Ancient samples from Shandong province, China

[Pribislav]

Genome-wide data from 24 individuals dating to 3600 BCE~317 CE in Shandong, China

https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human/browse/HRA002160

G30907; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; C2b1a1-F2613>Z1300>CTS2657>CTS11990>CTS8579>CTS4449>pre-F14880

F90704; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>pre-Y60861

C40601; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

C40604; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

F90701; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

G32006; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634 (xMF105449,F2188,CTS320,Y287534)

G30808; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a1ba1a1-L465>IMS-JST002611>F18>F117>Y3272>F11>F4062>Y15976>Y179847>MF14380* (xMF16797)

G10120; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; Q1a1a1-M120>Y647>F1626

[Pribislav]

Ancient genomes illuminate the spatial genetic continuity between the Middle and Lower Yellow River

Shandong province, located in the Lower Yellow River, is one of the birthplaces of ancient Chinese civilisation. However, the comprehensive genetic histories of this region have remained largely unknown until now due to a lack of ancient human genomes. Here, we presented 21 ancient genomes from Shandong dating from the Han Dynasty to the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Unlike the early Neolithic samples from Shandong, the historical samples were most closely related to post-Late Neolithic populations of the Middle Yellow River Basin, suggesting a population turnover during the Neolithic to the Historical Era. We detected a genetic similarity between the historical samples in Shandong and present-day Han Chinese, showing long-term genetic stability in Han Chinese since the Han dynasty.

https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human/browse/HRA006574

M531E; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; C2e2-F2613>F845>K548>CTS10923 (xMF2040,Y170906,F10015,Y81530,MF3233,K511,F10359,Y138303,FGC39587,Y174777,MF10318,MF15330,F11898,M93,CTS2818)

SD5-M668; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; O1b1a1a1-K18>Y9032>PK4>M95>M1310>M1348>F1252>F2924>CTS5854>Z23810>CTS5267* (xCTS10484)

M294; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a2a-Y20>Y12>pre-CTS10739

SD6-M1169; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong, China; O2a2b1a2a1-Y20>Y12>CTS2643>FGC85750>Y30485>F876>Y30484>Y168280>Y168218

M70; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634>F3599>MF14279>Y221889* (xMF266530)

SD6-M1123; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a1a1-PAGE23>M1706>A9459>F438>Y17728>F1754>F2137>F15823>MF15397* (xMF15266,MF15764)

M503; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; Q1a1a1a1-M120>Y647>F1626>Y560>Y542>Y558>Y565>F5088>Y559>MF73361

SD5-M833; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong, China; Q1a1a1a1-M120>Y647>F1626>Y560>Y542>Y558>Y565>F5088>Y559>Y562* (xMF70431,Y555,F5410,Z43857)

[Ebizur]

Genome-wide data from 24 individuals dating to 3600 BCE~317 CE in Shandong, China

https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human/browse/HRA002160

G30907; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; C2b1a1-F2613>Z1300>CTS2657>CTS11990>CTS8579>CTS4449>pre-F14880

F90704; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>pre-Y60861

C40601; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

C40604; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

F90701; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

G32006; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634 (xMF105449,F2188,CTS320,Y287534)

G30808; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a1ba1a1-L465>IMS-JST002611>F18>F117>Y3272>F11>F4062>Y15976>Y179847>MF14380* (xMF16797)

G10120; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; Q1a1a1-M120>Y647>F1626

It is unfortunate that the dates of deposition have not been provided any more precisely than "3600 BC-300 AD."

N-CTS582 > N-CTS962/N-Y23789 appears to have persisted in Shandong until several millennia after the previously attested N-CTS582 specimens from Terminal Paleolithic/Initial Neolithic Shandong (e.g. Bianbian Cave, Boshan, Xiaojingshan), but it may have become locally insignificant at some time prior to the Han Dynasty, and it is no more common in present-day Shandong than it is among Han Chinese in general.

G30808 belongs to O-Y15976, which is a subclade of O2a1b-IMS-JST002611 that is especially common among present-day ethnic Mongols in China. Its sister clade, O-FGC54486, seems to be relatively common among present-day Koreans. The MRCA of O-Y15976 and O-FGC54486 is O-F1365 (TMRCA 6450 ybp according to 23mofang).

G32006 belongs to O-M117 > O-M133 > O-F8 > O-ACT2839 > O-CTS7634 (TMRCA 7210 ybp according to 23mofang), which currently accounts for about 1.5% of all males in China and is found mainly in the Central Plain (Hebei, Henan, etc.) and in Southeast China. It also has been detected in present-day individuals from the Philippines, Cuba, Thailand, and Vietnam; I suppose it most likely should have migrated to these latter places via Southeast China.

C-CTS4449 (TMRCA 5070 ybp according to 23mofang) within China is currently found mainly in the north, accounting for about 0.38% of the national male population. Its MRCA with (Mongol, etc.) C-M407 is C-Y25125 (TMRCA 6980 ybp according to 23mofang). The TMRCA of extant members of the C-CTS4449 > C-F14880 subclade in 23mofang's database is estimated to be 4460 ybp.

[CLTVTE]

Those new yDNA N-CTS582 > N-CTS962/N-Y23789 ancient Shandong samples appear to be dominated by mtDNA D5b1b, which has been most often found at the Neolithic agricultural Fujia site of the Dawenkou culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawenkou_culture) so far, where yDNA N-M231 was previously observed in DWK167 and DWK199 ancient samples:

SD_MN_FJ-M382 SD_MN D5b1b Fujia Shandong, China 6000-4600 years ago 0,99 Liu J et al., 2021
SD_MN_FJ-M399 SD_MN D5b1b Fujia Shandong, China 6000-4600 years ago 0,99 Liu J et al., 2021
SD_MN_FJ-M489 SD_MN D5b1b Fujia Shandong, China 6000-4600 years ago 0,99 Liu J et al., 2021

In this case, the routes for further migration for a type of such Dawenkou-related individuals is established by researchers in China, for example, in “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”. At first, they migrated to the territory of the modern Jiangsu Province (where rice farming was also developing, but there was no Mongol or Koreans), which consequently led to the later appearance of mtDNA D5b1b lineage in Taiwan via ancient Xitoucun-related populations. Later, some of the new Dawenkou-derived Jiangsu Province’s area dwellers migrated to the Middle Yellow River, inhabited by ancestors of the Han Chinese, and from there some of them were later incorporated into the Steppe populations or other ancient cultures, to which Middle Yellow River populations contributed.

Judging by the appearance of the Jomon-related mtDNA M7a (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/M7a1a1/) in Jiangsu, populations, related to yDNA O1b2 could have also started to appear there during the same ancient period.

G12771A M7a
G12771A M42a
G12771A A2af1b1

C2772T M7a
C2772T M42c2b1

A4958G M7a
A4958G C4a1a1a

[Ebizur]

G32006 belongs to O-M117 > O-M133 > O-F8 > O-ACT2839 > O-CTS7634 (TMRCA 7210 ybp according to 23mofang), which currently accounts for about 1.5% of all males in China and is found mainly in the Central Plain (Hebei, Henan, etc.) and in Southeast China. It also has been detected in present-day individuals from the Philippines, Cuba, Thailand, and Vietnam; I suppose it most likely should have migrated to these latter places via Southeast China.

Pribislav, is there any chance you could check whether the Y-DNA of G32006 is positive or negative for any of the following SNPs?

Set 1: Y45580 Y45766 Y48400 Y48605 Y48878 Y50970 Y53008 Y55597 Y56019 Y56586 Y57246 Y58401 Y58490 Y59073 Y59802

Set 2: MF604838 MF608551 MF608675 MF621792 MF628682 MF642230 MF652380 Y72248 MF605275 BY18592 BY24564 BY54849 BY58449 BY87809 DC98 MF274910 BY53431 BY51805 MF274688 MF274960 BY226571 MF602035 MF423268 MF423269 MF274434 MF461988 MF461989 MF461990 MF461991

I suspect that the paternal lineage of G32006 may have gone extinct since the time of his death, but I would like to confirm this suspicion if possible.

M70; 200 BC-600 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634>F3599>MF14279>Y221889* (xMF266530)

The Y-DNA of specimen M70 also belongs to O-CTS7634, but it belongs to a different subclade.

