Check for new replies
Haplogroup D1 Discussion Thread
#1
Do not belong to this haplogroup myself, but I am interested in it as it is one of the major maternal haplogroups the took part in the peopling of the Americas over 15,000 years ago. Also interested regarding its place among maternal Haplogroup D; it appears to be an independent branch (with no closely related branches) of Haplogroup D4, which otherwise is mostly found in East Asian populations (though not SE Asia).
Reply
#2
I have adapted the following from Satish Kumar, Claire Bellis, Mark Zlojutro, Phillip E Melton, John Blangero, and Joanne E Curran, "Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins," BMC Evolutionary Biology 2011, 11:293 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/293):

   
Reply
#3
The mtDNA D1-only Surui population has a language, which clustered as an outgroup to the Ainu language in Jager, 2017 (“From words to features to trees: Computing a world tree of languages from word lists”). In "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia", a signal from 56% Papuan + 44% Tianyuan was observed in the Surui population. Among the northern individuals, the strong Papuan affinity was only reliably detected in the ancient Jomon individuals so far. Unlike D4e1 and D4h3a, Bianbian, Boshan, Xiaojingshan-related individuals of yDNA N-CTS582, distantly related to mtDNA M21a-related populations (such as the Batek), share mutations with mtDNA D4q, whose bearers are considered to migrate to the Yangtze river basin from the Fenhe River basin of China, dominated by yDNA C2-M217 populations, which preserved small flake tool industries instead of adopting microblade production.
Reply
#4
(02-23-2024, 03:53 AM)Ebizur Wrote: I have adapted the following from Satish Kumar, Claire Bellis, Mark Zlojutro, Phillip E Melton, John Blangero, and Joanne E Curran, "Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins," BMC Evolutionary Biology 2011, 11:293 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/293):

https://genarchivist.com/attachment.php?aid=627
[Image: php-Mr-XJg-G.png]

Quote:"The Genetic History of the South Caucasus from the Bronze to the Early Middle Ages: 5000 years of genetic continuity despite high mobility"

"For the earliest individual, SMT013, who carries the East Asian mitochondrial haplogroup D4e1"

In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the genetic cline, involving mtDNA D4e, separated from specimens of the same North Chinese East Asian location, devoid of microblades, as mtDNA D4f did (mtDNA D4f (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4-b/) was likely a lineage, relevant for the separation of the yDNA O1b2-related population from mainland China to Korea in the Paleolithic), though mtDNA D4e is less ancient than mtDNA D4f (TMRCA of mtDNA D4e is 17600 years ago according to yfull site, while mtDNA D4f has a more than 20000-year-old relative in Kazakhstan), which implies a somewhat later migration of mtDNA D4e as compared to mtDNA D4f. For the North Chinese East Asian location, devoid of microblades, the connection to yDNA C2-F1067>C2-CTS4660 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-CTS4660/ ), which migrated to this yDNA O-M175*-related area from a slightly more northern homeland of yDNA C2-F1067, was shown in the materials of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. In “Mitogenome evidence shows two radiation events and dispersals of matrilineal ancestry from northern coastal China to the Americas and Japan”, yDNA C2-F1067 in general was suggested as a lineage, which might be encountered along with mtDNA D4e in the Paleolithic. Since that area was previously dominated by yDNA O-M175*, it is likely that bearers of mtDNA D4e were not speakers of polysynthetic languages, such as Chukotko-Kamchatkan or Eskimo-Aleut languages. For example, mtDNA D4g2 was shown to be one of the lineages, relevant for the formation of the population, speaking Sino-Tibetan languages, in “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4000 years”. In any case, the distribution of mtDNA D4e population-related ancestry in China prior to migration of some of mtDNA D4e’s bearers to Siberia,was not too far from both Shandong and the West Liao river basin on the PCA of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

Interestingly, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", those mtDNA D4e specimens, whose ancestors had already migrated to the Baikal region, clustered not far from one more migrant to Baikalia, such as the UstBelaya_N specimen (mtDNA D4b1a2), which showed the highest level of the connection to a Southeast Asian Hoabinhian after the actually geographically Southeast Asian ancient specimens in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”. It means that, during the migration of some mtDNA D4e representatives from their homeland closer to both Shandong and the West Liao river basin, some new population, having a connection to the Hoabinhian of Southeast Asia, joined the migrating ancestors of mtDNA D4e individuals and reached Baikalia, providing a genetic link to the Hoabinhians, which was more substantial than such a link in La_G2 Laotian ancients and was comparable with the link to the Hoabinhians in Austronesian ancients, named G6, from insular Malaysia and the Philippines (it is so in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”). In accordance with a characteristic for his population, represented in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", this population should not be related to the Tolai of New Britain, who were described in the following manner: “men and women went completely naked”, “head-hunting and cannibalism were regularly practiced”, “people appeared to possess few of the familiar indices of cohesion and social solidarity”. The “Papuan” mtDNA M29’Q of the Tolai is united by the mutation T13500C, which is also observed in mtDNA R2+T13500C, which yielded the signal of the Neolithic Iran’s ancestry in “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”.

As for mtDNA D4e representatives, whose ancestors remained in China (for example, mtDNA D4e1 ancient specimen from Xinjiang is closer to them in “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”), they started to interact with the ancestors of at least some mtDNA B4a-related Austronesians (for example, the relevant Semende Austronesians have 100% yDNA O-M175 as their paternal lineage), according to the material of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". The yDNA O1b2 Chinese individual from Shandong, whose ancestors should have migrated to Shandong from Korea in the Neolithic and should have interacted with mtDNA B4c1b2a-related “northern” (Para-)Austronesians (whose mtDNA B4c1b2a lineage was detected in the 5500-4600-year-old Beiqian settlement of the Jiaodong Peninsula) had the relevant component of such an Austronesian-related population, migrating to the north, while mtDNA D4e-affiliated ancient individuals from China provided for a part of the northern component to the Austronesians (such as the Semende) in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". Indeed, the mtDNA D4e-related population, a part of which had been migrating as far as Baikal of Siberia, and another part of which interacted with the ancestors of the Austronesians, resembles the northern “second-layer population” from “Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia” by Matsumura, whereas the population of an mtDNA O-M119 Liangdao1 individual from the IVPP articles, mixed with the population, akin to yDNA N-M231 Boshan, appeared to be a representative of the “first layer population” in “Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia” by Matsumura. In any case, the Austronesian languages, whose speakers should have been influenced by the mtDNA D4e-related population in accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", have languages, which are very different from polysynthethic Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut languages, which supports one more time the East Asian nature of the ancient language, spoken by the mtDNA D4e-related population. The persistence of contacts between the Austronesian-related part of the population and the northern mtDNA D4e> mtDNA D2-related part of the population is implied by “Ancient DNA Evidence from China Reveals the Expansion of Pacific Dogs”, where northern individuals acquired the Austronesian-related dog lineage from China, distributed in the south.

In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" the ancient Fujianese Liangdao, Tanshishan and Suogang islet’s part of the Austronesian population, which should be relevant for the origin of Austronesian yDNA and mtDNA lineages, whose relatives can be observed in China, as well as populations, represented by Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai lineages, whose relatives can be observed in China, and some yDNA NO-M214 lineages in general, clustered slightly to the north of the fairly southern cline, which was formed by samples, carrying the Homo Sapiens mutation, which was not observed in mtDNA L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L6,L7 lineages, and some of them clustered to the north of a slightly more northern cline of Southern China, which was formed by samples, carrying the Homo Sapiens mutation, which was not observed in mtDNA L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L6,L7 lineages and were not observed in myDNA L3 lineages as an addition. It does not support the “evolution from Khoisan to Austronesian”, suggested by the Japanese researcher Koji Ohnishi, whereas the influence of mtDNA L3-related African population, slightly more closely related to the Austronesian ancestors, on the ancestors of the African Khoikhoi and African San should explain some much more occasional similarities with the Khoikhoi and San languages as the common heritage, shared with languages of the mtDNA L3-related population. Since at least some mtDN L3 lineages seem to be detected in Southeast Asia, it may be the reason for the appearance in East Asian-related populations of certain mtDNA L0-related mutations, which are represented in other numerous African and Eurasian lineages, while the local component of mtDNA M and mtDNA N-related populations, not so closely related to mtDNA L3-related populations, still remained dominant in East Asia. On the other hand, the Japanese language showed a connection to the Shompen language isolate from the Nicobar Islands in Jager, 2016( "Inferring the world tree of languages from word lists"). It may be a linguistic representation of some form of a genetic connection between Japan Jomon and the ancient inhabitants, whose DNA preserved in the dwellers of the Nicobar Islands. In accordance with "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", there should have been such a Nicobar-Japan Jomon genetic connection, which was revealed through a slightly more southern Nicobar-related population (than the one relevant for the formation of pre-Austronesians in southernmost China ), whose representatives should carry a mutation, observed in the more than 110000-year-old mtDNA L5 lineage in Africa (including the Khoisan), and this situation may be the reason behind the appearance of certain mtDNA L0-related mutations in lineages, related to the Japan Jomon population. Additionally, mtDNA L5 is observed in the limited form in the Sandawe people of Africa, which is a potential carrier of the DNA of one of African “ghost modern” populations, while some Japanese scientists indirectly supported the presence of “ghost” populations also in Eurasia, so there is a limited chance that mtDNA L5-related Nicobar-Japan Jomon genetic connection from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" might have been related to the appearance (in the limited form) of the “ghost modern” DNA in populations, akin to Japan Jomon, due to African-related migrations (mainly avoiding the main territory of China), which were supported by some Japanese scientists. Additionally, such a population, akin to the dwellers of the Nicobar Islands and carrying the mentioned mtDNA L5-related mutation, may not be related to cannibals as such, but may have interacted with a more westerly population, related to rare indigenous Southeast Asians on the Papuan substratum, whose mtDNA lineages carry the same mutation and whose mythology contains the notions of cannibalism and headhunting. Consequently, a Nicobar-Japan Jomon genetic connection from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" should be helpful in explaining the appearance (on the Japanese Archipelago) of the myth about the rejection of cannibalism due to the requirement from a new deity, whereas such a myth is cited from the indigenous Ainu mythology of the Japanese Archipelago (the Ainu are a genetically Jomon-like population), rather than from the Japanese mythology. The most well-known Southeast Asian myth, involving man-eating ogres as ancestors, who evolved into humans from tadpoles and learnt the head-hunting, was discovered by the British journalist in the beginning of the 20th century, but such mythology contained both the origin from man-eating ogres and the origin from celestial beings, which resembled the origin of the lower race and the origin of the higher race, and such mythology was farther researched by the Japanese scientist, who put an accent on the similarities of the “lower race” origin to mythologies of Southeast Asian nationalities, while the “higher race” origin from celestial beings would be characteristic of the Japanese mythology in that case. However, the IVPP genetic reconstruction suggests that the rare indigenous Southeast Asian population on the “Australian-related” substratum might have contributed the totemist “origin from frogs (tadpoles)” part of the myth, and the rare indigenous Southeast Asian population on the “Australian-related” substratum should have mixed with the rare indigenous Southeast Asian population on the Papuan substratum, which had practiced head-hunting and cannibalism, thus, the resulting myth on the origin of headhunting men from cannibals, who evolved from frogs and tadpoles, appeared. A Nicobar-Japan Jomon genetic connection from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", which also involves an mtDNA L5-related mutation, can be extended to the rare indigenous Southeast Asian population on the Papuan substratum, which had practiced head-hunting and cannibalism (which would explain the appearance (on the Japanese Archipelago) of the myth about the rejection of cannibalism due to the requirement from a new deity, which had been revealed through the mythology of the “Jomon-related” Ainu), and which also had representatives, carrying the same mtDNA L5-related mutation. However, since the mtDNA L5-related mutation is observed in an African “Khoikhoi-related” population, which did not practice cannibalism, but instead had a myth of attacks from man-eating ogres, the mtDNA L5-related population should not be probably blamed for the spread of cannibalism. In the IVPP reconstruction, Longlin, migrating to China, should not be related to head-hunting, cannibalism and origin from frogs as well.
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)