These posts originate from Genarchivist Forum, which disappeared. Very recently, new data of the IVPP (the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) appeared on the matter of the name /Palemon/ of the legendary founder of the likely-yDNA-N-L1026-affiliated Lithuanian Gediminid Dynasty, which was also written down as /Poslesmon/ (which is different from the Greek name /Palemon/) and which strengthen (and explain the reason for) the idea that at least some yDNA N-L1026-related individuals of yDNA N-L1026-related populations had also preserved their initial ethnic languages (that is, analytic languages of ancient East Asia), despite distributing among yDNA J, C2, E, Q, R individuals of multiple mtDNA lineages and even despite the fact that bearers of a certain “formerly yDNA D-M174(xM64)-related” “Manchu Tungusic”-affiliated component of the ancient East Asian origin, which had reached Uralic speakers as the IVPP data suggest, lived closely nearby in Shandong of China. Unlike this, the narrowly understood ancestors of yDNA N-M2126>M1982 Yakut nobles distributed differently in China, and they acquired the autosomal component, also related to the died-out yDNA N-M231* individuals among others (e.g., “others” should have included some yDNA D-M174(xM64) cases in accordance with the IVPP data), which is thought to be a component of the ancient East Asian origin, which was contributed to Altaic populations, being somewhat more relevant for the formation of the Mongolic populations in the beginning in accordance with the IVPP data (which seems to be in agreement with the initial Mongolic affiliation of ancestors of the Yakut nobles). In the beginning, one should mention the role of the /Na/ population, contributing to the Naxi:
Obviously, the grammar and modern vocabulary of Tibetan languages were formed by yDNA O-M175 populations. However, the following phenomenon should be taken into account: the yDNA N-M231-related speakers of the Naxi language and Yi language consequently clustered closer to each other in “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans” and in “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago”, and the yDNA N-M231-related Naxi alone consequently clustered closer to each other and far from yDNA Q-M242 individuals and far from yDNA C-M217 individuals in the previous articles “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Seemingly, the Naxi can be modeled as deriving an important part of their ancestry from a part of the ancestry, contributed to Chamdo2.8K_1 in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, but not a single separate Naxi individual can be modeled in such a way in this article, and the Naxi clustered quite far from actual modern and ancient Chamdo specimens, which implies that the component, whose bearers were responsible for preserving the basic native name /Na/ of the Naxi language, “transcends” the individual histories of its bearers, existing from the much more ancient period in the parallel form to the existence of the consequent “newcoming” yDNA O-M175 populations. The article “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” included the data implying, to whom the basic name /Na/ should be assigned: it appears that the basic name /Na/ should be assigned to one of the basic populations of China, in which yDNA O-M175* men and yDNA N-M231* men still simultaneously coexisted as “brothers”, descending from common ancestors. Moreover, the newer articles “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans” and in “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” showed in a more understandable way multiple connections for the Naxi to rather numerous ancient East Asian populations, each of which played a certain “proto-historical” or ancient historical role in the past, which should make the study of Naxi even more captivating.
The IVPP data imply that one of /Na/ populations contributed to the “yDNA O-M122 ancient Chinese”-related population, in which the image of the deity, contributing to the Minakanushi part of the Ame-no-Minakanushi deity of Japan, started to be formed under the ancient Shandong-mediated influence of the yDNA O-related ancient Chinese of the Hongshan culture’s Niuheliang site, who should have known about Fuxi as “The Existing One” and Nüwa in accordance with the IVPP data. The remote companion of this /Na/ population was a deep Austronesian-affiliated population and the closest companion of this /Na/ population was an yDNA O-M175*-related population from China in accordance with the IVPP data.
However, it should be understood that the initial offshoot of the population, in which yDNA O-M175* men and yDNA N-M231* men still simultaneously coexisted as “brothers”, descending from common ancestors, which moved in the direction of Chamdo of Tibet, was more closely related to the died-out yDNA N-M231*, whereas the living yDNA N-M231 first retreated to the southern area, where languages, substratal to Tai-Kadai languages, were once spoken, and the data of the IVPP carefully elaborate upon what type of peculiar linguistic traits should have initially become characteristic of ancestors of surviving yDNA N-M231 representatives, and the yDNA O-M175* “partners” or “neighbours” of the Paleolithic journey of those yDNA N-M231 ancestors should have contributed such traits to Tai-Kadai. Later, some of those yDNA N-M231 of China redistributed in China and contributed to ethnicities of locations, in which the died-out yDNA N-M231* members had also lived. The “non-Tibeto-Burman” “non-differentiated ancient East Asian” part of the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription of Myanmar bears a very important linguistic trait of the language of those “dialectal Tai-Kadai-affiliated” yDNA N-M231 individuals, whose descendants survived till today, whereas Austroasiatic-related influence on the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription was also caused by the population, which already included yDNA N-M231 members in accordance with the IVPP data. The IVPP data imply that the movement of yDNA N1/N1b individuals from the vicinity of Jiangsu’s Xuenan site location contributed (as one of the linguistic results of such movements) to the formation of the non-Sino-Tibetan (and non-Tai-Kadai) parts of the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription (the “Mabu Co” population (described in detail in “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago”) formed the substratum for the speakers of the Northern Burmic Maru language, while other non-Tibeto-Burman elements were added by the /Ba/-related population (see below about the name /Ba/), which should have interacted with the Bu part of the Maru population in the first place in the beginning in accordance with the IVPP data).
One should caution that due to certain “secretiveness” and fierce international competition, unfortunately, western writers and their collobarators may make proposals, which do not coincide with some data from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) despite the extreme elaboratedness and “all-inclusiveness” of the IVPP ethnogenetic reconstructions. For example, recently the “basal” yDNA N-F1360 was reported from the ancient DNA of Shandong, while the IVPP data had already previously implied that the ancestors of the yDNA N-M128 lineage should have once reached the location of the Shushanji site of Jingsu, while the lineage of yDNA N-M128 gradually modestly distributed to its Jiangsu/Anhui location of the most “basic” sample of yDNA N-F710 from the neighbourhood of the location of its yDNA N-F1360 ancestors somewhere to the south of the main Early Neolithic Shandong cluster and somewhere closer to the sea coast.
For comparison of other such differences, the “history” of yDNA N-M231 haplogroup of China should be continued. It should be added, that the “Ji” surname, which was recently attached by some people to the ancient yDNA N-M128 individuals, should have come from the “Tai-Kadai-Austronesian” south to the vicinity of those early yDNA N-M128 populations of the areas, belonging to Jiangsu and Anhui, in accordance with the IVPP data; however, in the very “Tai-Kadai-Austronesian” south, this “Ji” should have beed the importation from the population, which contributed to the area of the future pre-Silla Jinhan of Korea, where the “Japano-Koreanic” yDNA O-P49 population initially prospered as an offshoot of the actual most ancient “Tai-Kadai-Austronesian” populations (which is in linguistic agreement with the “lexical” separation of Korean from “Tai-Kadai-Austronesian” in Jager, 2015), but was dominated by 19000 years ago by the “northern” yDNA C2-M217 population (AR19K-related), being a predecessor of Altaic , which should have distributed as far as a population, later contributing to the later neighbours of the Awa
Ji island of Japan in accordance with the IVPP data, whereas there was no “Para-Austroasiatic”, but actual Austroasiatic, related to the real Vietnamese rice farmers , in the Yangtze River basin, including the neighbourhood of the Lower Yangtze, and “Nihali-” and “Ainu-” related version of “Austric”, “aided” by 24000-year-old yDNA O1b*/O1b1* individuals, should be responsible for contriburing to other areas of China and Myanmar in accordance with the IVPP data, where the hypothetical presence of yDNA O1b2 was formerly proposed by a western linguist.
As an introduction, it was already mentioned that on the above rare PCA from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", when the Altaic populations, carrying Siberian and Western Eurasian components are excluded (including the components of the yDNA Q population, which was first observed in AR9.2K of Northeast China and had the Paleolithic depth in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”), are excluded, then the components of the “Tibet-derived” yDNA D-M174/D-M174* population and a sort of yDNA CT* population, affiliated to them, becomes the “northernmost” component relative to the deepest Ancient East Asian populations (including Longlin, which had components, separating more than 40000 years ago in the same article) and relative to younger ancient and modern East Asian populations, though the components of the “Tibet-derived” yDNA D-M174/D-M174 and yDNA CT* population were mostly maximized in the Miao-Yao Hmong, who were relatively rich in yDNA D-M174.
Regarding the properties of some “deeply diverged” members of the yDNA N-M231 population, members of yDNA N-M231(xN1) Bateq population of Southeast Asia proved to be extremely non-violent and possibly even incapable of killing a human person in accordance with the earlier western ethnographic research. It may beneficially complement the information of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), which aims to show that ancient East Asian populations were not related to the origin of the violent behavior. Regarding the formation of the Bateq of yDNA N-M231(xN1), some syntactic features of their current analytic Aslian language resemble the analytic Tai-Kadai languages, which are spoken by people of the “Mongoloid” origin, and the recent IVPP article “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” introduced the ancient Mabu Co (Co= “Ts-ho”) specimens in the river basin to the south of the Chinese Yarlung Tsangpo part of the Brahmaputra River system, and some of these specimens manifest the contribution of the western division of ancestry from the Early Upper Paleolithic yDNA N-M231 population, which may be even tied to the distribution of bearers of one of attested “basal” yDNA N-M231* haplogroups, and it is possible to track from the data of the article that the division within the most ancient Early Upper Paleolithic yDNA N-M231-related population already occurred south of the Yangtze River in the western part of the ancient East Asian homeland in the Yangtze River basin (the homeland was depicted in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” (
http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0010)
When mapped on the rare PCA of the previous article "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago",
it can be seen that the split “Towards Mabu Co” is accompanied by the separation of the currently known rest of individuals from yDNA N-M231-related populations in the southern direction towards the Pearl River system and Hainan, followed by the dispersal in the direction of Southwest China and the “return” of the yDNA N1-Z4762 branch first to the Jiangsu location after the Last Glacial Maximum ca. 19000 years ago. The Southern East Asian component did not exist yet ca. 38000 years ago, and the general ancient East Asian component 19000-45000 years ago was marked by the color of the Northern East Asian component in the ancient East Asian homeland in the Yangtz e River basin in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans” , while the “Southern East Asian” colour only apperared for the period of 19000-45000 years ago for mtDNA N’s G8701A mutation in this article, implying that the later final formation of the Southern East Asian component by 19000 years ago had been taking place in narrowly located mtDNA B- and mtDNA F-rich southern East Asian populations during the Last Glacial Maximum.
It should be explained one more time that the main qpGraph model from “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago” (
https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cell.2021.05.018/attachment/c5fd1e01-9a6d-4977-9cfa-1c7a9bd51a41/mmc3 ) had an approximate timescale to it, which is practically applicable to other qpGraph models in “Supplementary Materials”. It means hat the general Longlin-Boshan-Qihe3-Dushan separation was treated in these qpGraph models as the separation ca 38000 years ago of yDNA NO1-M214-related populations, which were initially characterized by the ancestry of the Homo Sapiens population, in which mtDNA mutations were the ones that occur in mtDNA L3 and younger lineages, and the additions of ancestries in which mtDNA mutations were the ones that occur in mtDNA L0, L1, L2, L5, L4, L6, etc, including some old ancestries, which should correspond to notable events of the general Homo Sapiens history, probably mostly happened closely after ca. 38000 years (they were likely mediated by such ancient individuals, whose genomes prefer to produce calls for “yDNA CT” ). Consequently, those initial proto-Longlin-Boshan-Qihe3-Dushan disperals should be treated as starting ca. 38000 years ago, while the coming of ancestry closer to Longlin from the Baojianshan position was also mapped (consequently, after the “return” of ancestors of yDNA N1-Z4762 individuals to the modern area of Jiangsu and beyond after the LGM, the later new dispersal of their descendants in southern directions were likely to occur along the routes, known to their remote ancestors):
One should caution that the genetic data of “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans” have already implied that the ancient population behind the /*li/ ethnonym in Long-li-n may be distantly related to the ancient population, which contributed /*li-/ to the Atayal (“dialectal” Austronesian ) word /suqu-li-q/ for “human person”. The deep ancestors of the Atayal population had already contributed the most ancient East Asian components to Native American and Papuan populations, consequently, the younger ancient East Asian groups interacting with such peoples ca. 38000 years ago cannot become more linguistically distant from East Asia than the Atayal are. The ancient East Asian group, related to mtDNA pre-B4, pre-B5, pre-F should have been one of those, who thought that human beings were made of the silicate material by the deity, and this ancient East Asian group should have brought the /*na/ component, so as /lin/ in /Longlin/ could be understood as a derivative of /*li na/ “a human person, ‘made’ of earth”. One should caution that the name of the town Longlin of the Longlin County is not the initial name of the Laomaocao Cave, from which the ancient specimen, now coded as “Longlin” (LL-1), was reported. Similarly,if the distribution of ancestry components are mapped in the exact manner, the Longlin specimen, known as the isolated one, will be isolated from close relationship to modern humans and movements of their ancestors, marked by “arrows” on the PCA. One should also note that the initial movement ca. 38000 years ago was close to the “densely populated” part of the PCA, which implies that ancient humas kept close to secure routes, available for the Homo Sapiens, therefore, ancestors of modern humans should not be suspected to originate from locations, chosen by Japanese scientists, from where human remains, sharing anthropological features with archaic humans, were reported.
Regarding the identification of the substratal linguistic features, which might have been caused by mixing of later individuals of main East Asian linguistic groups with yDNA N-M231-related individuals, it may be notable that the Gelao individuals, among whose relative yDNA N-M231 individuals participate and whose Tai-Kadai languages have some “non-Austroasiatic” dialectal peculiarities, also observed in the non-Tibeto-Burman part of the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription, got placed on the PCA around the place of the initial separation of yDNA N-M231 individuals (but not in the depths of Yunnan), being simultaneously located not in the depths of Yunnan, but as relatively close neighbors of the Sinitic-Tai-Kadai groups, which implies that the language of the most ancient yDNA N-M231 individual, who had just separated in the Early Upper Paleolithic, should have been treated as a relative of linguistic ancestors of future mainstream East Asian and East Asia-derived languages (but not to Dravidian, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nihali languages, etc), which resembled the rather undifferentiated non-Tibeto-Burman part of the analytic language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription. The existence of the Sinitic-Tai-Kadai groups on the PCA should manifest itself in the linguistic sphere as the support for the theory of ancient Chinese-Tai-Kadai linguistic relatedness, which is supported in China, as opposed to individuals of more “drifted” and “old” (from the point of view of the continental part of the population history) southeastern ancestries, the existence of which should support the hypothesis of the Austronesian-Tai-Kadai linguistic relationship; regarding the sound system o fthe ancient languages, spoken by yDNA N-M231-related individuals, one should mention that the current Tai-Kadai language of one of those most basic yDNA N-M231* populations, whose component seemed to have reached the Baojianshan neighbourhood of Longlin, does not have any special sounds, observed in Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut languages.
In the most recent article “Neolithic to Bronze Age human maternal genetic history in Yunnan, China” it was mentioned that /Pu/ ethnonyms may be treated as belonging to the ancient Austroasiatic sphere ( at least of its part that originated in China). On the other hand, the data of “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” point to ancient mtDNA R*-related groups as possible “originators” of /Bu/ ethnonyms. Consequently, the MaBu Co (Co=“Ts-ho”) placename, in the formation of whose individuals the “deeply diverged” yDNA N-M231* populations, having slightly closer /Bu/-named relatives in the south, participated, might be the toponymic remain of one of the earliest populations, whose remote ancestors had adopted the /Bu/ ethnic name (while other yDNA N-M231-related populations had had other names as well). In the Himalayan region, the remains of the so-called “Rongic” Para-Austroasiatic were detected by Western researchers, likely being caused by yDNA O1b1(xM95) populations of the deeply diverged 24000-year-old branch of yDNA O1b1(xM95), which started to distribute after 19000 years ago after the Last Glacial Maximum from the homeland of Southern East Asians, which suggests that the “deeply diverged” yDNA N-M231* “Bu” population, which might have already acquired the “Pre-Austroastic” direction of development, which may be seen from its adoption of one of the “Austroasiatic-like” ethnonyms, had become subject to the influence of the later yDNA O1b1(xM95)-related Para-Austroasiatic population. It is to the “Bu” part of the “Mabu” population (which, after the sound change, should have given the name /Mabu/>/Maru/ to the subsequent Tibeto-Burman Maru population) that the later yDNA N-M231-related “Ba-related” populations should have moved, and this subsequent “narrow” agglomeration (as well as other necessary additions) should have led to the appearance of the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription, that is why it may be possible to deduce the remains of the somewhat “Austroasiatic-like” substratal “Bu-related” language from that inscription. The analytic language of this inscription was also likely to be later influenced by the language of the later Tibeto-Burman Achang population, which should have acquired northern relatives or neighbors in accordance with some IVPP data, the northern remains of whose populations should have been speaking agglutinating languages (which is not similar to the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription) in order to account for innovative readings (instead of well established earlier readings by other western and eastern linguists), which were proposed by the Japanese-American Marc Miyake, these northern neighbors of the Tibeto-Burman Achang population should have been related to the AR11K specimen, who did not belong to yDNA NO-M214, in accordance with the data of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. Unlike this, it is extremely difficult to find a suitable “Ba-related” population among Austroasiatic Khasi and Munda populations (some of whose ancestors were related to individuals of yDNA D-M174 haplogroup in accordance with the IVPP data), whose languages do not show linguistic means for the formation of “Ba-related” ethnonyms: except for the yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related Bateq, the “Ba-related” ethnonyms were observed among some Austroasiatic Bahnarics, who, however, had evidence of the participation of individuals of the “Cambodian” branch of yDNA N-M231 (as the one from Rootsi et al, 2007). The IVPP data imply that the semantics of older “Paleolithic” plain “Ba” ethnonyms and newer Austroasiatic “Ba-affiliated” ethnonyms was influenced during the later period by the semantics of the similar situation in some Hmong-Mien languages, in which the ethnic name and the word for “rice paddy” coincided: some Austroasiatic languages, including Bahnaric, acquired the Sinitic-Hmong-Mien-influenced word /*ba/ for “rice paddy”.
Actually, the IVPP data imply that the most ancient yDNA N-M231 individuals should have distributed as members of “narrow” groups within wider sets of ancient East Asian populations, which should have mostly belonged to yDNA NO1-M214*, whose yDNA NO1-M214* relatives, remaining in the homeland of ancient East Asians, had later been mostly replaced by yDNA O-M175 population, which continued to develop in this homeland. Despite the fact that one of the ages of separation of yDNA O-M175 and yDNA N-M231 was dated to 41900 years ago, the IVPP data imply that this age of 41900 years ago is not relevant for all cases of yDNA N-M231 ,therefore, there could not have been actual replacement of the language of the most ancient yDNA N-M231 individuals by a language of one 41900-year-old yDNA O-M175-related DNA NO-M214* group (the scenario that might have happened if the ancestor of ALL yDNA N-M231 were born by a mother form the 41900-year-old population), which will be marked as [1] below and which acquired “exotic” linguistic connections. Unlike this group, the first yDNA N-M231 individuals should have been keeping to the ancient East Asian population, in which mtDNA M7b-g and mtDNA D* lineages (later affiliated with mtDNA D5 as well), whose bearers interacted with close neighboring populations, carrying mtDNA pre-F, mtDNA F and mtDNA B lineages, prevailed over actual mtDNA F and mtDNA B lineages.
[1] There existed an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population, which was a branching of the ancient East Asian population, a part of the ancestry of which separated to Kostenki14 via a population, related to mtDNA M39’70*, but this pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population had a branch, whose representatives did not initially go in the direction of Kostenki14, but instead remained in East Asia. From the linguistic point of view, the existence of this population should have manifested itself through the appearance of the Yeniseian branch in Jager, 2015 as depicted here:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.1500331112/suppl_file/pnas.1500331112.sd01.svg . From the point of view of mtDNA lineages, this particular “East Asian Yeniseian” population, probably representing an offshoot from the most ancient 41900-year-old relatives of yDNA O-M175-related ancient Chinese, was likely to be represented by stages of development of “future Southern East Asian” mtDNA B4, B5, F in accordance with the IVPP data. From the point of view of the ethnonym, the initial name of this population was probably also /Lā/ in accordance with the IVPP data. This population could exist independently (as attested by the toponym “Lhasa”, which later acquired the meaning “place of gods” in Tibetan), but it could also travel to other locations of East Asia and meet bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! in Guangdong (that is, a potential mtDNA pre-N3 (mtDNA N3 was observed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Belarus, Italy), whereas the oldest possible age of the ancient East Asian mtDNA B+T16217C! is 65600 years ago in Eng et al, 2014, which is compatible with the age of the split of mtDNA N in general). The IVPP data imply that the direct Paleolithic movement of such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population to Northeast China and its neighborhood could have contributed to ancestors of the Yeniseian speakers in the first place. Importantly, the IVPP data imply that the resulting mixture of such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population and bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong (that is, a potential mtDNA pre-N3), which was contributed to the Xiongnu population (the possible relatives of the Yeniseians) appeared in the ancient individual, belonging to yDNA O-M175=>O-M122, which means that such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population, bearing mtDNA B4, B5, F preferred to maintain the relationship with the ancestors of the Han Chinese, belonging to yDNA O-M175=>O-M122, and this ancient shared past of some individuals explains why some ancient Chinese, belonging to yDNA O-M175=>O-M122 haplogroups preferred to join the Xiongnu.
The “Guangdong-related” part of the resulting mixture of such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population and bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong (that is, a potential mtDNA pre-N3) faced another fate. Whereas the Tai-Kadai population came from Eastern China to the Pearl River Basin, during the “Pre-Tai-Kadai” period, the high concentration of “Tai-Kadai-like” ethnic names /Ta/ /Le/ should have been observed in this location in accordance with the IVPP data, where there existed the /Lā/ population (that is, the ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population) and /De/ or /*Ten>Cen/ populations (that is, bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong). First these pre-Tai-Kadai mixtures should have contributed to ancestors of Tibetic /Deng/ (related to Ten), /Taraon/ (related to /TaLā/), /TaLeDe/ populations, and the IVPP data imply that these tribes later contributed to populations, which left Tărtăria tablets of Romania, but also to populations, which left inscriptions in the “Taretessian” (Tartessian) language of Spain and Portugal. Importantly, the ethnic names /Deng/ and /*Ten>Cen/ (in which “De”/”Te” likely initially meant both “human beings” and “land/earth”) were formed via the same linguistic formant, which implies that the described Pre-Tai-Kadai “Pearl River-Tibet” connection did not result in the transmission of some linguistic features, limited to language isolates (in the Deng-Taraon-Geman continuum, it appears that the Geman language, having a somewhat more “alien” word for person /kǝ/, which is nonetheless reflected in the ethnonym /Geman/ (but not in /Deng/ and /Taraon/), should be responsible for the distribution of the most indigenous geographically Tibetic “language isolate” features, while “non-Geman-like” Deng and Taraon tribal names (of which the Deng name became an exonym) point to the existence of a different, more diverse linguistic situation in the past), but instead the described Pre-Tai-Kadai “Pearl River-Tibet” connection resulted in the transmission of some linguistic features and words, which would represent a shared “Pre-Tibeto-Burman-Pre-Tai-Kadai” substratum (having also occasional connections to the Yeniseian languages), but which became an actively used part of individual Tibeto-Burman and Tai-Kadai dialects. The relationship of languages of yDNA N-M231-related populations to this “Pre-Tibeto-Burman-Pre-Tai-Kadai” continuum of the resulting mixture of such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population and bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong (that is, a potential mtDNA pre-N3) is such that yDNA N-M231-related populations were close neighbors of speakers of languages, belonging to this “Pre-Tibeto-Burman-Pre-Tai-Kadai” substratum, and languages of yDNA N-M231-related populations had to acquire loanwords from languages from this “Pre-Tibeto-Burman-Pre-Tai-Kadai” continuum. For example, in the Austroasiatic language of yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related Bateq population the non-Austroasiatic word /te/ means “land” in general. Due to the cultural Sinitic=>Hmong-Mien influence on the language, adopted by another yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related (in accordance with the IVPP data), the word /te/ for “land” was modified, using linguistic means in order to denote any type of “rice paddy” in the narrow sense. In accordance with the IVPP ethnogenetic reconstruction, a different group of yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related bearers of the non-Austroasiatic language, contributing to the formation of the Bolyu language of the Austroasiatic Mang-Pakanic branch (the /Bo-/ part of the Bolyu ethnonym should be related to the /Bu-/ part of /Mabu Co/ as a place name derivative from an ethnic name ), should have loaned