Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2836373839 LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 389

Thread: The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the

  1. #371
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,125
    Sex

    cf. KANZAWA Hideaki, KAKUDA Tsuneo, ADACHI Noboru, and SHINODA Ken-ichi, "Nuclear DNA Analysis of Human Bones of the Late Yayoi Period Excavated at Aoya-Kamijichi Site, Tottori-shi, Tottori Pref." Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History No. 228, March 2021

    The authors have retested some of the same specimens from the Aoya-Kamijichi site whose mtDNA haplogroup assignments they have reported in a separate paper in 2020. Most of these specimens are bones of people who had suffered violent injuries and/or severe disease e.g. tuberculous spondylitis and who had been dumped quite randomly into a muddy ditch. Radiocarbon dating of human bones from this ditch has produced figures that are about 1800 ± 200 cal BP, and they have been labeled as "Late Yayoi." However, one of the specimens, Skull No.33, is not from this ditch but from a different and apparently older sedimentary layer, and has been labeled as "Middle Yayoi."

    They have also analyzed two new specimens that are described as having "drifted ashore" [漂着]. These "drifted ashore" specimens, like Skull No.33, have been labeled as "Middle Yayoi," and should be several centuries older than the specimens from the ditch.

    Judging from the PCA plot in Figure 3 of Kanzawa et al. 2021, the Late Yayoi Period specimens from the ditch at the Aoya-Kamijichi site should autosomally overlap with present-day residents of Tokyo [JPT]. When compared to the Late Yayoi Period specimens from the ditch at Aoya-Kamijichi or to the present-day individuals who comprise the JPT sample, the autosomes of the Middle Yayoi Period specimens from outside the ditch at the Aoya-Kamijichi site (or at least two of them; the authors have failed to recover useful amounts of nuclear DNA from the "Drifted-ashore 2 mandible" specimen 18997) appear to be slightly shifted toward present-day continental East Asians, but even these Middle Yayoi Period specimens are much closer to the Late Yayoi Period specimens from the ditch and to modern JPT than any of these are to any present-day continental East Asians. The autosomes of both the two specimens from the Shimomotoyama stone-lined tomb in Sasebo, Nagasaki appear to deviate somewhat from the Late Yayoi Period specimens from the ditch at the Aoya-Kamijichi site and from the modern JPT sample, but the vectors of deviation may be somewhat different for each of the two specimens, with the male Shimomotoyama 3 deviating strongly toward previously published Jōmon specimens (his autosomal profile resembles a 50/50 admixture with one half being "East Honshū Jōmon" ~ "Rebun Jōmon" and the other half being Late Yayoi from Aoya-Kamijichi or some group identical to modern Tokyo Japanese) and the female Shimomotoyama 2 deviating weakly along what appears to be a vector pointing toward some unattested southerly population (I wonder whether this might be some indigenous population of the Ryūkyū Islands - it looks like, if one followed this vector all the way out, one would reach something more extremely "southerly" than present-day Cambodians, so I would guess the deviation of Shimomotoyama 2 might be a result of a slight excess in her ancestry of an autosomal element contributed by some Austronesian-related population).

    -Middle Yayoi Period specimens from outside the ditch at the Aoya-Kamijichi site in Aoya, Tottori, Tottori-
    青谷漂着人骨1頭蓋 No.34 [Aoya Drifted-ashore 1, Skull No.34]
    Sex: Male [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: D4b2b1d [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    Y-DNA: O1b2a1a1 [Kanzawa et al. 2021]

    青谷漂着人骨2 下顎 18997 [Aoya Drifted-ashore 2, Mandible 18997]
    MtDNA: N9b3 [Kanzawa et al. 2021]

    青谷頭骨 No.33(7437-7446)[Aoya Skull No.33]
    Sex: Female [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: D4g1a [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    -Late Yayoi Period specimens from the ditch at the Aoya-Kamijichi site in Aoya, Tottori, Tottori-
    青谷頭骨 No.1 (29240)[Aoya Skull No.1]
    MtDNA: B5b1a2 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.2 (26530)[Aoya Skull No.2]
    MtDNA: D4g1c [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.3 (27708)[Aoya Skull No.3]
    MtDNA: D4b2b1d [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.4 (26396-1)[Aoya Skull No.4]
    MtDNA: M7b1a1a1* [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.5 (26356-1) [Aoya Skull No.5]
    MtDNA: B4f [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.6 (29241-1)[Aoya Skull No.6]
    MtDNA: D4c2* [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.8 (33762) [Aoya Skull No.8]
    MtDNA: pre-N9a2a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: C1a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.9 (27704) [Aoya Skull No. 9]
    Sex: Male [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: pre-D4b2b1d [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: D1b [Kanzawa et al. 2021]

    青谷頭骨 No.10 (27203)[Aoya Skull No.10]
    MtDNA: M9a1a1(a?) [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.12 (29617)[Aoya Skull No.12]
    MtDNA: D4b2b1d [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.14 (27971-1)[Aoya Skull No.14]
    MtDNA: M7b1a? [Shinoda et al. 2020; the quality of this sample is very poor]

    青谷頭骨 No.15 (27893)[Aoya Skull No.15]
    Sex: Female [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    MtDNA: D4b2a2a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.19(31008)[Aoya Skull No.19]
    Sex: Male [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: M7b1a1a1* [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: D (D1b?) [Kanzawa et al. 2021]

    青谷頭骨 No.21(26349) [Aoya Skull No. 21]
    MtDNA: D4c1b1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: O [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.22 (27999)[Aoya Skull No.22]
    MtDNA: D4b2(a?) [Shinoda et al. 2020; the quality of this sample is rather poor]

    青谷頭骨 No.23(27674)[Aoya Skull No.23]
    Sex: Female [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: pre-N9a2a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.25(26824)[Aoya Skull No.25]
    Sex: Male [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: D4c1b2 [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: O1b2a1 [Kanzawa et al. 2021]

    青谷頭骨 No.26 (29942)[Aoya Skull No.26]
    MtDNA: D4a2a [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.27 (26209-2)[Aoya Skull No.27]
    MtDNA: - [Shinoda et al. 2020; the quality of this sample is extremely poor]

    青谷頭骨 No.29 (27866-1)[Aoya Skull No.29]
    MtDNA: M7b1a1a1* [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷頭骨 No.30 (32004)[Aoya Skull No.30]
    MtDNA: N9b [Shinoda et al. 2020; the quality of this sample is rather poor]

    青谷頭骨 No.32(32551)[Aoya Skull No.32]
    Sex: Male [Kanzawa et al. 2021]
    MtDNA: D4b2a2a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020] (I am unsure whether this mtDNA assignment from a 2020 paper by the same authors is for this same specimen. An assignment of D4b2a2a1 has been provided for the skull labeled as "Aoya Skull No.32" in the 2020 paper, but the inventory number for "Skull No.32" has been presented as 26356-1 in that paper but as 32551 in the 2021 paper. However, the same inventory number, 26356-1, has also been provided for Aoya Skull No.5 in the paper by Shinoda et al. 2020, so I suppose that 26356-1 may in fact be the correct inventory number for Aoya Skull No.5, this same number may have been duplicated and erroneously applied to Aoya Skull No.32 in Table 2 of Shinoda et al. 2020, and then Kanzawa et al. 2021 may have correctly presented the inventory number of Aoya Skull No.32 as 32551.)
    Y-DNA: 不明 ("unclear") [Kanzawa et al. 2021]

    青谷下顎 S1 (27163-1)[Aoya Mandible S1]
    MtDNA: B4c1a1a1a [Shinoda et al. 2020; the quality of this sample is rather poor]

    青谷下顎 S2 (27972)[Aoya Mandible S2]
    MtDNA: M7b1a1a1? [Shinoda et al. 2020; the quality of this sample appears to be decent, so I am unsure why the authors have appended a question mark to the mtDNA haplogroup assignment]

