05-04-2024, 01:42 PM
Regarding yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159, this subclade is a relative of the ancient Dushan specimen from the Guangxi Province of China.The ancient Dushan specimen was dated to 8593-8974 years ago and was on the verge of the formation of the southern Neolithic.
However, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the Dushan site was reported to have a Late Paleolithic layer, dated to less than 15000 years ago, which was dominated by small flake tool-based industry, and the Dushan specimen additionally showed the participation of two ancestries, one of these ancestries was relatively estimated to separate from the Eastern Eurasians ca. 38100 years ago (which is comparable to the age of yDNA NO-M214 on theytree.com site) and another one of these ancestries was relatively estimated to separate from the Eastern Eurasians somewhat less than 38000 years ago in that article. According to "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", “all of these stone artifacts are produced from medium sized fluvial cobbles that were transported from the ancient Youjiang River, more than 10 km north of the cave”, and it is known from archaeology that medium sized cobbles were used to produce flaked artifacts in the locality of the Yi river basin of the Huai river system (Shandong), whose ancient inhabitant was the ancient Bianbian individual from one more population.
Thus, the ancestors of yDNA O-M188-related Dushan (yDNA O-M7) should have interacted with representatives of these earlier deeply diverged Guangxi populations less than 15000 years ago. Dushan was named a southern ancient individual in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Today yDNA O-M7 is observed in populations, speaking Miao-Yao languages. Among other Miao-Yao-related lineages, the HuatuyanNL17 from an ancient (medieval) Guangxi Miao-Yao-related population was reported to belong to yDNA O-M122>O-IMS-JST002611* (a basal branch of yDNA O-IMS-JST002611). Moreover, on the PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", some of the Miao-Yao-related specimens, belonging to yDNA O-IMS-JST002611, participated in clines along with individual from a very ancient population, connected to the basal yDNA O-M175*. Thus, yDNA O-IMS-JST002611* (coupled with yDNA O*), yDNA O-M188 individuals played a certain role in the formation of the originality of the ancient Miao-Yao populations.
On the other hand, nevertheless, on one of PCAs from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, where most ancient specimen Tianyuan and AR33K (both belonging to mtDNA R) were used, the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen formed a cline with one Tai-Kadai individual (the most Dushan-related one in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). This cline passed not far from the yDNA O-IMS-JST002611-rich Miao-Yao She individuals. Consequently, members of different yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 populations, ancestral to HGDP00819, might have interacted with ancestors of Miao-Yao to a greater degree, or they might have interacted with ancestors of the Miao-Yao to a lesser degree. Indeed, the yDNA O1b2-47z Japanese individual, who was the most shifted to the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen on the PCA, additionally aligned with the yDNA O-IMS-JST002611-related individual and individuals from a very ancient population, connected to the basal yDNA O-M175*, that is, populations, contributing to the Miao-Yao.
[This Japanese article (“Decoding triancestral origins, archaic introgression, and natural selection in the Japanese population by whole-genome sequencing”) hinted at a role, which migrants (the notion of which should also include ancient Miao-Yao-related individuals) should have had in ancient Japan and in which sort of area (that is, the peripheral area) they are expected in modern Japan to have settled during the ancient period.]