the word for “rice paddy” from those previously mentioned yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related population, which was under the cultural Sinitic=>Hmong-Mien influence, but the Bolyu language had the plain non-Austroasiatic word /te/ for both “rice paddy” and “green rice”, which implies that the pre-Bolyu language of yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related individuals, contributing to Austroasiatic Mang-Pakanic populations, did not have its own word /te/ for “land” in general, because otherwise those yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related individuals would be expected to loan the whole analytic expression for “rice paddy” (e.g., “rice paddy”=”land after harrowing”) (which appeared under the the cultural Sinitic=>Hmong-Mien influence in the language of another yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related population) in order to distinguish it from the similarly sounding word for “land” in such a hypothetical case, but not its plain /te/ component, which should have only denoted “land” in general in the language of those yDNA N-M231(xN1)-related individuals under the cultural Sinitic=>Hmong-Mien influence. It supports the explanation that previously the word /te/ “land” had not been loaned by ancestors of all yDNA N-M231-related individuals from bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong (that is, a potential mtDNA pre-N3), but instead some yDNA N-M231-related groups could loan such a word, but other yDNA N-M231-related groups did not do it, which is consistent with the genetic data of the IVPP that not all most ancient yDNA N-M231-related with the above-described combination of such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population and bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong (that is, a potential mtDNA pre-N3).
It should be mentioned that the above-mentioned external name /Deng/ reminds of /Tingri/ of Tibet and /Dongri/ in /Dongri Bhil/ of India (which are in their turn reminiscent of /Tengri/ of the Altaics and /dingir/ of the Sumerians), while the native words for “human person” in these languages was /*kǝ/).
In a similar manner to the described “contact relationship” between the most ancient yDNA N-M231-related groups and such an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population and bearers of the ancient mtDNA N+T16217C! of Guangdong, the possible “contact relationship” (which manifested itself in the materials of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”) between individual most ancient yDNA N-M231 bearers and populations, related to mtDNA M13’46’61 (mostly to mtDNA M13, which should be considered very ancient, since it had a more-than-50000 year-old subdivision in “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4,000 years”, and which may be suspected to be responsible for substratal influence on languages of such populations as Tibeto-Burman Sherdukpen, causing the appearance of the vigesimal counting system in such Tibeto-Burman languages).
[2] The Gala Co (Co=“Ts-ho”) population as a neighbor of the Mabu Co population should be the one responsible for the introduction of an ancient pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related component, which is also observed in mtDNA B4c1c-related individual of ancient Xiaojingshan. As a whole this 41900-year-old “Ka Lā”/”Kara” population should be related to the Indo-European-Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Turkic-Tungusic-Mongolic-Uralic-Nivkh-Yukaghir-Kartvelian-Dravidian-Nihali-Basque branch of of Jager, 2015
https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.1500331112/suppl_file/pnas.1500331112.sd01.svg However, the IVPP data imply that this 41900-year-old “Ka Lā”/”Kara” population, elements of which distributed to the West, should have interacted at least with the “non-Tibeto-Burman” part of ancestors of the Deng (Geman + Taraon), whose languages are sometimes considered to represent “language isolates”. Additionally, some of descendants of this 41900-year-old “Ka Lā”/”Kara” population should have interacted with yDNA D-M174*-related individuals, whose ancestry reached the Chukotko-Kamchatkans and the Nivkh. The part, which was admixed with the Deng ancestors, but was not closely related to the Chukotko-Kamchatkans and the Nivkh and remained in East Asia, was more closely related to the Dravidian-Nihali-Basque subbranch. Some individuals of the already described “Bu”-related population should have once reached the Dravidian BUnt population (due to the interaction with these “Ka Lā”/”Kara”/ “Deng”-related groups), from which mtDNA M80 was reported. When the “Dravidian-Nihali-Basque subbranch”-related East Asian part of this 41900-year-old “Ka Lā”/”Kara” yDNA NO1-M214*-related population mixed with the population of carriers of some other mtDNA N* haplogroups, potentially reaching Guangdong, and distributed to the north, it could contribute to the Korean/Japanese population, so that branches of their proto-language occupied the position (in Jager, 2017) as distant “relatives” of the Yeniseian languages, whose bearers were influenced by another pre-yDNA O-M175-related 41900-year-old yDNA NO1-M214*-related population (which was described in [1] above) after it had been mixed with the ancient “Guangdong-related” population, carrying the East Asian branch mtDNA N+T16217C! (a potential mtDNA pre-N3). The IVPP data imply that the “Ka Lā”/”Kara”-related population should have distributed as far as Northeast China and should have interacted with yDNA C2-F1067 individuals, contributing to the Hongshan culture and at least with the ancestors of the mtDNA B4c1c Xiaojingshan individual, whereas mtDNA B4c1c is mostly represented in Japan. The Japanese researchers know this “Ka Lā”/”Kara”, they even found the died-out Hpon language in Myanmar, in which the word /Kala/ means “India”, which would be a logical destination for the ancient “Ka Lā” population: one should caution that the word for /man/ in this died-out Hpon language of Myanmar was allegedly /yuksa/, which is more similar to the “ethnically colored” place name Yushu_2.8K from “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, whereas the men of the Yushu_2.8K belonged to yDNA D-M174, implying that yDNA D-M174 men participated in the development of the Hpon language, discovered by the Japanese: importantly, the Burmese location of the Hpon (/Hp-on/) language means that the substratal yDNA D-M174 individuals, living there, were likely to have been closer to the ancestors of the Onge and ancestors of the Onge’s y chromosomal “brothers” in accordance with the data of the IVPP.