    青谷下顎 S3 (29250-1)[Aoya Mandible S3]
    MtDNA: D4b2a2b [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S4 (29547)[Aoya Mandible S4]
    MtDNA: C1a [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S5 (30558)[Aoya Mandible S5]
    MtDNA: pre-D4b2b1d / D4b2b1+146 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S6 (30723)[Aoya Mandible S6]
    MtDNA: D4b2a2 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S7 (30738) [Aoya Mandible S7]
    MtDNA: D4a1a1* [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: C1a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S8 (31107)[Aoya Mandible S8]
    MtDNA: M7b1a1a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: D [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S10 (31822) [Aoya Mandible S10]
    MtDNA: N9a2a* [Shinoda et al. 2020]
    Y-DNA: 不明 ("unclear") [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S11 (31909)[Aoya Mandible S11]
    MtDNA: G1a1a2 [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S13 (32924-1)[Aoya Mandible S13]
    MtDNA: N9a2d [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S14 (33685) [Aoya Mandible S14]
    MtDNA: B4b1a1b [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 S15 (30614)[Aoya Mandible S15]
    MtDNA: M7a1a1a [Shinoda et al. 2020]

    青谷下顎 K12 (32569)[Aoya Mandible K12]
    MtDNA: D5a1a1 [Shinoda et al. 2020. I do not know why this specimen has been prefixed with "K" rather than "S." I suppose that the Mandible K12 sample may have been extracted by Mr. Kanzawa, whereas every other sample obtained from a human mandible unearthed at the Aoya-Kamijichi site may have been extracted by Mr. Shinoda. I cannot find any detailed description of the provenance of the specimen from which the Mandible K12 sample has been obtained.]

    -Late Yayoi Period specimens from the Shimomotoyama stone-lined tomb in Sasebo, Nagasaki-

    Shimomotoyama 3 [下本山3号]
    Sex: Male
    Dating: 2001–1931 cal BP, 1σ [Kaifu et al. 2017]
    Y-DNA: O [Shinoda et al. 2019] / O-CTS713 [TheYtree 2022]
    MtDNA: D4a1 [Shinoda et al. 2019]

    Shimomotoyama 2 [下本山2号]
    Sex: Female
    MtDNA: M7a1a4 [Shinoda et al. 2019]

    Of all the aforementioned specimens, Shimomotoyama 3 has the clearest archaeological context and dating, so I would really appreciate it if someone could confirm his Y-DNA haplogroup.

    Kanzawa et al. 2021 have assigned Aoya Skull No.25 to Y-DNA haplogroup O1b2a1, which should be O-CTS9259. This is one of the specimens that has been obtained from the messy ditch. The authors have succeeded in extracting a sample of relatively high quality from this specimen, so I wonder why they have determined his Y-DNA haplogroup only as far as O1b2a1. Does this specimen really belong neither to O1b2a1a1-47z nor to O1b2a1a2-K4?
    Last edited by Ebizur; 08-28-2022 at 05:54 AM.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     alchemist223 (08-28-2022),  Psynome (08-28-2022),  Richardrli (10-03-2022),  Ryukendo (08-28-2022)

  3. #372
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,125
    Sex

    There has been a troubling development on TheYtree this past week.

    The Y-DNA of TYD006 and TYD007, two "Neolithic" (pre-agricultural ceramic) specimens from Yeondae-do islet off the southern coast of the Korean Peninsula, has previously been classified by TheYtree as belonging to C-M8 (samples AU4345 and AU4346, respectively).

    However, as of this past Wednesday, September 28, 2022, the same two specimens have had their Y-DNA reclassified as O-M122 and C-M130 (samples AU46726 and AU46725, respectively).

    The lack of consistency in the Y-DNA haplogroup assignments for these specimens is very disappointing since the state of preservation of these specimens is considered to be "good" (良好 양호) by the standards of Korean archaeology. The remains were discovered in such good condition that a morphological assessment (of "Jōmonoid") was possible.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (10-01-2022)

  5. #373
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,618
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    There has been a troubling development on TheYtree this past week.