According to 23mofang:
O-MF14279 (TMRCA 7180 ybp) > O-MF180831 (TMRCA 5020 ybp) > O-MF180831(xA18670) At least one member (Mr. Xiong 熊 Han Chinese from Ranghulu District, Daqing, Heilongjiang) and possibly as many as eight members
O-MF14279 > O-MF180831 > O-A18670 (TMRCA 1560 ybp) 4 members (including a Mr. Zhang 张 Han Chinese from Yi County, Jinzhou, Liaoning, a Mr. Li 李 Yizu from Panzhou, Liupanshui, Guizhou, and a second Mr. Li 李 Yizu from Panzhou, Liupanshui, Guizhou)
O-MF14279 > O-MF14456 (TMRCA 4690 ybp) 115 members
*O-MF14279 > O-MF14456 > O-FT319619=O-FT297759 (TMRCA 4330 ybp) 9 members (including a Mr. Qu 曲 Han Chinese from Laiyang, Yantai, Shandong, a Mr. Li 李 Han Chinese from Zhao County, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, and a Mr. Li 李 Han Chinese from Haidian District, Beijing)

According to TheYtree:
O-MF14279=O-TYT24667 (TMRCA 6720 ybp) > O-A18670 (TMRCA 1410 ybp) Mr. Li 李 Yizu from Liupanshui, Guizhou x3
O-MF14279 > O-TY40854=O-MF14456 (TMRCA 5400 ybp) > O-FT297759 (TMRCA 4560 ybp) M70 from ancient Shandong
O-MF14279 > O-TY40854 > O-FT297759 > O-APS1249 (TMRCA 50 ybp) Fujian Han x2 (HG00592 and HG00594)
O-MF14279 > O-TY40854 > O-FT297759 > O-FGC66191 (TMRCA 1140 ybp) South Korean x3

The South Korean branch (O-FGC66191=O-MF61204) appears to be most closely related to the lineage of Mr. Li 李 Han Chinese from Haidian District, Beijing, with whom the South Korean branch should share a MRCA approximately 3010 ybp according to 23mofang.

[Pribislav]

Pribislav, is there any chance you could check whether the Y-DNA of G32006 is positive or negative for any of the following SNPs?

Set 1: Y45580 Y45766 Y48400 Y48605 Y48878 Y50970 Y53008 Y55597 Y56019 Y56586 Y57246 Y58401 Y58490 Y59073 Y59802

Set 2: MF604838 MF608551 MF608675 MF621792 MF628682 MF642230 MF652380 Y72248 MF605275 BY18592 BY24564 BY54849 BY58449 BY87809 DC98 MF274910 BY53431 BY51805 MF274688 MF274960 BY226571 MF602035 MF423268 MF423269 MF274434 MF461988 MF461989 MF461990 MF461991

I suspect that the paternal lineage of G32006 may have gone extinct since the time of his death, but I would like to confirm this suspicion if possible.

Of all the samples I've checked, G32006 has the lowest coverage, but he has one SNP covered from both sets.

Set 1: Y58401+  T>C (1C)

Set 2: MF652380-  G>A (2G)

Can you explain where is Y58401 placed in 23mofang tree, i.e. in which exact subclade, and how many levels below CTS7634 is that subclade?

*O-MF14279 > O-MF14456 > O-FT319619=O-FT297759 (TMRCA 4330 ybp) 9 members (including a Mr. Qu 曲 Han Chinese from Laiyang, Yantai, Shandong, a Mr. Li 李 Han Chinese from Zhao County, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, and a Mr. Li 李 Han Chinese from Haidian District, Beijing)
According to TheYtree:
O-MF14279=O-TYT24667 (TMRCA 6720 ybp) > O-A18670 (TMRCA 1410 ybp) Mr. Li 李 Yizu from Liupanshui, Guizhou x3
O-MF14279 > O-TY40854=O-MF14456 (TMRCA 5400 ybp) > O-FT297759 (TMRCA 4560 ybp) M70 from ancient Shandong
O-MF14279 > O-TY40854 > O-FT297759 > O-APS1249 (TMRCA 50 ybp) Fujian Han x2 (HG00592 and HG00594)
O-MF14279 > O-TY40854 > O-FT297759 > O-FGC66191 (TMRCA 1140 ybp) South Korean x3

Which SNPs define level FT319619/FT297759?

[CLTVTE]

It is thought in China that the earliest Shandong inhabitants to reach the Tokara Islands of the Japanese Archipelago and, consequently, more southern locations as far as coastal Papunesia, started to interact with the population of mtDNA D4b1b (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4b1b/) and at least yDNA D-M64, which migrated from the area, adjacent to the Japanese Archipelago, and which had been split due to the Late Palaeolithic flooding event into a geographically Japanese part and geographically non-Japanese part, which provided for the incentive of later interactions between the geographically Japanese part and geographically non-Japanese part of that population. Such a view would explain the discovery by western linguists of the Japanese-like lexicon in languages, isolated within the Papuan Sepik and Papuan Great Lakes’ (Lakes Plain) language families.

However, it should be mentioned that one of the most basal samples to those yDNA N-CTS582 > N-CTS962/N-Y23789 from Shandong as well as to other related branches in China was reported from the Ngari Prefecture bordering Nepal.

yDNA N-F2930* C4570 Piyangjiweng Site, , Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 2300 cal BP

Alternatevily, in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, this specimen showed preference to produce the result of yDNA F, rather than yDNA NO (yDNA F-M89*, yDNA F4 or yDNA F2 are observed in Vietnam, Southern China and island Indonesia, compare to mutation Z33353 in Papuan “Ketengban-related” yDNA M-Z31022 and mutation Z33353 in yDNA N-F16160).





This specimen had a rare basal mtDNA M70. While mtDNA M70a appears to have entered Tibet, a more basal mtDNA M70 branch was reported from Vietnam. The route between Vietnam and Ngari should have been mediated by Guangxi as well as Yunnan, partially located in the Upper Yangtze River basin.

It should be mentioned that localizations of basal branches of yDNA N-M231* in Southern China, Southeast Asia, which were found by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, avoided the phylogenetic changes and remained unchallenged. Any attempts to determine basal yDNA N-M231* of some inland Southeast Asians as ca. 500-year-old European-related downstream branches (that is, branches of the Modern era after 1500 AD) have produced rather incomprehensible results, which can only “fool” western citizens.

[Ebizur]

Pribislav, is there any chance you could check whether the Y-DNA of G32006 is positive or negative for any of the following SNPs?

Set 1: Y45580 Y45766 Y48400 Y48605 Y48878 Y50970 Y53008 Y55597 Y56019 Y56586 Y57246 Y58401 Y58490 Y59073 Y59802

Set 2: MF604838 MF608551 MF608675 MF621792 MF628682 MF642230 MF652380 Y72248 MF605275 BY18592 BY24564 BY54849 BY58449 BY87809 DC98 MF274910 BY53431 BY51805 MF274688 MF274960 BY226571 MF602035 MF423268 MF423269 MF274434 MF461988 MF461989 MF461990 MF461991

I suspect that the paternal lineage of G32006 may have gone extinct since the time of his death, but I would like to confirm this suspicion if possible.

Of all the samples I've checked, G32006 has the lowest coverage, but he has one SNP covered from both sets.

Set 1: Y58401+  T>C (1C)

Set 2: MF652380-  G>A (2G)

Can you explain where is Y58401 placed in 23mofang tree, i.e. in which exact subclade, and how many levels below CTS7634 is that subclade?

Which SNPs define level FT319619/FT297759?

According to the current version of the phylogenetic tree at 23mofang, O-Y58401 is phylogenetically equivalent to O-CTS7634 (TMRCA 7220 ybp) > O-F3599 (TMRCA 7200 ybp) > O-Y45580 (TMRCA 5270 ybp).

According to the same tree, O-MF652380 is phylogenetically equivalent to O-CTS7634 > O-F3599 > O-Y45580 > O-MF604838 (TMRCA 4390 ybp).

The 23mofang tree currently has 191 members of O-Y45580=O-Y58401 and 190 members of O-MF604838=O-MF652380. This should leave only one potential member of O-Y58401(xMF652380).

There are only two SNPs assigned to the O-F3599 level of the phylogeny: F3599 and F14686.

There are fifteen SNPs that have been assigned to the O-Y45580 level: Y45580 Y45766 Y48400 Y48605 Y48878 Y50970 Y53008 Y55597 Y56019 Y56586 Y57246 Y58401 Y58490 Y59073 Y59802.

The SNPs that have been assigned to the O-MF604838 level are the following: MF604838 MF608551 MF608675 MF621792 MF628682 MF642230 MF652380 Y72248 MF605275 BY18592 BY24564 BY54849 BY58449 BY87809 DC98 MF274910 BY53431 BY51805 MF274688 MF274960 BY226571 MF602035 MF423268 MF423269 MF274434 MF461988 MF461989 MF461990 MF461991.

23mofang's tree currently has O-FT319619=O-FT297759=O-CTS2295 tabulated under O-CTS7634 > O-F3599 > O-MF14279 (TMRCA 7180 ybp) > O-MF14456 (TMRCA 4690 ybp) > O-FT319619 (TMRCA 4330 ybp).

The SNPs listed by 23mofang as being equivalent to O-FT319619 are as follows: FT319619 FT45780 FT323840 MF266810 MF266532 FT296047 CTS2295 FT296290 Z40833 MF15512 CTS6590 FT297759 MF266324 MF266838 MF266546 FT299258 FT299505 MF266400 MF266848 MF654680 FTB27325 MF666320 MF666973 MF266858 MF482944.

[CLTVTE]

yDNA O2a2b1a1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634>F3599 is most distributed in the Han Chinese. It is likely to originate in the Henan Province's area, connected to the Middle Yellow River basin, where ancestors of the Han Chinese lived. Moreover, the Henan Province borders the Shaanxi Province, the population of which is rich in basal mtDNA D4* branches, whose ancestors retreated to the Qinghai province's area during the Last Glacial Maximum . Consequently, yDNA O2a2b1a1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634>F3599>CTS320 specimens should have been born from mothers, who had had mtDNA D4* members among their ancestors. Similarly, since not only mtDNA D1, but also mtDNA D4* reached America, in the Palaeolithic prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, some mtDNA D4* members should have migrated to the area, where the ancestor of yDNA O-P49 was to be born, and someone of them should have participated in the origin of the ancestor of yDNA O-P49. It explains the connection between yDNA O2a2b1a1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634>F3599>CTS320 and yDNA O-P49, and such an explanation was tested in China.

yDNA O-CTS7634 > O-F3599 > O-Y45580 migrated to Shandong from Henan after the Early Neolithic. Consequently, he could not have participated in the earliest migration of Shandong inhabitants (mtDNA B5b2-related populations) in the direction of the Japanese Archipelago. It is more likely that not only yDNA D-M64, but also yDNA O-P49 as such was also related to mtDNA D4b1b’d members.

[sg_jun]

Genome-wide data from 24 individuals dating to 3600 BCE~317 CE in Shandong, China

https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human/browse/HRA002160

G30907; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; C2b1a1-F2613>Z1300>CTS2657>CTS11990>CTS8579>CTS4449>pre-F14880

F90704; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>pre-Y60861

C40601; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

C40604; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

F90701; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; N1b1-F2905>Z4784>Y24397>Y23789>Y139167>MF28233

G32006; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a2b1a1-PAGE23>M1706>CTS7634 (xMF105449,F2188,CTS320,Y287534)

G30808; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; O2a1ba1a1-L465>IMS-JST002611>F18>F117>Y3272>F11>F4062>Y15976>Y179847>MF14380* (xMF16797)

G10120; 3600 BC-300 AD; Shandong province, China; Q1a1a1-M120>Y647>F1626

Interesting!! Thank you for sharing. I am the Singaporean Chinese sample on MF28233. My paternal grandfather's family originates from the Chaoshan region of Jieyang, Guangdong province and we are Teochew speakers. Amazing to know I am likely a direct patrilineal descendant of the Shandong Dawenkou culture  (and by extension also most likely the early neolithic N-CTS582 samples found in Bianbian, Xiaojingshan, Boshan etc.); btw I reached out to the other Malaysian sample from Kedah and his family is also of Chinese origin from Guangxi.

