Finnic populations should know that, according to the scientist from China, the Zhaobaogou culture could participate in the formation of the Finno-Uralic branch, and it is backed by ancient DNA from that culture.
The most diversified N1c population was found in the Xueshan I culture and it clustered craniologically with local Northern Chinese populations.
"The Jiangjialiang (JJL) and Sanguan (SG) sites are located in the Sanggan River Valley (Figure 1), yet display different subsistence economies. The JJL site was one of the largest Neolithic sites in the Sanggan River Valley. It is the oldest Neolithic Sanggan River Valley site with human remains.19 A previous excavation uncovered a total of nine buildings and 78 graves (Supplementary Figure S1).19 Radiocarbon dating of the nine buildings in the lowest stratigraphic layer indicated that they were constructed in 4850±80 BC."
"All JJL males expressed the Y haplogroup N-M231 (Supplementary Table S5), the most common haplogroup in North China 3000 years ago.38 Haplogroup N1 (× N1a, × N1c) is present in 10 out of the 17 males while the haplogroup N1c-Tat was observed in the other seven male individuals (Table 2)."
"For the SG samples, four of seven individuals were classified as male, and they all belonged to the Y haplogroup O3-M122 (Supplementary Tables S2 and S5), common in the ancient people of the Yellow River Valley.38, 39 Haplogroup O3-M122 is the main haplogroup observed in the Han Chinese people today,40, 41, 42 however was not identified in the JJL population."
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2016107#MOESM403
So N1a-TAT was found only in the early JJL layer, the earliest layers of which are dated to 4850 BC. So it is most likely that this group came from the Amur River from the Gromatukha culture area and is N1a-Y23747 and Y149447. In addition, the skeletons themselves are not dated, the study was carried out according to 17 STR. Now such studies are not recognized by science as reliable. It is necessary to study these samples with modern methods.
Last edited by VladimirTaraskin; 03-23-2023 at 06:59 AM.
Published: 01 September 2016
Genetic diversity of two Neolithic populations provides evidence of farming expansions in North China
Ye Zhang, Jiawei Li, Yongbin Zhao, Xiyan Wu, Hongjie Li, Lu Yao, Hong Zhu & Hui Zhou
Journal of Human Genetics volume 62, pages199–204 (2017)Cite this article
"Considering the rarity of the N1c-Tat haplogroup distribution in the ancient populations throughout the late Neolithic and Bronze Ages, it is possible that N1c-Tat represented the local population of the Sanggan River Valley. These people may be the original settlers who used a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy in the Sanggan River Valley. During the shift from hunting to farming, they likely embraced new techniques and then began to use farming technology."
The lower layer for Xueshan I should derive from the local Hougang I culture. The Chinese articles describe how hunter-gatherers shifted to farming technology in this region, including the period 9000-10000 years ago.
The later layers of incoming populations to this region also included the Hongshan-related populations.
The Xiaojingshan of the Houli culture is not so far from this area, and Xiaojingshan's ancient DNA includes autosomal DNA related to hg N1c-populations.
EDIT: It is not correct to think that these particular N1c specimens belonged to the lowest layer ("Radiocarbon dating of the nine buildings in the lowest stratigraphic layer indicated that they were constructed in 4850±80 BC.19, 22"), because these N1c samples were directly attributed to the Xueshan I culture period (3600–2900 BC).
Last edited by East-Asia; 03-23-2023 at 07:32 AM.
These samples were not dated at all. Therefore, it is not clear to what period they belong. And given the fact that the study was done on the basis of 17 STRs, and not on the basis of SNPs, it is impossible to determine their exact subclade.Originally Posted by East-Asia
I found the following conclusion - "The Hongshan culture was formed on the basis of the local Xinglongwa culture. The oldest jade products in China were found in Xinglongwa burials, in particular, amulets in the form of small dragons, clay figurines in the form of a pregnant woman, and copper rings." This is already interesting , as jade products continue to accompany the N group population.
Last edited by VladimirTaraskin; 03-23-2023 at 08:23 AM.
Jack Johnson (04-18-2023), Kunig (03-23-2023)
The local population of the Sanggan River Valley (which is considred N1c-related in the "Xueshan I" article) belonged to a different cultural system than the Xinglongwa culture (the Hougang I culture and its precursor was the Xueshan-related local population cultural system).
Also, the Zhaobaogou culture does not derive directly from the Xinglongwa culture. The initial homeland of the Xinglongwa population was proposed to lay closer to the sumberged territory of the Bohai Sea or even on the sumberged territory basing on the archaeological similarities to the most coastal archaeological cultures. As there was continuous interaction along the sea coast, this would justify the possible "Altaic" affiliation of Xinglongwa shared also by Koreanic and Japonic.
Last edited by East-Asia; 03-23-2023 at 09:01 AM.
tantin (03-23-2023)
The culture of Xueshan is, firstly, too late to refer to N1a-L708, and secondly, it is already agrarian, which is also impossible. If you look for N-TAT in China, then these should be more ancient cultures older than 6000 BC and the culture of hunters and fishermen, but familiar with jade
Instead of this, the fisherman culture is Devil's Gate where there was no N1c detected, and Devil's Gate culture has a Chinese counterpart of Xinkailiu culture, both produce jade objects. Devil's Gate is northern C2-M217, so northern C2-M217 fits the description "fishermen with jade".
Unlike this, the Xueshan I culture is related to N1c haplogroup:
"Considering the rarity of the N1c-Tat haplogroup distribution in the ancient populations throughout the late Neolithic and Bronze Ages, it is possible that N1c-Tat represented the local population of the Sanggan River Valley. These people may be the original settlers who used a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy in the Sanggan River Valley. During the shift from hunting to farming, they likely embraced new techniques and then began to use farming technology."
Genetic diversity of two Neolithic populations provides evidence of farming expansions in North China
Ye Zhang, Jiawei Li, Yongbin Zhao, Xiyan Wu, Hongjie Li, Lu Yao, Hong Zhu & Hui Zhou
Journal of Human Genetics volume 62, pages199–204 (2017)
In 5500 BC N1a1-TAT/L708 was already in the Trans-Baikal Territory of Russia. So late Neolithic and Bronze Ages in China could only have N1a1-TAT/Y23747.
Haplogroups cannot be correlated with extrapolations made on the whole population from archaeologically excavated sites. Since in a given area, there needs to be reasons to be explained why samples can have a high concentration of specific haplogroups.
There are far too few of a sample set too to make reliable statistical inferences.
Last edited by alienation; 03-23-2023 at 11:06 AM.
The Xueshan I culture where y-DNA N1c was found has archaeological connections to Finnic populations in the field of artefacts for spiritual life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote