|
Post by Admin on Nov 16, 2021 21:31:59 GMT
109 §3. Archaeolinguistic Interpretation of the Ancient DNA Results 110 §3.1 West Liao Region 111 As the Xinglongwa (8200–7400 BP) samples included in our study failed, we do not have 112 direct evidence about the genetic profile of the farmers in the West Liao River region in the 113 Early Neolithic. However, there is indirect evidence suggesting that the prevalent Early 114 Neolithic profile in the West Liao area was Amur-related and that Yellow River influence 115 increased over time and space, i.e., from the Middle Neolithic onwards and proportional to 116 the distance from the Yellow River region. The indirect evidence comes from the observation 117 that hunter-gatherers from the Baikal (7000–6000 BP)6, from the eastern steppe east of West 118 Liao (Yumin 8400–7800 BP; ED Fig. 8, 9), from the Amur (Jalainur 6500±30 BP; ED Fig. 8, 119 9) and from Boisman (7500- 6000 BP; ED Fig. 8, 10) are all Amur-related; see also ED Table 120 1. Since the West Liao area falls within the continuum marked by these geographical 121 locations, it is plausible that the populations here belonged to the same Amur-related gene 122 pool. 123 We find high proportions of Amur-like ancestry in the Middle Neolithic Haminmangha 124 individuals (5700-5600 BP; 88%) situated on the northern banks of the Liao River as well as 125 in the Late Neolithic Angangxi individuals (4000 BP; 75%) situated in the Amur region to 126 the northeast of the West Liao Region (ED Fig. 8, 9, Fig. 3b). However, the Amur component 127 decreases at the expense of a Yellow River component with proximity to the Yellow River 128 and elapse of time: The Middle Neolithic Hongshan (Banlashan 5400-5100 BP; 40%) to 129 Lower Xiajiadian (Erdaojingzi 4000 BP 20%) situated to the south of the West Liao River 130 Region show considerably lower proportions of Amur ancestry and high proportions of 131 Yellow River ancestry. This indicates that the Amur-related genetic component was original 132 to the West Liao River in the Early Neolithic and suggests a gradual shift towards the Yellow 133 River genome over time and space. If the transition from hunter-gathering to farming in the 134 West Liao River area cannot be correlated with gene flow from the Yellow River Region, 135 then it is likely that farming developed free from external influence. This inference is 136 consistent with the multi-centric origins of early millet cultivation suggested in 137 archaeobotany7. 138 Since Amur-related ancestry can be traced back to the earliest domestication centre of 139 millet in northeast China and the proposed homeland of the Transeurasian language family in 140 the West Liao river area, it appears to be the original genetic correlate of the Transeurasian 141 speech communities. This is corroborated by the fact that we find a genetic Amur component 142 common in contemporary speakers belonging to the five different Transeurasian subgroups, 143 i.e., Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic and Japonic.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 17, 2021 20:18:28 GMT
145 §3.2 Russian Far East 146 Early hunter-gatherers from the Southern Primorye, such as Devil’s Gate (7750-7450 BP) 147 and Boisman (7500- 6000 BP), show high proportions of Amur ancestry (95%) and limited 148 admixture with Jōmon ancestries (ED Fig 7i, Fig. 3b). These ancient genomes cluster with 149 contemporary southern Tungusic populations, such as Ulcha, Negidal and Nanai in the lower 150 Amur Region, as well as with Nivkh people in nearby Sakhalin island (ED Fig 7i)8,9, 151 suggesting genetic continuity within the original Amur-related gene pool. The PCA plot in 152 ED Fig 7i further shows that contemporary northern Tungusic populations, such as Evenki 153 and Even cluster with surrounding Siberian populations because they received gene flow 154 from West Eurasian related populations. 155 Our archaeolinguistic results confirm earlier findings about the dispersal of millet 156 agriculture and language from the West Liao River Region via the Amur to the Southern 157 Primorye around 5000 BP (SI 7)10. As this route went over the region northeast of the West 158 Liao River and as our samples from the Middle and Late Neolithic in that region suggest high 159 proportions of Amur ancestry (Haminmangha 5700-5600 BP: 88% and Angangxi 4000 BP: 160 75%), we can infer that the people bringing agriculture to the Russian Far East displayed high 161 proportions of Amur ancestry. 162 Since both the incoming farmers and the local hunter-gatherers in the Primorye in the 163 Middle Neolithic had an Amur-like genetic profile, the proposed Farming/ Language 164 dispersal falls within the Amur gene pool. By consequence, we expect low statistical power 165 to detect traces of genetic admixture even if population movement was involved, because the 166 admixing of two similar Amur-like genomes would not be perceivable. This explains why in 167 the southern Primorye both Tungusic-speaking populations and non-Tungusic speaking 168 populations such as the Nivkh are genetically similar and continuous with the ancient 169 genomes in the region. Bringing the archaeolinguistic and genetic evidence together thus 170 makes a case for imperceptible genetic admixture.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 17, 2021 21:36:33 GMT