    The Y-DNA of TYD006 and TYD007, two "Neolithic" (pre-agricultural ceramic) specimens from Yeondae-do islet off the southern coast of the Korean Peninsula, has previously been classified by TheYtree as belonging to C-M8 (samples AU4345 and AU4346, respectively).

    However, as of this past Wednesday, September 28, 2022, the same two specimens have had their Y-DNA reclassified as O-M122 and C-M130 (samples AU46726 and AU46725, respectively).

    The lack of consistency in the Y-DNA haplogroup assignments for these specimens is very disappointing since the state of preservation of these specimens is considered to be "good" (良好 양호) by the standards of Korean archaeology. The remains were discovered in such good condition that a morphological assessment (of "Jōmonoid") was possible.
    The 6500BP Korean samples in the reichlab compilation (which includes those) all looked contaminated and/or very noisy (except perhaps the Ando ones), I'm not surprised there is conflict in the y-calls.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (10-27-2022),  Mnemonics (11-04-2022),  Ryukendo (10-01-2022)

  7. #374
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,125
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    The 6500BP Korean samples in the reichlab compilation (which includes those) all looked contaminated and/or very noisy (except perhaps the Ando ones), I'm not surprised there is conflict in the y-calls.
    But the specimens must have been resampled, or else there could be no explanation for the difference between TheYtree's previous Y-DNA assignments for these specimens (both C-M8) and TheYtree's more recent Y-DNA assignments for these specimens (O-M122 and C-M130, respectively), right?

    Two attempts at extracting DNA from this pair of specimens, and two sets of apparently very buggy data. This is quite a depressing result in my opinion.

  8. #375
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,618
    Sex
    Omitted

    PSA: Reichlab compilation v52.2 has new versions of NE30 and NE61. They are non-UDG treated, which isn't always a problem, but in this case they behave totally bonkers.

    For example NE61, AR3.4k
    ~40% China, 23% Andaman/Papuan/etc., 31% of miscellaneous things that could conceivably constitute a Central-Asia MLBA-IA pop, and 6% SSA.
    Oddly enough it's a clean fit statistically speaking.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Ebizur (11-03-2022),  MethCat (11-04-2022),  Mnemonics (11-04-2022),  tipirneni (11-04-2022)

  10. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    PSA: Reichlab compilation v52.2 has new versions of NE30 and NE61. They are non-UDG treated, which isn't always a problem, but in this case they behave totally bonkers.

    For example NE61, AR3.4k
    ~40% China, 23% Andaman/Papuan/etc., 31% of miscellaneous things that could conceivably constitute a Central-Asia MLBA-IA pop, and 6% SSA.
    Oddly enough it's a clean fit statistically speaking.
    I have found the Papuan component in the Satsurblia individual who belonged to to mtDNA Haplogroup K3 and Y-DNA Haplogroup J1-Y6313 and had a connection to the Oase1 individual (putative hg N*/K2a*), according to the Qiaomei Fu team. See https://i.ibb.co/wQgzCx4/php-Gd-Jjd-S.jpg


    I have found the Papuan component in the Israeli Natufians in another article by the Qiaomei Fu team, it can have the same meaning as the Papuan component in the Satsurblia, and it can have a different meaning as well. See https://i.ibb.co/4g8x0vj/2.png

    UPD: mtDNA B4c of Boshan11, deriving from the same region as NE30 according to the Chinese study and being mainly Tianyuan-related, clusteres as an "independent" branch of haplogroup R together with a sample related to Central Asia in "A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes" (Fu Qiaomei)

    Last edited by WestAfricanJerusalemAUDNA; 11-04-2022 at 07:34 AM.

  11. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    PSA: Reichlab compilation v52.2 has new versions of NE30 and NE61. They are non-UDG treated, which isn't always a problem, but in this case they behave totally bonkers.

    For example NE61, AR3.4k
    (...) 6% Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Oddly enough it's a clean fit statistically speaking.
    My interest is obvious.