Consequently, there should have been one more kind of the yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 population, related to the ancestors of the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen, whose members interacted with the Miao-Yao ancestors to a lesser degree and, as a result, to a larger degree preserved their initial closeness to the yDNA O-M122>…O-M134-related Sino-Tibetan population. Indeed, on one of the PCAs from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen formed a cline, bypassing individuals, whose ancestors were likely related to the population of the rice-farming Liangzhu culture, and including a specimen from Shandong, who clustered with more southern Jiangsu specimens and who clustered with one of ancient Longshan culture’s Pingliangtai specimens, and who had the mtDNA, which shared a mutation with the fairly southern mtDNA R9b1a2a2:
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/R9b1a2a2/
It is striking that mtDNA R9b1a2a2, being so South China’s, has representatives in Russia, sharing the most recent common ancestor 5000 years ago. Indeed, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, pointed to the mtDNA D4+195 from the Yangtze River basin’s Hunan Province, which shared a mutation with mtDNA R9b1a2a. “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” only pointed to the Altai Mountains’ Okunevo EMBA as the second specimen having mtDNA D4+195, listed in that article. It is known from archeology, that the Lower Yangtze River basin’s Liangzhu culture, being influenced by the Hongshan-influenced Lingjiatan culture, was characterized by jade artifacts, whose production methods combined typically mainland China’s ways of jade processing with ways of jade processing, characteristic of the ancient cultures of Northeast China. Interestingly, the early Hongshan culture’s jade working was initially also characterized by mainland China’s ways of jade processing, and the interaction with a more northeastern Zuojiashan culture enriched the Hongshan culture’s jade working with ways of jade processing, characteristic of the ancient cultures of Northeast China, and thus, those Northeast China’s ways of jade working reached as far as the Liangzhu culture of the Lower Yangtze River basin, while mixed sites of the Yangshao culture (for example, one of female specimens of the Yangshao’s Wanggou site was shifted from other Yangshao specimens in the direction of both Hongshan and Shandong’s most northeastern Xiaojingshan specimens, clustering somewhat close to each other on the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”) served as intermediaries for migration at first as far as the Anhui Province’s Lingjiatan culture followed by the migration to the Lower Yangtze River basin, in the vicinity of which the Liangzhu culture formed. The Pingliangtai site of the Longshan culture showed the presence of the combined mainland China/Northeast China jade processing technology in a southern Shijiahe-style jade artifact, while the Shijiahe culture’s jade working was characterized by the Liangzhu culture’s influence, which means the backmigration of bearers of such technologies from the Yangtze river basin to the more northern area of the Henan Province, where the Pingliangtai site of the Longshan culture later formed.
Interestingly, the Pingliangtai site was one of the early sites in China, which had evidence that its inhabitants were acquainted with the wheeled transportation. It may help to explain the striking appearance of the 5000-year-old clades of mtDNA R9b1a2a2 in Russia. However, yDNA O-M159 was not reported from the sites of the Okunevo culture, while a rare branch of yDNA N was reported from one of the Okunevo sites (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-B187/ ).
Nonetheless, there is no evidence for any considerable distribution of mtDNA R9b1a2a2 in Japan so far. Moreover, the more northeastern Xiaojingshan-related Japanese-specific branch of yDNA N (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y23749/) was never reported from Russia. It means that the groupings of individuals were not a part of exactly the same population. Instead of this, the mentioned northeast-shifted mixed Yangshao Wanggou female specimen formed a cline with one of individuals, whose ancestors were likely related to the population of the rice-farming Liangzhu culture, and this cline also bypassed two Longshan culture’s Pingliangtai specimens in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. Moreover, one of the specimens, belonging to the described cline in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, clustered extremely closely to the Pingliangtai PLTM312 specimen in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", which may mean marriages between representatives of those populations, whereas the Pingliangtai PLTM312-specific lineage is not directly represented in Japan, where there is yDNA N-Y23749 instead. Similarly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” reported the yDNA O-M188 Japanese individual, who should be a distant relative of the yDNA O-M159-related population, and the mtDNA of this yDNA O-M188 Japanese individual was the “northeastern” mtDNA F1b1a (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1a/ ).
Regarding the mtDNA N9a, while the most ancient case so far (N9a2'4'5'11) was observed in ancient Shandong in a more “northern” Xiaogao specimen, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” listed other more northern non- N9a2'4'5'11 branches of N9a, in Korea, where mtDNA O1b2-L682 is also observed on the territory of the Gaya Confederacy. “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” selected mtDNA M7a1a4a, which shares a mutation T11368C with mtDNA N9a8, which is observed in the Hunan Province of China among other locations, and the Hunanese N9a8 carries some mutations, observed in rice farming populations, while mtDNA N9a9 is observed in Western Eurasians and carries some mutations, shared with mtDNA M7c-related populations (including some Taiwanese Austronesians) and Western Eurasians.
However, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the Dushan site was reported to have a Late Paleolithic layer, dated to less than 15000 years ago, which was dominated by small flake tool-based industry, and the Dushan specimen additionally showed the participation of two ancestries, one of these ancestries was relatively estimated to separate from the Eastern Eurasians ca. 38100 years ago (which is comparable to the age of yDNA NO-M214 on theytree.com site) and another one of these ancestries was relatively estimated to separate from the Eastern Eurasians somewhat less than 38000 years ago in that article. According to "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", “all of these stone artifacts are produced from medium sized fluvial cobbles that were transported from the ancient Youjiang River, more than 10 km north of the cave”, and it is known from archaeology that medium sized cobbles were used to produce flaked artifacts in the locality of the Yi river basin of the Huai river system (Shandong), whose ancient inhabitant was the ancient Bianbian individual from one more population.
Thus, the ancestors of yDNA O-M188-related Dushan (yDNA O-M7) should have interacted with representatives of these earlier deeply diverged Guangxi populations less than 15000 years ago. Dushan was named a southern ancient individual in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Today yDNA O-M7 is observed in populations, speaking Miao-Yao languages. Among other Miao-Yao-related lineages, the HuatuyanNL17 from an ancient (medieval) Guangxi Miao-Yao-related population was reported to belong to yDNA O-M122>O-IMS-JST002611* (a basal branch of yDNA O-IMS-JST002611). Moreover, on the PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", some of the Miao-Yao-related specimens, belonging to yDNA O-IMS-JST002611, participated in clines along with individual from a very ancient population, connected to the basal yDNA O-M175*. Thus, yDNA O-IMS-JST002611* (coupled with yDNA O*), yDNA O-M188 individuals played a certain role in the formation of the originality of the ancient Miao-Yao populations.
On the other hand, nevertheless, on one of PCAs from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, where most ancient specimen Tianyuan and AR33K (both belonging to mtDNA R) were used, the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen formed a cline with one Tai-Kadai individual (the most Dushan-related one in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago"). This cline passed not far from the yDNA O-IMS-JST002611-rich Miao-Yao She individuals. Consequently, members of different yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 populations, ancestral to HGDP00819, might have interacted with ancestors of Miao-Yao to a greater degree, or they might have interacted with ancestors of the Miao-Yao to a lesser degree. Indeed, the yDNA O1b2-47z Japanese individual, who was the most shifted to the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen on the PCA, additionally aligned with the yDNA O-IMS-JST002611-related individual and individuals from a very ancient population, connected to the basal yDNA O-M175*, that is, populations, contributing to the Miao-Yao.
[This Japanese article (“Decoding triancestral origins, archaic introgression, and natural selection in the Japanese population by whole-genome sequencing”) hinted at a role, which migrants (the notion of which should also include ancient Miao-Yao-related individuals) should have had in ancient Japan and in which sort of area (that is, the peripheral area) they are expected in modern Japan to have settled during the ancient period.]
