0
Split of Sino-Tibetan languages in Yellow River basin, associated bearers of O-M175: O-M134,O-L127.1
According to “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4000 years”:
“In the network analysis, we observed that several ancient Tibetans and Yellow River populations shared a common ancestor and separated into different branches (such as M9a1a, M9a1b, D4g2, G2a'c, and D4i) (Figs. 3B, 3E, S3). The phylogeny of some haplotypes (M9a1a, M9a1b, D4g2, and G2a'c) showed ancient Tibetans and Middle YR Han-related populations (Shimao, Qingtai, and Taosi) formed two distinct clades and shared a common ancestor around 12517 BP–9385 BP, based on a molecular clock-based method BEAST (Figs. 3A and S5). It can be linked to the Han-Tibetan split during early Holocene, as suggested before (Lu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019, 2021).”
References, mentioned in the article, as well as other articles supported the differentiation of Sino-Tibetan languages into Sinitic (Han) and Tibetan languages in the Yellow River Basin.
In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” as well as in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the ancient Yellow River samples, belonging to old yDNA O-M122>O-M134 and old yDNA O-M122>O-L127.1, clustered close to each other and occupied the central position on the PCAs in the matter of joining modern Tibetan-speaking populations and Sinitic(Han)-speaking populations.
On the other hand, yDNA O-M122>O-F871 has a rather young branch, distributed among the Austronesians, but some Austronesian populations have 100% yDNA O-M175. mtDNA M9a1a, M9a1b, characteristic of the Sino-Tibetan split, are also of a very southern origin, but their homeland in Southern China is not associated with the Austronesians. In order to understand the reasons behind these facts, it is necessary to take into account the multi-stepped process of the formation of population in China since the Palaeolithic.
In “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, the homeland of ancient East Asians in Eastern China, mostly in the eastern part of the Yangtze River basin is mentioned, and it should have been also characteristic of ancestors of yDNA O-M122 individuals.
However, the Last Glacial Maximum caused some population movements. Small flake tools, made on flint, characteristic of the homeland of ancient East Asians, started to appear in the areas far to the south in Southern China, because some populations retreated to the south because of the Last Glacial Maximum. Small flake tools, made on flint, even started to appear in the Bailiandong cave site of Guangxi, which is an area, associated with the split of mtDNA M9a. Nonetheless, small flake tool assemblages, made on flint, were also reported from more northerly areas, that is, areas in the western part of the Yangtze River basin, including areas, adjacent to the western part of the Yellow River Basin, where small flake tool industries were distributed during the period, when microblade industries started to dominate areas of Central Plains in the eastern part of the Yellow River Basin.
The described area in the western part of the Yellow River basin, where microblade industries were absent, but flint small flake tool industries of yDNA O-M122 individuals appeared, is the area, from where the Yellow River ancestry distributed all over the Yellow River basin since the Late Palaeolithic, being slightly older in its age than the younger yDNA O-M188-related Southern East Asian ancestry and the Yellow River ancestry’s yDNA O-P164*-related precedecessor in the Yellow River Basin (that is, the younger Northern East Asian ancestry), which both separated from each other and from the yDNA O-M122-dominated Yellow River ancestry 18000-19000 years ago.
For example, the Yellow River ancestry haplogroup, which reached the territory of the Lower Yellow River, where the Houli culture was later formed, is yDNA O-M134>O-F114 in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.
Since the distribution of ancestors of the Yellow River ancestry in some parts of the Yangtze River Basin during the Last Glacial Maximum was secondary, it left room for the existence of some earlier yDNA N-M231-related populations, living in the Yangtze River basin, interacting with yDNA F individuals and with the preceding waves of mtDNA B5b-related yDNA O2a-L465*(found in ancient DNA in Poland)/O1b(O1b*/O1b1*)-related populations (whereas mtDNA B5a is shared by Han Chinese, Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatics, some Austronesians, etc) and bypassing the “former” East Asian homeland, when distributing through the Yangtze River basin as far as the Lower Yangtze River basin and beyond, also distributing as far as the Huai River basing, Shandong and beyond, and the ancestry of these earlier inhabitants of the western part of the Yangtze River basin should not have been too distant from the ancestry of inhabitants of the East Asian homeland in the eastern part of the Yangtze River basin on the verge of the Last Glacial Maximum, at least individuals, related to them, were not placed too far on the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ebizur
China
Bookmarks