    I have found an mtDNA L3 sample in the neighbouring region of Mongolia

    I6368 AT_976, Grave #1-A, MONU_976, Grave #1-A Pinhasi, Ron; Cheronet, Olivia; Sirak, Kendra; Dashtseveg, Tumen petrous (CBD) 2630 791-569 calBCE [Rcombine of 784-544 calBCE (2510±20 BP, PSUAMS-3907) and 800-571 calBCE (2550±20 BP, PSUAMS-4252)] Confident - The genetic data and direct 14C date are from the same exported petrous bone; the direct date and archaeological context (Slab Grave culture) match up; and the genetic patterns place this individual into a cluster of 15 individuals from a Slab Grave archaeological context of whom 13 are directly dated to the Slab Grave period. Mongolia_EIA_1_SlabGrave Yes Khentii, Delgerkhaan sum, Khanan Tomb 1a Mongolia 47,178056 109,189444 1240K capture 1 0,021673 25271 F n/a (female) 6,2 L3 [0.764,0.897] 0,106 n/a (female) n/a (female) n/a (female) ds.UDG.half S6368.E1.L1 0,0014 QUESTIONABLE (mtmatchmax=0.897)



    Even the mentioned more than 8000-year-old Boshan11 sample of yDNA N-M231, alongside 3% of the Tianyuan-related mtDNA, received 11% of yDNA DE* component, which has a distance from the Mbuti Pygmy, that is, did not get into the Mbuti from West Africans, so it seems to be a Eurasian DE* population, which is slightly different from the remains of the African CT* population in the Mbuti Pygmy, though probably the Sub-Saharan Africans are still a good source to model it.


    Quote Originally Posted by WestAfricanJerusalemAUDNA View Post
    I have found the Papuan component in the Satsurblia individual who belonged to to mtDNA Haplogroup K3 and Y-DNA Haplogroup J1-Y6313 and had a connection to the Oase1 individual (putative hg N*/K2a*), according to the Qiaomei Fu team. See https://i.ibb.co/wQgzCx4/php-Gd-Jjd-S.jpg

    I have found the Papuan component in the Israeli Natufians in another article by the Qiaomei Fu team, it can have the same meaning as the Papuan component in the Satsurblia, and it can have a different meaning as well. See https://i.ibb.co/4g8x0vj/2.png
    As all of us can see https://i.ibb.co/0cZrgsL/32.png, Boshan sample of yDNA N-M231 has a common genetic drift with the mtDNA M71 Longlin individual, who is much closer to East Asians than Papuans, so Boshan sample of yDNA N-M231 is not so much Papuan as Oase1 (the putative hg N*) . Oase1, according to the research of Qiaomei Fu, had a connection to the Satsurblia individual, who is shown to possess a small Papuan component https://i.ibb.co/wQgzCx4/php-Gd-Jjd-S.jpg. The fact that Boshan sample of yDNA N-M231 is less Papuan than Oase1 explains the incorrectness of the Japanese theory to view Boshan as deriving from 42000-year-old ancestors of Native Americans. The Native Americans can boast the relationship to mtDNA M8'CZ population, which was exactly the same as Papuans without the Denisovan influence and which remains are maximized not only in Native Americans but also in the Yumin mtDNA C5 individual related to mtDNA M8'CZ, and Yumin has the excess allele sharing with Baojianshan of another rare mtDNA M75 branch related to Hoabinhians/Papuans. Might it be that mtDNA M8'CZ was Oase1-related? However, Boshan of yDNA N-M231 is already much closer to Longlin, but not to the Hoabinhian, let alone Papuans, that is why the Japanese theory to view modern haplogroup N individuals as 42000-year-old ancestors of Native Americans is not correct. In theory Oase1 (putative hg N*) might have been related to that Native American Papuan-related ancestors who interacted with Tianyuan, but Boshan of yDNA N-M231 is already much closer to East Asians and Longlin, than to Papuans or 42000-year-old Native American ancestors.
    Last edited by WestAfricanJerusalemAUDNA; 11-04-2022 at 09:05 AM.