173 §3.3 Eastern Steppe 174 Recent studies have shown that Amur-like ancestry is the dominant genetic profile in 175 Mongolia until the Early Iron Age11. This is in line with our findings that the Amur gene pool 176 in the Early Neolithic covered a large geographical area reaching from the Baikal in the West 177 to the Primorye in the East to present-day Inner-Mongolia in the South and included hunter 178 gatherers as well as early farmers. This explains why Amur ancestry is the common genetic 179 component common to all speakers of Transeurasian, while it is not limited to the 180 Transeurasian linguistic family alone, as it also occurs in descendants from hunter-gatherer 181 groups, such as, for instance, the speakers of Nivkh. 182 The non-farming populations on the Eastern steppe until the Early Iron Age, such as the 183 Ulaanzuukh and Slab Grave people, should not be associated with Mongolic languages just 184 because they are situated in present-day Mongolia. They may well have spoken a non- 185 Transeurasian language. On the basis of the location of ethnolinguistic groupings, such as 186 Khitan of the Liao Empire (907–1125), the Tabghach of the Northern Wei (386–534), the 187 Xianbei or “Serbi” (208 BC–235 AD) and the Donghu (the first millennium BC), the source 188 region of Proto-Mongolic has been located in the West Liao River region at the intersection 189 of present-day eastern Mongolia and northeastern China (SI 4). It was probably not until the 190 Late Bronze Age that the Mongolic languages started to move westwards into present-day 191 Mongolia. This appears consistent with an isotope analysis which finds an increase in millet 192 consumption in Mongolia after ca. 800 BC12, although more samples are needed from central 193 Mongolia to further test this hypothesis as the current analysis, for instance, does not include 194 Slab Grave individuals. 195 The Xiongnu (ca. 300 BC-200 AD) were a multi-ethnic steppe people, dominating the area 196 from the Ordos Plateau to the Altai Mountains to south of Lake Baikal between the third 197 century BC and the second century AD. Genetically, the Xiongnu samples are diverse, 198 showing various degrees of admixture between Slab Grave people from present-day Eastern 199 Mongolia and Saka-related populations from southeastern Kazakhstan and the Tian Shan 200 mountains. 6,13 Xiongnu subsistence was dependent on nomadic pastoralism, probably 201 introduced from their Eastern Iranian neighbours, with a strong agricultural component 202 relating to millet farming.12 Evidence on the Xiongnu language is scarce, limited to some 203 fragmentary attestations in Old Chinese chronicles, but historical linguists agree that it was a 204 multilingual confederation, including Turkic speakers in addition to Eastern Iranian, 205 Yenisean, Tocharian and Mongolic elements13,14,15,16. Our linguistic results (SI 4, 5) indicate 206 that the speakers of Proto-Turkic, gradually spreading from the Ordos Plateau over the 207 Eastern steppe and across the Altai Mountains in the Bronze Age, inherited terms related to 208 millet agriculture from their Transeurasian ancestors in the Neolithic, while they borrowed 209 pastoral vocabulary from Eastern Iranian or Tocharian neighbors in the West. This is 210 consistent with the identification of the Xiongnu as partially Turkic speaking. It also suggests 211 that the non-farming populations of the Slab Grave culture spoke a language unrelated to 212 Proto-Turkic. In line with the Farming/Language Dispersal, a part of the non-farming 213 ancestors of the Xiongnu may thus have shifted their native language to Proto-Turkic with the 214 adoption of millet agriculture.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 18, 2021 19:18:22 GMT
217 §3.4 Korea 218 By analysing the first collection of ancient genomes from the Korean Peninsula, we provide 219 direct evidence that Jōmon ancestry was present on the Peninsula by at least 6000 years ago 220 (SI 13 Fig. 3B). All our ancient Korean samples fall within the East Eurasian variation (ED 221 Fig. 7). This observation echoes the admixture models in that all ancient Korean individuals 222 can be explained by 2-way admixture — one related to Jōmon and the other mostly related to 223 mainland East Asian millet farmers (Fig. 3B; SI 16). One individual from the Late Neolithic 224 Yokchido site on the southern coast of Korea shows a high affinity to individuals with Jōmon 225 ancestry (SI 13 Fig. 3) and was modelled as harbouring as much as 95% Jōmon ancestry, 226 suggesting migration from Japan to Korea. 237 Korea with evidence of interaction with Jōmon Japan and 27 Jōmon sites in Kyushu with 238 Chulmun pottery from the peninsula20,21. Despite such interaction, many archaeologists have 239 previously concluded that a basic cultural or ethnic boundary was maintained between 240 Kyushu and Korea. Several scholars have proposed that this boundary was also linguistic: 241 because of linguistic differences, ‘the meaning of Jōmon pottery was not understood’ on the 242 peninsula22. Our results suggest such conclusions are overly simplistic. Jōmon individuals 243 who voyaged to Korea did not necessarily make Jōmon pottery if they stayed on the 244 peninsula for any length of time; those individuals could have simply adopted the local 245 ceramics in use in Korean Neolithic societies. 246 The broader question of Jōmon genetic ancestry on the Korean peninsula requires further 247 research. The idea of a Southeast Asian origin for Jōmon populations has a long history, 248 drawing originally on von Eickstedt’s concept of ‘Palaeomongoloids’ and ethnological 249 theories of links between Austronesians and the Ainu23,24. By the 1970s, studies of skeletal 250 and dental morphology were showing links between Jōmon and Southeast Asian 251 populations25,26, although alternative interpretations included links with Polynesians27. The 252 Southeast Asian origin of the Jōmon continues to be discussed from a genomic perspective28. 253 However, whatever their ultimate origins, it is likely that many Jōmon populations reached 254 the Japanese archipelago via Korea, presenting the possibility of a very ancient Jōmon 255 genetic heritage on the peninsula.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 18, 2021 21:36:52 GMT
257 §3.5. The Japanese Islands 258 Since the late nineteenth century, the population history of Japan has been one of the most 259 debated problems in anthropology29. The so-called ‘dual structure hypothesis’, which 260 proposes that Neolithic Jōmon populations admixed with Bronze Age (Yayoi period) 261 migrants to form the modern Japanese, has been the consensus theory for the last three 262 decades22. However, several unresolved issues with the hypothesis have continued to be 263 discussed30. Our present study provides the clearest support so far obtained for large-scale 264 immigration and admixture in Japanese population history. Indigenous Jōmon ancestry was 265 very homogenous (ED Fig. 7; SI 13 Figs. 4 and 5) even though the representative samples 266 were from different parts of Japan. All the Yayoi individuals, as well as modern Japanese 267 including the Ryukyuans, show their affinity not only to the Jōmon but also to mainland East 268 Asians (SI 13 Fig. 6), and were genetically modelled to contain not only Jōmon ancestry, but 269 also large ancestry proportions of mainland East Asians, such as West Liao River farmers 270 from west of the Korean Peninsula (Fig. 3B). 271 Archaeological and linguistic evidence31, together with the mountainous topography 272 of the Japanese archipelago, lead us to expect complex regional differences in admixture 273 between Jōmon and immigrant Bronze Age populations. Recent work in France has used 274 genomic analyses to highlight diverse patterns of interaction between Mesolithic hunter 275 gatherers and Neolithic farmers32, and future work in Japan needs to look at regional histories 276 of admixture in similar detail. 277 278 §3.5.1. Northwest Kyushu and the Shimomotoyama site 279 In terms of cranial morphology, the two skeletons from Shimomotoyama (Nagasaki) have 280 been classified as belonging to a ‘northwest Kyushu Yayoi type’, usually understood as 281 representing hunter-gatherer populations who continued a ‘traditional’ Jōmon lifestyle long 282 after the arrival of cereal farming in north-central Kyushu33,34. However, our genetic analyses 283 confirm previous findings that, notwithstanding the continued presence of Jōmon type cranial 284 morphology, genetic admixture with Yayoi populations was already quite advanced in the 285 region. In fact, the two Shimomotoyama individuals have more than 60% mainland East 286 Asian related ancestry (Fig. 3B). In the light of these results, the relationship between 287 farming and foraging economies in northwest Kyushu during the Yayoi and Kofun periods 288 requires further research.
|
|