Consequently, there should have been one more kind of the yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 population, related to the ancestors of the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen, whose members interacted with the Miao-Yao ancestors to a lesser degree and, as a result, to a larger degree preserved their initial closeness to the yDNA O-M122>…O-M134-related Sino-Tibetan population. Indeed, on one of the PCAs from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the HGDP00819 yDNA O-M122>…>O-M188>…>O-M159 specimen formed a cline, bypassing individuals, whose ancestors were likely related to the population of the rice-farming Liangzhu culture, and including a specimen from Shandong, who clustered with more southern Jiangsu specimens and who clustered with one of ancient Longshan culture’s Pingliangtai specimens, and who had the mtDNA, which shared a mutation with the fairly southern mtDNA R9b1a2a2:
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/R9b1a2a2/
It is striking that mtDNA R9b1a2a2, being so South China’s, has representatives in Russia, sharing the most recent common ancestor 5000 years ago. Indeed, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, pointed to the mtDNA D4+195 from the Yangtze River basin’s Hunan Province, which shared a mutation with mtDNA R9b1a2a. “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” only pointed to the Altai Mountains’ Okunevo EMBA as the second specimen having mtDNA D4+195, listed in that article. It is known from archeology, that the Lower Yangtze River basin’s Liangzhu culture, being influenced by the Hongshan-influenced Lingjiatan culture, was characterized by jade artifacts, whose production methods combined typically mainland China’s ways of jade processing with ways of jade processing, characteristic of the ancient cultures of Northeast China. Interestingly, the early Hongshan culture’s jade working was initially also characterized by mainland China’s ways of jade processing, and the interaction with a more northeastern Zuojiashan culture enriched the Hongshan culture’s jade working with ways of jade processing, characteristic of the ancient cultures of Northeast China, and thus, those Northeast China’s ways of jade working reached as far as the Liangzhu culture of the Lower Yangtze River basin, while mixed sites of the Yangshao culture (for example, one of female specimens of the Yangshao’s Wanggou site was shifted from other Yangshao specimens in the direction of both Hongshan and Shandong’s most northeastern Xiaojingshan specimens, clustering somewhat close to each other on the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”) served as intermediaries for migration at first as far as the Anhui Province’s Lingjiatan culture followed by the migration to the Lower Yangtze River basin, in the vicinity of which the Liangzhu culture formed. The Pingliangtai site of the Longshan culture showed the presence of the combined mainland China/Northeast China jade processing technology in a southern Shijiahe-style jade artifact, while the Shijiahe culture’s jade working was characterized by the Liangzhu culture’s influence, which means the backmigration of bearers of such technologies from the Yangtze river basin to the more northern area of the Henan Province, where the Pingliangtai site of the Longshan culture later formed.
Interestingly, the Pingliangtai site was one of the early sites in China, which had evidence that its inhabitants were acquainted with the wheeled transportation. It may help to explain the striking appearance of the 5000-year-old clades of mtDNA R9b1a2a2 in Russia. However, yDNA O-M159 was not reported from the sites of the Okunevo culture, while a rare branch of yDNA N was reported from one of the Okunevo sites (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-B187/ ).
Nonetheless, there is no evidence for any considerable distribution of mtDNA R9b1a2a2 in Japan so far. Moreover, the more northeastern Xiaojingshan-related Japanese-specific branch of yDNA N (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y23749/) was never reported from Russia. It means that the groupings of individuals were not a part of exactly the same population. Instead of this, the mentioned northeast-shifted mixed Yangshao Wanggou female specimen formed a cline with one of individuals, whose ancestors were likely related to the population of the rice-farming Liangzhu culture, and this cline also bypassed two Longshan culture’s Pingliangtai specimens in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. Moreover, one of the specimens, belonging to the described cline in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, clustered extremely closely to the Pingliangtai PLTM312 specimen in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", which may mean marriages between representatives of those populations, whereas the Pingliangtai PLTM312-specific lineage is not directly represented in Japan, where there is yDNA N-Y23749 instead. Similarly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” reported the yDNA O-M188 Japanese individual, who should be a distant relative of the yDNA O-M159-related population, and the mtDNA of this yDNA O-M188 Japanese individual was the “northeastern” mtDNA F1b1a (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1a/ ).
Regarding the mtDNA N9a, while the most ancient case so far (N9a2'4'5'11) was observed in ancient Shandong in a more “northern” Xiaogao specimen, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” listed other more northern non- N9a2'4'5'11 branches of N9a, in Korea, where mtDNA O1b2-L682 is also observed on the territory of the Gaya Confederacy. “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” selected mtDNA M7a1a4a, which shares a mutation T11368C with mtDNA N9a8, which is observed in the Hunan Province of China among other locations, and the Hunanese N9a8 carries some mutations, observed in rice farming populations, while mtDNA N9a9 is observed in Western Eurasians and carries some mutations, shared with mtDNA M7c-related populations (including some Taiwanese Austronesians) and Western Eurasians.