  12. #378
    Registered Users
    Posts
    488
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Rough summary of the spread of modern-day East Asians [by someone else]:

    1) There was an Onge-like population that got to EA (arrived later than something that was AASI-like)
    2) Due to the ice age, Onge-like groups living in northern China/northern Asia became "mutated" and ended up looking something similar to northern Asians, while Onge-like populations living in southern China/SEA remained mostly the same
    3) These now "East Asian" groups spread around as hunter-gatherers, and in the south often re-assimilated Negritos (and in isolated areas like Japan, Tibetan Plateau, the trace AASI/Paniya-like groups still found there)
    4) As the Neolithic age began, some hunter-gatherer groups (mostly in yellow river and neighboring areas) transitioned to agriculture and grew in population, forming a few large families/clumps
    5) These agricultural groups then expanded in area and assimilated and/or spread cultures to hunter-gatherer groups living in the rest of Asia

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     Richardrli (11-19-2022),  sum1 (11-13-2022)

  14. #379
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,125
    Sex

    cf. KANZAWA Hideaki, KAKUDA Tsuneo, ADACHI Noboru and SHINODA Ken-ichi (2021), "Nuclear DNA Analysis of a Human Bone of the Early Kofun Period Excavated from Takamatsu-Chausuyama Kofun, Takamatsu-shi, Kagawa Pref." Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History [国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告] No. 228, March 2021.

    cf. SEIKE Akira, SAKAMOTO Minoru and TAKIGAMI Mai, "Archaeological Report on the Chronology of Human Bones of Early Kofun Period Excavated at Takamatsu-Chausuyama Burial Mound, Takamatsu, Kagawa." Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History, No. 219, March 2020.

    Human remains were exhumed from the Chausuyama tumulus in Takamatsu City, Kagawa Prefecture (northeast Shikoku). The remains were assessed to be those of a male who had died in middle age or later. The remains are presumed to belong to a person of high status in his community (probably some sort of chieftain) in Early Kofun Period Japan because this tumulus is one of the largest in the region. A piece of material from the right side of the cranium was sampled and radiocarbon dated to 1697 ± 20 14C BP, or 395-525 AD (1σ) or 350-525 AD (2σ) after adjustment for marine reservoir effect.

    The Y-DNA of the Chausuyama 3 specimen was assigned to haplogroup C1a1, and his mtDNA was assigned to haplogroup D4m1. Both are deep-rooting clades that are not currently observed regularly anywhere outside Japan. In a PCA of autosomal DNA, the Chausuyama 3 specimen plotted within the distribution range of present-day Japanese. However, according to a comparison using f4 statistics, Chausuyama 3 was statistically significantly genetically closer than present-day Japanese to the Funadomari 23 specimen:

    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Japanese, F4=-0.001279, Z=-5.256
    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=JPT, F4=-0.001148, Z=-5.225

    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Japanese, F4=-0.000872, Z=-3.240
    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=JPT, F4=-0.000770, Z=-3.059

    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 2, F4=0.002742, Z=1.481
    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 3, F4=0.001208, Z=1.955

    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 2, F4=0.004878, Z=2.473
    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 3, F4=0.003172, Z=4.308

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     alchemist223 (11-14-2022),  Ryukendo (11-14-2022)

  16. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    cf. KANZAWA Hideaki, KAKUDA Tsuneo, ADACHI Noboru and SHINODA Ken-ichi (2021), "Nuclear DNA Analysis of a Human Bone of the Early Kofun Period Excavated from Takamatsu-Chausuyama Kofun, Takamatsu-shi, Kagawa Pref." Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History [国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告] No. 228, March 2021.

    cf. SEIKE Akira, SAKAMOTO Minoru and TAKIGAMI Mai, "Archaeological Report on the Chronology of Human Bones of Early Kofun Period Excavated at Takamatsu-Chausuyama Burial Mound, Takamatsu, Kagawa." Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History, No. 219, March 2020.

    Human remains were exhumed from the Chausuyama tumulus in Takamatsu City, Kagawa Prefecture (northeast Shikoku). The remains were assessed to be those of a male who had died in middle age or later. The remains are presumed to belong to a person of high status in his community (probably some sort of chieftain) in Early Kofun Period Japan because this tumulus is one of the largest in the region. A piece of material from the right side of the cranium was sampled and radiocarbon dated to 1697 ± 20 14C BP, or 395-525 AD (1σ) or 350-525 AD (2σ) after adjustment for marine reservoir effect.

    The Y-DNA of the Chausuyama 3 specimen was assigned to haplogroup C1a1, and his mtDNA was assigned to haplogroup D4m1. Both are deep-rooting clades that are not currently observed regularly anywhere outside Japan. In a PCA of autosomal DNA, the Chausuyama 3 specimen plotted within the distribution range of present-day Japanese. However, according to a comparison using f4 statistics, Chausuyama 3 was statistically significantly genetically closer than present-day Japanese to the Funadomari 23 specimen:

    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Japanese, F4=-0.001279, Z=-5.256
    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=JPT, F4=-0.001148, Z=-5.225

    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Japanese, F4=-0.000872, Z=-3.240
    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=JPT, F4=-0.000770, Z=-3.059

    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 2, F4=0.002742, Z=1.481
    O=Mbuti, P1=Funadomari 23, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 3, F4=0.001208, Z=1.955

    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 2, F4=0.004878, Z=2.473
    O=Mbuti, P1=Ikawazu IK002, P2=Chausuyama 3, P3=Shimomotoyama 3, F4=0.003172, Z=4.308
    I think mtDNA M has nothing to do with the y Chromosome C, especially with the C of Kostenki14, because we need 1% of Australasian-related mtDNA R from Tianyuan to help to model mtDNA M in GoyetQ116-1 in "The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene" by Xiaowei Mao and Qiaomei Fu.

    Of living individuals and ancient individuals, the mtDNA M80D, ancestral to mtDNA D, was only reported:
    in the Batak people of the Phillipines, who are Negritos who are related to the Papuans;
    in the the Yangshao culture of the Chinese people;
    and in the Jomon individual of Japan.



    UPDATE!
    In the Higashimyou Jomon, where M80D sample was reported, another haplogroup is N9a2a. The most ancient N9a haplogroup in China was reported in the Xiaogao specimen of Shandong Neolithic which was dominated by the males of N haplogroup.
    Higa002 - Higashimyou shell midden () N9a2a 7863 Japan - Initial Jomon
    Higa006 - Higashimyou shell midden () M7a1a 7863 Japan - Initial Jomon
    Higa020 - Higashimyou shell midden () M80'D 7863 Japan - Initial Jomon


    The mtDNA of Maludong is largely similar by composition to the mtDNA of the West African Gambian people (though it is not similar by the mtDNA marker). Gambian males are dominated by y Chromosome E haplogroup. It spread to Mongolia and came to the area of Maludong via India. They bore traces of the DNA that separated from the Chinese people more than 1 million years ago, and the Maludong individual also had such traces. It explains why the Palestinians cluster with the Chinese people. I have seen that in tooth morphology the Qafzeh9 people of Israel is intermediate between the Maludong individual and the ancient Chinese samples without the Maludong influence. The Qafzeh9 people of Israel lived 80000-120000 years ago, thus the Maludong-like component in peoples related to Qafzeh9 increased over time. Unlike ancient Chinese samples, modern Han Chinese (NEA China Han) have been influenced by the Maludong-related population.



    I think that the Gambians being largely related to male hg E, are not related to the Arabian Neolithic (Basal Eurasian), but are related to the hg E-related 76600-year-old population (the hg E is most ofen found in the Jewish people in Eurasia).
    Last edited by SarahMaludongsMotherInLaw; 11-14-2022 at 09:17 AM.

Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2836373839 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-21-2020, 09:38 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-10-2020, 04:48 PM
  3. Genetic history of South-East Asia / Sundaland
    By Tomenable in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2019, 08:03 AM
  4. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 02-04-2018, 10:46 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2016, 01:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •