(02-22-2024, 01:08 AM)CLTVTE Wrote: 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.
Dawenkou culture actually extended from Shandong province to Henan province as well as parts of northern Jiangsu and Anhui in its later stages. According to EastSeaK12 calculator on TheYTree it seems the ancient Shandong individuals tested this time round cluster together far more closely together with modern Koreans compared to the Pingliangtai sample from Henan. Pingliangtai individuals belong to the later Longshan culture which was formed through merger of Yangshao and Dawenkou influences.
It is quite unlikely Koreanic or Japonic could have originated from anywhere south of the Huai River closer to southern Jiangsu or modern-day Shanghai because that's where the Liangzhu neolithic culture was, which was genetically a lot more ASEA (Ancient Southeast Asian)-leaning with a Yue-like culture more identifiable with modern day Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai) or Austronesian populations, which is not quite found among modern Korean or Japanese. Koreans or Japanese are genetically more ANEA (Ancient Northeast Asian)-leaning but notably the Japanese were said to have practiced some aspects of Yue culture (wet rice agriculture, living on stilt houses, cutting their hair, tattooing faces and bodies, blackening their teeth etc.) which could be from this influence coming up north, so it is why I suggested the earliest Koreanic / Japonic (Yayoi) populations may have been from Shandong. Other possibility would be from Huai River valley but not anywhere south of that
Sample name
C40604 山东古人
AU number
AU72335
Sample Type
Ancient
Reference assembly
hg19 / GRCh37
Y-haplogroup
N-TYT135284
MT-haplogroup
D5b1b
E11
华东 East Chinese: 45.55%
鄂伦春 North Chinese Oroqen: 17.41%
彝族 Southwest Chinese Yi: 16.49%
日本 Japanese: 16.23%
雅库特 Yakut: 3.37%
欧洲 European: 0.43%
非洲 African: 0.32%
美洲 American: 0.21%
EastSeaK12
韩国 Korean: 72.38%
汉族 Han: 12.90%
日本 Japanese: 5.31%
藏族 Tibetan: 4.46%
蒙古·通古斯 Mongolian-Tungusic: 3.82%
欧洲 European: 1.12%
PLTM313 河南平粮台遗址 龙山文化 4068-3844 cal BP
AU number
AU50254
Sample Type
Ancient
Reference assembly
hg19 / GRCh37
MT-haplogroup
F2h
E11
华东 East Chinese: 49.60%
彝族 Southwest Chinese Yi: 19.73%
鄂伦春 North Chinese Oroqen: 12.80%
日本 Japanese: 7.93%
傣族 South Chinese Dai: 5.53%
雅库特 Yakut: 1.60%
美洲 American: 1.44%
非洲 African: 1.00%
印度 India: 0.39%
EastSeaK12
韩国 Korean: 41.73%
汉族 Han: 36.57%
藏族 Tibetan: 11.70%
蒙古·通古斯 Mongolian-Tungusic: 7.97%
非洲 African: 0.94%
欧洲 European: 0.57%
美洲印第安人 Amerindian: 0.51%
Sample name
PLTM312 河南平粮台遗址 龙山文化 4085-3889 cal BP
AU number
AU40352
Sample Type
Ancient
Reference assembly
hg19 / GRCh37
Y-haplogroup
N-TYT54942
MT-haplogroup
D4b1a
Autosomal
E11
华东 East Chinese: 41.93%
彝族 Southwest Chinese Yi: 21.59%
日本 Japanese: 12.89%
鄂伦春 North Chinese Oroqen: 11.35%
傣族 South Chinese Dai: 11.13%
雅库特 Yakut: 0.59%
印度 India: 0.38%
非洲 African: 0.13%
EastSeaK12
韩国 Korean: 51.76%
傣族 Dai: 16.93%
汉族 Han: 15.41%
日本 Japanese: 5.48%
藏族 Tibetan: 3.82%
蒙古·通古斯 Mongolian-Tungusic: 3.17%
雅库特 Yakuts: 2.19%
柬埔寨 Cambodian: 1.05%
欧洲 European: 0.19%
For now it seems N1b1-CTS582 is likely an important lineage found at high frequency among ancient neolithic culture samples in eastern part of northern China along the Bohai seaboard region (海岱地区): Houli, Beixin, Dawenkou etc.; whereas N1b2-M1819 is identifiable with Yangshao culture of Central Plains region in the western part of northern China. We know Liao civilisation (Hongshan, Xiaoheyan, Lower Xiajiadian, Upper Xiajiadian etc.) also had a large number of Haplogroup N-M231 samples which were tested N1 (xN1a, N1c). We do not know which subclade these samples belong to yet but it will be interesting to see updates in the future (hopefully).
A sample of N1b1-CTS582 was found in Erdaojingzi archaeological site of Lower Xiajiadian culture and also Shandong_EN samples also cluster more closely with Hongshan_MN samples, so there is a possibility that Liao civilisation may have been predominantly N1b1-CTS582 as well, we need more confirmation from more precise testing. What is really strange though is how the percentage frequency of this lineage fell so rapidly and tremendously, such that it barely accounts for just over 1% of the East Asian population today.
The Erdaojingzi sample of Lower Xiajiadian (EDM176) belongs to a subclade branch downstream of N1b1a-L727, whereas the samples recently discovered at Shandong belong to N1b1b-CTS962. Both groups separated from one another about 13400 ybp. At the moment we are lacking more samples of ancient remains from Hebei province (including around modern Beijing and Tianjin) which is between Shandong and Liao River region, it could answer some questions if more discoveries are made from that area.
There were also 7 samples of N1c-TAT, now aka N1a1-TAT and 10 samples of N1 (xN1a, N1c) discovered at Jiangjialiang archaeological site in northern Hebei, it could seem Hebei and surrounding area, particularly maybe around Sanggan River Valley was probably an important centre of Haplogroup N1's expansion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2016107