[CLTVTE]

It is notable that all four early ancient Shandong N-CTS582* (Boshan, Bianbian, two specimens of Xiaojingshan) did not become forefathers of modern branches of yDNA N-CTS582, which means that, in a wider sense, ancestors of new yDNA N-CTS582 > N-CTS962/N-Y23789 ancient Shandong samples might have been distributing in a slightly different localization than Boshan, Bianbian, Xiaojingshan prior to the appearance of the Fujia site and prior to their migration in the direction of Southern China. It also means that the autosomal component of Boshan, Bianbian, Xiaojingshan can be a component of an ancient variety of a northern offshoot of yDNA N-Z4762 population, which should not be limited to bearers of the most ancient Shandong’s yDNA N-CTS582*.

Nonetheless, the origin of yDNA N-CTS582* as such did not take place in Shandong. It is more likely that while Southern East Asians formed their component in the eastern part of Southern China in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, the yDNA N-Z4762 population migrated to the Middle Yangtze river basin via the western part of Southern China, being characterized by the Upper Palaeolithic relative of the Southern East Asian component, but not by the Southern East Asian component per se (such an Upper Palaeolithic relative of the Southern East Asian component partially contributed to the geographically Tibetic ancestry). That is why some of ancient yDNA N-M231 specimens can be modeled as deriving 100% of their ancestry or at least a larger part of their ancestry from Fujian_EN. By 19000 years ago, such an yDNA N-Z4762 population, having “an alternative Upper Palaeolithic component of the western part of Southern East Asia”, should have started to contact in the vicinity of areas, surrounding of the Jigongshan site of the Middle Yangtze River basin, the expanding small flake tool-related Northern East Asian population from the northern bank of the Yellow River, characterized by the China-specific branch of mtDNA D4, unobserved in Siberia, and, such an yDNA N-Z4762 population, having “an alternative Upper Palaeolithic component of the western part of Southern East Asia”, should have started to contact the “Atayal-related”/Liangdao-related population, dominated by yDNA O-M119, which reached the Lower Yangtze River basin, being mixed with a deeply diverged Qihe3-related population of a 24000-year-old branch of yDNA O1b1. The contacts with populations of specific branches of yDNA O-M122 (such as a population contributing to the Dushan-related yDNA O-M7 population) should have happened later. From that Yangtze area, some more northern yDNA N-M231 branches reached Shandong, while other populations, such as N-CTS582(xCTS962), yDNA N-CTS12473(aka N-M1819), etc, initially distributed within the Yangtze river basin. In Shandong’s Houli culture, the early gathering of rice was also detected.

[sg_jun]

It is notable that all four early ancient Shandong N-CTS582* (Boshan, Bianbian, two specimens of Xiaojingshan) did not become forefathers of modern branches of yDNA N-CTS582, which means that, in a wider sense, ancestors of new yDNA N-CTS582 > N-CTS962/N-Y23789 ancient Shandong samples might have been distributing in a slightly different localization than Boshan, Bianbian, Xiaojingshan prior to the appearance of the Fujia site and prior to their migration in the direction of Southern China. It also means that the autosomal component of Boshan, Bianbian, Xiaojingshan can be a component of an ancient variety of a northern offshoot of yDNA N-Z4762 population, which should not be limited to bearers of the most ancient Shandong’s  yDNA N-CTS582*.

Nonetheless, the origin of yDNA N-CTS582* as such did not take place in Shandong. It is more likely that while Southern East Asians formed their component in the eastern part of Southern China in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, the yDNA N-Z4762 population migrated to the Middle Yangtze river basin via the western part of Southern China, being characterized by the Upper Palaeolithic relative of the Southern East Asian component, but not by the Southern East Asian component per se (such an Upper Palaeolithic relative of the Southern East Asian component partially contributed to the geographically Tibetic ancestry). That is why some of ancient yDNA N-M231 specimens can be modeled as deriving 100% of their ancestry or at least a larger part of their ancestry from Fujian_EN. By 19000 years ago, such an yDNA N-Z4762 population, having “an alternative Upper Palaeolithic  component of the western part of Southern East Asia”, should have started to contact in the vicinity of areas, surrounding of the Jigongshan site of the Middle Yangtze River basin, the expanding small flake tool-related Northern East Asian population from the northern bank of the Yellow River, characterized by the China-specific branch of mtDNA D4, unobserved in Siberia, and, such an yDNA N-Z4762 population, having “an alternative Upper Palaeolithic  component of the western part of Southern East Asia”, should have started to contact the “Atayal-related”/Liangdao-related population, dominated by yDNA O-M119, which reached the Lower Yangtze River basin, being mixed with a deeply diverged Qihe3-related population of a 24000-year-old branch of yDNA O1b1. The contacts with populations of specific branches of yDNA O-M122 (such as a population contributing to the Dushan-related yDNA O-M7 population) should have happened later. From that Yangtze area, some more northern yDNA N-M231 branches reached Shandong, while other populations, such as N-CTS582(xCTS962), yDNA N-CTS12473(aka N-M1819), etc, initially distributed within the Yangtze river basin.  In Shandong’s Houli culture, the early gathering of rice was also detected.

I am completely confused where you got these conclusions from. To my knowledge there are no N-M231 samples modelled as deriving 100% of their ancestry from Fujian_EN. Or how without any samples of N-Z4762 before 10,000 years ago you are able to deduce where they originated from during the Upper Paleolithic, let alone deduce their location to be in the Middle Yangtze. Bianbian represents the oldest sample of N-M231 currently available

Quite the contrary, according to Fu Qiaomei’s research, these ancient Shandong samples represent a completely distinct ANEA (Ancient Northern East Asian) population compared to ancient Fujian samples of Qihe Cave which are ASEA (Ancient Southern East Asian). This is also reflected in terms of the numerous E11, K47 and K12b calculator results which are available on TheYTree. In fact, these ancient Shandong samples are even more “northern-leaning” than modern Shandong people. While Shandong_EN clusters more closely with Hongshan_MN, it seems the Dawenkou are slightly more Yellow River leaning but still devoid of any ASEA influences from Fujian_EN which likely only began entering Shandong during the Longshan era, after Dawenkou.

Some scholars believe the Dawenkou were pre-Austronesian speakers. Now it seems more likely they spread millet agriculture and maybe some traditions like tooth ablation to the southern cultures of Liangzhu, Hemudu and also to proto-Austronesians. However the genetic admixture between these populations is negligible and any contact is probably only cultural and linguistic. With more of these recent genetic samples and discoveries coming to light, I feel the early Shandong populations perhaps played a major role not just in the formation of the Chinese, but also the Koreans and Japanese instead, hence the somewhat “Austronesian” qualities of the Japanese language, yet the Japanese do not show any Austronesian genetic influences. In fact, mtdna Hg D5b1b which is found very commonly among the Dawenkou samples has a number of Japanese samples on Yfull. Also Dawenkou has both rice and millet agriculture package which was probably brought to Korea and Japan.

Numerous linguists like Vovin (2014), Whitman (2011) and Robbeets (2020, 2021) also agree that Japonic languages spread most likely out of Shandong peninsula to the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago

[ronin92]

Modern distribution of N1b subclades:-

   

N.B.: radius loosely indicates number of subjects, size inflated at low end to ensure visibility.

[Ebizur]

Modern distribution of N1b subclades:-



N.B.: radius loosely indicates number of subjects, size inflated at low end to ensure visibility.

Summaries by 23mofang:

re: N-M1819

N-M1819 TMRCA 7210 ybp

... This genetic marker has been detected in ancient human bones at the Pingliangtai site in Henan (Longshan culture). The Longshan culture in Henan originated from the Yangshao culture. Therefore, it is speculated that male ancestors and their descendants carrying N-M1819 may be an important part of the Yangshao culture population.

At present, this type accounts for about 2.38% of the male population in our country, and it is widely distributed in both the north and the south...

re: N-CTS582

N-CTS582 TMRCA 13520 ybp

... N-CTS582 has been detected in the DNA of ancient human bones from the Boshan site in Shandong, the Bianbian Cave site in Yiyuan, Shandong, and the Xiaojingshan site in Zhangqiu, Shandong.

At present, this type accounts for about 1.24% of our country's male population, mainly being Han and concentrated in Shaanxi, Shandong, Anhui, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and other provinces.

[CLTVTE]

A population, bearing similarities to the ancient Pingliangtai individuals, clustering with some Jiangsu Province’s individuals, is thought in the IVPP to participate in the formation of a rice farming population, bringing rice farming to ancient Korea, from where rice farming distributed to Japan.