Long time ago, the Japanese researcher Takashi Gakuhari showed the existence of the Laos Hoabinhian => Kusunda => ancient Lake Baikal genetic cline in his peace of research. The data of the IVPP (The Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) imply that a journey from south to north (out of China), to a certain degree similar to the one of the Laos Hoabinhian-related population, could be taken by representatives of yDNA N2-Y6503 haplogroup as well.
Most interestingly, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the yDNA O1b*-affiliated specimen, derived from a population, ancestral to yDNA O1b2-P49, formed a cline with some representatives, related to the Chinese
Buta Daurs (
”Buta” somewhat resembled “Botai”, in which culture yDNA N2-Y6503 was found as well). The other IVPP data imply that
Ta should have been the basic name for the most ancient Paleolithic yDNA O1b*-related Tai-Kadai-related populations (yDNA O1b2 had also split from them to Korea in the Paleolithic in accordance with the IVPP data, and the “lexical” separation of the Korean language from “Tai-Kadai-Austronesian” was attested in Jager, 2015), at least before yDNA O1b2-P49 individuals in Korea shifted to the name
”Ji” due to having become dominated by 19000 years ago by the “northern” yDNA C2-M217 population (an AR19K-related predecessor of Altaic groups) in accordance with the IVPP data. One should caution that the IVPP data imply that both ancient yDNA N-M231 and yDNA O1b2-P49 should have initially been the speakers of analytic languages, and the materials of “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” imply that at least the “
Bu-related” population, affiliated to the area of Ma
bu Co (in which the autosomal DNA of the died-out yDNA N-M231*-related population could not have been modeled by the DNA of the younger yDNA N-M231-related populations), which, being located on the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau, in addition manifested the genetic connection to an yDNA C2-M217-affiliated Korean speaker of an Altaic language in Northeast China, could not have influenced the linguistic situation (related to consequent later Altaic languages of Northeast China) more than the materials of the only attested ancient East Asian analytic language, affiliated with that Mabu Co region as well (at least as a language, which can be viewed as having been developed on this “Mabu Co”-related substratum), that is, the language of the Myazedi Pyu inscription, would allow to suggest. The data of “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” imply that the “Mabu Co”-related influence of the population, akin to those
Bu, split along two directions (a Korean-related direction and a non-Korean-related direction), and the data of “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” imply that the ancestor of yDNA N-M2126 Yakut nobles should have started to interact with the remains of the population from this non-Korean-related direction in the area of Inner Mongolia, parallel to the distribution of populations, related to the Banlashan settlement of the Hongshan culture (that is, in the area of Inner Mongolia, having a connection to Tibet and being located to the south of the Banlashan settlement)), which probably presupposed the future Altaic affiliation of those Yakut nobles, who might have later passed via the stage of connections with the populations of the Mongolic affiliation, and the neighborhood of the North Chinese people (which had necessary genetic connections in “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans” so as to be considered responsible for the formation in mythology of some types of the “multilayered sky” worldview, which influenced some Altaic populations and possibly early Buddhist individuals, being interconnected with Buddhist immigrants to Japan in addition (at least on the level of genetic connections in the data of “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans”) ) and the neighborhood of the more northern populations of the Middle Neolithic Hongshan culture, which tended to influence the formation of the East Asia-derived part of Altaic populations, both might have helped the ancestor of yDNA N-M2126 Yakut nobles to form their own variants of their traditional “multilayered sky” worldview, which was more “pretentious” as compared to [1] the earlier “Paleolithic” view on the sky of yDNA N-M231 populations of China, which during the early period should have presupposed the affection between a male sky deity, located above and watching via his two non-simultaneously open “Sun and Moon” eyes of his “face” into two eyes of the opposite face of a female earth deity, located below, in accordance with the IVPP data (which might be distantly resemblant of the reason for “child birth” in the Greek myth about Gaia (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Father Sky) and which implies the way, in which the fragmentary data on the mythology of the yDNA N-M231(xN1) Bateq of Malaysia should be interpreted); [2] the earlier “Paleolithic” view of the Moon and the sky and the earlier “Paleolithic” view of the world as the “closed container” of Paleolithic populations, being unrelated to yDNA N-M231 and connecting Siberia, Tibet and the Papunesian part of the Hoabinhian ancestors.
It should be mentioned that the IVPP data included the detailed correspondences of populations to deity cults from Endicott’s book on the Bateq religion, and the initial yDNA N-M231 and yDNA NO-M214*-related deities were not the “Gobar”, “Tohan” or “Karei”, but the intitial yDNA N-M231/NO-M214*-related deities should have inspired the adoption of “Islam-like” motifs by the Bateq and another known variant of such “Biblical-like” motifs by the Malay descendants, to whose ancestors the yDNA NO-M214* individuals contributed in accordance with such IVPP data. As a “field of interest” for more northern relatives of such “still initially Mongoloid” populations, the IVPP data point to such ancestors of bearers of Hinduism, from whom ancestors of believers in Zoroastrianism should have separated in future.
The data of the IVPP (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) link the part of the name of the “deified”ancestor of the Avars (that is, /iʃ-/), mentioned in their Late Avar inscription, to the word /*ise/>/*iʃe/ “the Two that were born from the marriage of the Sun and the Moon (where the Sun and the Moon should be considered celestial humans)”, which is a dual form of /*isa/ “the One that was born from the marriage of the Sun and the Moon”. In China, there exists the She nationality (their /She/ is a Chinese exonym, which was influenced by the compound /*sai/, related to the language of the ancient yDNA N* population in accordance with the IVPP data), some of whose members believed that the Sun and the Moon had been required for the birth of the Pangu giant. The IVPP data show that the ancestral component, on which the Avar ancestors developed, was not the same as the components, from which the Rapa Nui-related ancestors originated (the Austronesian Rapa Nui population hold one more belief about their giant ancestors as well). The mentioned words are unrelated to Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh and Yukaghir.
The naming of yDNA N-M231-related populations in China“Boshan” is a known yDNA N-Z4762>…>N-CTS582*-related ancient specimen, located on the continent in Boshan (博山 “Boshan”), the name of which, being rendered in writing using the “rather abstract” ancient name 博山 “Boshan, a legendary mountain (/shān/) on the island of the immortals”, is likely to reflect the sounding of the previous ethnic meaning of the /Bo/ part in the name “Boshan”, which would mean “the mountains of the Bo” in the real world in this case.
One of the known features from languages of such populations is the root vowel alteration: /a/ for the indefinite number, /e/ for the dual number, /o/ for the singular number in accordance with the IVPP data. Additionally, the newer IVPP article “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago” implies the situation that there existed independent ancient /Bu/ names, which some of the died-out ancient yDNA N-M231*-related populations could adopt along with their other names, and people of DNA N-Z4762>…>N-CTS582*-related Boshan lived on the substratum of such a /*Bu/ people.
According to the IVPP data, the ancient word /*ba/ “the indefinite number of human persons”, being the parallel development to the slightly more geographically eastern Pre-Austronesian word /*ban/ “a human person” (compare to the Old Indonesian word /wan/ “a human person”) was likely to develop among the part of such populations, ancestral to Boshan, which, having separated from the homeland of ancient East Asians ca. 38100 years ago (that is, the homeland, located in the eastern part of the Yangtze River basin), interacted with a narrow variant of an mtDNA M-related ancient East Asian population, the remains of which were rather widely distributed in East Asia (the male uniparental in the population, which had left such remains, would be yDNA NO*). That is, the mtDNA lineages of such a population were not closely related to more rare lineages, such as mtDNA M61, mtDNA M71, which were initially distributed close to those borders, caused by natural geographic environment, which today sometimes roughly coincide with some of the modern borders of the territory of China, in accordance with the IVPP data. One should suspect that if such an mtDNA M-related ancient East Asian population distributed without the participation of yDNA N-M231-related groups, then the word /*ban/ “a human person”, having an suffix-like element /-n/, potentially pointing to an agglutinating language, would appear; if such an mtDNA M-related ancient East Asian population distributed with the participation of yDNA N-M231-related groups, then the word /*ba/ “the indefinite number of human persons” would be distributed, being characteristic of a more analytic language (that is, unrelated to Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut, Nivkh and agglutinating Yukaghir), the /r/-related plural particle being applicable to the variant /*bo/ in singular with the possibility to omit the plural particle, depending on the context (for example, if /*bo/ were a part of a compound word, where another element would derive from a word, which could imply the meaning of plurality by itself).
The IVPP data point to the type of the ancient population, with which some members of the ancient “Ba” population had to mix in order to form the initial population of the “A Ba” (approximately meaning “the non-customary Ba, mixing with other ethnicities”). There is one more dimension to the part /*A/ of ethnic names in China, but it was geographically conditioned in accordance with the IVPP data.
Тема: The history of yDNA N-M231 of China (Прочитано 267 раз)