mtDNA M7b1a1a1 should also derive from populations, sharing components with the Longshan Pingliangtai’s mtDNA F2h specimen and the yDNA N-F2905 Jiangsu specimen (clustering with Longshan Pingliangtai’s mtDNA F2h specimen), in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago") (an yDNA N-F2905 Jiangsu specimen also has a connection to the Longshan Pingliangtai PLTM312 yDNA N-F2905>N-CTS12473 specimen with no Mongol/Xiongnu/Xianbei component (meaning that such “rice farmer-related yDNA N-F2905 members” reached Longshan Pingliangtai in the past) and to one more yDNA N-F2905>N-F2407 specimen in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). According to Mark Hudson’s materials, the Middle to Late Neolithic Lower Yangtze rice farmer “Guangfulin-like” component should be the original “rice farmer”-related component, which contributed to:
[1] Middle-late Yayoi culture (c. BCE 400–300 CE), labeled NK-Y Yayoi (located in Fukuoka/Yamaguchi of the Kyushu Island of Japan. In Hudson’s work, this Yayoi showed more “North China-like” anthropological characteristics, likely being considerably admixed with members of cultures, ancestral to modern Northern Han Chinese (e.g., Pingliangtai PLTM310, having mtDNA D4b1a* of Shandong Beiqian origin, clustered more closely with modern Han Chinese, than other Pingliangtai specimens ), but also to other ancient minorities, since NK-Y Yayoi anthropologically clustered with Yinxu slaves (the archaeological site of Yinxu was an ancient capital city of the late Shang Dynasty, Henan, c. BCE 1400–1100, Late Shang Dynasty period). Interestingly, as a source of North China’s admixture, unrelated to Han Chinese, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" pointed to the Yangshao Wanggou 5500-5000-year-old WGM94 specimen, having mtDNA B4d1, but also having yDNA O1b1a2. Since the Shang Dynasty’s Yinxu was ca. 2000 years younger than the Yangshao Wanggou yDNA O1b1a2, the participation of anthropologically Central Plain-like (that is, non-Mongol) Yinxu slave populations (being anthropologically not too far from Yinxu citizens of that period) in the formation of NK-Y Yayoi should be attributed to the exile to Japan of one of North China’s at least 5000-5500-year-old religious minorities. Nonetheless, materials of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" allow to conlude that yDNA O1b1, found in Japan, is not closely related to the WGM94 specimen, so the North China’s religious minority practices did not seem to enter the Shinto religion, while "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" showed the Korean source from an yDNA O1b2-L682>O1b2-A23653-related population (migrating to Japan independently from rice farmers), which had to introduce to Japan non-rice farming rites, bearing a certain degree of similarity to the ones, practiced by North China’s religious minority from the period of Yangshao Wanggou 5000-5500 years ago till the time of the Shang Dynasty’s Yinxu slave population 3400-3100 years ago, because such religious practices in Korea and North China had the single source in the Middle Neolithic settlement ca. 5500 years ago, which some Koreans view as a progenitor of their population. Thus, some lineages of NK-Y Yayoi (those who mixed with the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h “rice farmer”-related population ) might bear similarity to Korean lineages, though they were not closely related, representing a distinct branch, migrating to North China in the Middle Neolithic from an archaeological culture, also shared by some ancestors of Koreans. What is clear from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" is that the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h “rice farmer”-related population is NOT related to Botai’s yDNA R1b-M478 population (in which Palaeolithic mtDNA A-related Xinglongwa’s and Hongshan’s substratum participated), which was contributing to various Western and Eastern Eurasian populations independently.
[2] Aoya Yayoi (Late Yayoi culture (BCE 400–300 CE). Relative to the Middle to Late Neolithic Lower Yangtze rice farmer Guangfulin, the Aoya Yayoi is slightly shifted in the direction of yDNA O-M119-related Hemudu culture as well as the Aoya Yayoi is even slightly more shifted in the direction of the Guangdong’s Hedang site, which is thought to be distantly related to the Tanshishan culture (a culture of an yDNA O-M119 population). The plotting of an yDNA O-M119 specimen on one of “rice farmer-related” clines, leading to the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h specimen corresponds to the participation of an yDNA O-M119-related population in the formation of the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h-related population. Consequently, the participation of “Pingliangtai-related” yDNA O-M119 might have ben more prominent in the formation of the population, ancestral to the Aoya Yayoi. Interestingly, since the ancient mtDNA F2h population per se has a certain Guangdong-related affinity, then the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h specimen can also explain a slightly greater Guangdong’s Hedang affinity of Aoya Yayoi than just an affinity to the Hemudu culture. Interestingly, the Jiaodong’s Dawenkou Beiqian site clustered intermediately between Aoya Yayoi and Guangfulin. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" there is also such a connection between the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h specimen and two Shandong_outlier and Henan_outlier “Dawenkou Beiqian-related” specimens. Thus, the Aoya Yayoi can also be treated as the population, which was to a certain degree related to the Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h-related “rice farmer-related” population.
On the below PCA from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the “route”, composed of fragments of clines, formed by “rice farmer-related” specimens, has been shown. Since the connection of the Longshan Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h “rice farmer-related” specimen to yDNA D-M174 specimen, having migrated to the Neolithic Yellow River cultures, and being related to the Japanese D-MF10280, found in Osaka, was already shown in a different topic, the same “Osaka-related” connection existing for yDNA N-F2905 Jiangsu specimen,sharing the position on the rice farming cline with the Longshan Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h “rice farmer-related” specimen, will not be shown once again. This “Osaka” connection means that all “Longshan Pingliangtai/Guangfulin”-affiliated “rice farmer-related” mtDNA M7b1a1h/yDNA N-F2905>N-Y24190, yDNA O-M122, yDNA O-M119, yDNA O1b1-M95 representatives, whose relatives formed these clines, were migrating as rice farmers, via Mumun and Yayoi cultures, to the territory of the future Japanese Yamato Kingdom, where Osaka was built.
"Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" defends the role of the “rice farmer from mainland China” (whose ancestors were affiliated with the 4000-year-old developed cultures in China) in the formation of the Yayoi culture.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks