Early Japanese belong to the M7 (mtDNA) family of Austronesian Southeast Asia (among other lineages) – source readings, Bibliography

Where can you find the M7 (mtDNA) family?

The prehistoric Japanese are remotely related to the M7 (mtDNA) gene bearers of SEA – Hmong tribes, Hainan tribes;  Miao-Hmong have M7 genes and other ISEA southern genes B and F (admixtures between N and S). See Bo Wen’s Genetic Structure of Hmong-Mien Speaking Populations in East Asia as Revealed by mtDNA Lineages  [A number of Hmong myths, resemble the myths of Japanese in core components. … Amaterasu emerging from cave and cock crowing figure (boats of the dead have a cock, etc.)? as well as Archer Yi myths shooting the sun motif is found in burial tombs.

See Masashi Tanaka, Mitochondrial Genome Variation in Eastern Asia and the Peopling of Japan and Emerging Limbs and Twigs of the East Asian mDNA Tree paper

M7 Gelong in Hainan Positive selection on mitochondrial M7 lineages among the Gelong people in Hainan http://comonca.org.cn/lh/Doc/A69.pdf

M7a in S. Korea a 2009 study on Korean populations, The Peopling of Korea Revealed by Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosomal Markers showed “recent findings from Y chromosome studies showed that the Korean population contains lineages from both southern and northern parts of East Asia.” and that “haplogroup O-M122 lineages, found widely throughout East Asia at high frequencies (especially in southern populations and China), have suggested a link between these Y-chromosome expansions and the spread of rice agriculture in East Asia …archaeological evidence reveals that rice cultivation had spread to most parts of the Korean Peninsula by around 1,000–2,000 BC, introduced from the Yellow River and/or Yangtze River basin in China …northern haplogroups account for ∼60% of the mtDNA gene pool of the Koreans. In addition, southeast Asian-prevalent mtDNA lineages of (sub)haplogroups B (14.6%), M7 (10.3%), and F (9.7) are also found at moderate frequencies in the Korean population. These findings suggest that more than 30% of the Korean mtDNA pool is attributable to maternal lineages with a more southern origin. We also found the haplogroup M7a1 exclusively in the Korean population. This result is consistent with previous reports that haplogroup M7a is restricted to Japan and south Korea. Thus, the distribution pattern of mtDNA haplogroups leads us to consider that the peopling of Korea is likely to have involved multiple sources.”

Modern-day East Asian populations (China, Korea and Japan) are like a combination of layered and marbled cake with visible threads of differing genetic ingredients or components, and often combined to form admixed populations as well. Many new studies are throwing light on these threads that run from the different migratory lines: Large-scale mtDNA screening reveals a surprising matrilineal complexity in the rest of east Asia and its implications to the peopling of the region.

South Siberian M7 is found at very low frequencies in S Siberians (Altaians and Buryats and Todjins) see Diversity of Mitochondrial DNA Lineages in South Siberia / also Phylogeographic Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA in Northern Asian Populations : “southern Siberian mtDNA pool harbors several lineages associated with the Late Upper Paleolithic and/or early Neolithic dispersals from both eastern Asia and southwestern Asia/southern Caucasus.” /See also Derenko’s paper ; NW Siberian Khanty and Mansi: Among the Northwest Siberians, the diversity within several uniparental sublineages (such as U7, J1b, J1c, J2, G2 and C5 for mtDNA; …. However, c. 20–25% of the mtDNA haplotypes belonging to eastern (C*, D*) haplogroups show moderate haplotype diversities among the Khanty, Mansi, Ket and Nganasan. The most frequent East Eurasian haplogroups in Northwest Siberia are C (19.1%) and D (15.7%), with C* and D* (up to 17.5 and 19.0% among the Mansi, respectively) the most frequent subhaplogroups. The C* subhaplogroup shows highest diversity in Central Asia (0.956±0.031) followed by South Siberia (0.893±0.011) and Northwest Siberia (0.869±0.021), similarly as haplogroup D* (data not shown). East Eurasian haplogroups are widespread across the whole Siberia, but show a clear decrease in frequency toward West Eurasia. In contrast, West Eurasian lineages show an opposite frequency trend, decreasing toward the East. ”

M7 subclades all over Japan: The line is blurry as to whether M7 is late Jomon or Yayoi, or possibly evolved Yayoi, however, the M7 expansion is deemed to have begun early and expanded over a long time, see Major Population Expansion of East Asians Began before Neolithic Time: Evidence of mtDNA Genomes, PLoS ONE 6(10): e25835. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025835 See Table 2 for the expansion times.

For the Yayoi period, we can see archaeological evidence pointing to migrations from the Shandong area (Jiangsu), Fujian southern complex, but also from Mahan related societies in Korean (bronze bell and dagger cultures).

From the Yangtze River – Hmong-Miao people, descendants of Daxi culture, with their M7, G, G2 (as well as Y-DNA O3a3b) genes, may have carried these genes to Japan. However, another likely contender for the M7 (and Y-DNA O3a3b) gene carrying population could be She or Bunu because She populations cluster the closest and according to one Y-DNA hg C study as well.

The Di-Qiang do not seem to carry M7, but more ancestral M* genes as well as M10, see Zhao YB’s Ancient DNA evidence supports the contribution of Di-Qiang people to the han Chinese gene pool. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 Feb;144(2):258-68. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21399. Epub 2010 Sep 24: “Han Chinese is the largest ethnic group in the world. During its development, it gradually integrated with many neighboring populations. To uncover the origin of the Han Chinese, ancient DNA analysis was performed on the remains of remains … excavated from the Taojiazhai site in Qinghai province, northwest of China, where the Di-Qiang populations had previously lived. In this study, eight mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, D, F, M*, M10, N9a, and Z) and one Y-chromosome haplogroup (O3) were identified. All analyses show that the Taojiazhai population presents close genetic affinity to Tibeto-Burman populations (descendants of Di-Qiang populations) and Han Chinese, suggesting that the Di-Qiang populations may have contributed to the Han Chinese genetic pool.”

M7 Hmong tribal contributions have been suggested — see LI,  Guodong The Eastward Spread of the Hmong Culture   / Genetic structure of Hmong-speaking populations…

Daic-HM-Karen According to the 2007 Besaggio paper on mtDNA of Tai Hill Tribes, Karen and Hmong – “we can identify i) a Northern Altaic clade (red circles) in Northern China and Mongolia, which includes also three Southern China samples (Yunnan) and one sample form India; ii) an Indian Indo-European clade (in light blue), which includes all but one Indian samples, and the Red Karen Hill Tribe; iii) a Central-Southern Sino-Tibetan clade (blu circles) which includes Yunnan populations, most Hill Tribes, and three Taiwanese populations; iv) an Eastern clade (yellow circles) which includes all Hmong-Mien speaking populations (with the only exception represented by the Iu-Mien Hill Tribe), and several Sino-Tibetan and Tai-Kadai populations; v) a more heterogeneous clade (green circles) which includes Central and South-Eastern populations speaking either Sino-Tibetan or Austronesian languages.”
On origins: see map  :”Most of the Hill Tribes in Thailand seem to preserve a maternal genetic legacy with their likely geographic origin.
Lahu, Lisu and Akha are Sino-Tibetan populations of Lolo extraction, and some historical record suggest that they established in Yunnan in ancient times (starting 2000 years ago) from the Tibet region, and then migrated trough Myanmar in Northern Thailand about 100–200 years ago [16]. Consistently with this hypothesis, all of them are attributed to the Central Southern Sino-Tibetan genetic clade in the BAPS analysis, mainly located in the Yunnan region.
The Karen people belong also to the Sino-Tibetan language family, but to a different linguistic branch, the Karenic. Their ethnic origin is largely unknown, since Karen usually avoid contacts with other groups, and leave therefore no traces in the regions they pass through during the migrations. The characteristics of the Karen suggest China, near Tibet, as a possible origin, but none of them live there today [16]. From there, they entered Myanmar around the sixth-seventh century AD, where they still live in large numbers (> 2 millions). Some groups then migrated to Thailand more recently. Unfortunately we do not have genetic data for the Myanmar groups, but, at least for the White Karen, their genetic affiliation with the Central Southern Sino-Tibetan clade in the BAPS analysis is consistent with their hypothetical place of origin in Tibet/China regions.
…the two Hmong-Mien speaking Hill Tribes in our data, the Hmong and the Iu-Mien, are classified in the Eastern and the Central Southern Sino-Tibetan genetic clades, respectively. The heartland of the Hmong people is considered Kweichow, a Chinese province Eastern of Yunnan, where they established at least 2000 years ago probably arriving from more Eastern areas [16]. Migrations into Thailand through Laos are documented since the second half of the nineteenth century. The BAPS maternal affiliation of Hmong Hill Tribes in Thailand confirms their origin and genetic legacy with South-Eastern China. On the other hand, Iu Mien, whose origin is located as for Hmong people in South Eastern China from which they started to migrate southwards to Vietnam in the thirteenth century entering Thailand about 200 years ago, are genetically affiliated with the Central Southern Sino-Tibetan group. ”

M7, B, F and R in Tai/Daic populations Mitochondrial DNA Diversity and Population Differentiation in Southern East Asia  “. The most common Daic haplogroups are B4a, F1a, M7b1, B5a, M7b*, M*, R9a, and R9b, in order of
frequency, and the total percentage of these common haplogroups is 48.8%. In the remote AA populations, the most common haplogroups in order of frequency are F1a, M*, D*, F1b, N*, C, M7b*, M7b1, and F1a1a. This list is noticeably but unsurprisingly different from that of the Daic’s. The percentage of the first three haplogroups for the AA populations alone totals 50.8%. The Daic’s haplogroup list is similar, however, to that of the HM’s (B5a, B4a, M*, M7b*, C, B4b1, M7b1, F1a, B4*, and R9b, totaling 50.6%), and is based on these two Southern populations, the Daic and the HM (Wen et al., 2005), we can conclude that B, M7, F, and R are the most characteristically Southern haplogroups. Among Daic populations, the frequencies of these four Southern specific haplogroups total 66.4%, which is higher than the totals in either the AA population (48.9%) or the HM population (58.9%). Moreover, the frequency of these haplogroups is decreased in more northern populations, such as in the Han (40.8%), the more northern Tibeto–Burman (37.5%), and the northernmost Altaic (16.3%). These four haplogroups are, therefore, essential to the study of matrilineage in South China”
Possibly here’s a KEY to southeast Asians origins: “mtDNA haplogroup distribution in South and North China is obviously unequal (Yao et al., 2002a; Kong et al., 2003a; Wen et al., 2004a,b, 2005), and the haplogroups B, M7, F, R, which are common in South China, are clearly of Southern origin. These Southern haplogroups exist in high frequencies in the Daic, HM, and AA populations, indicating that these three ethnic families are native to South China. The Daic are acknowledged to be the descendants of the Baiyue, a famous, ancient ethnic family, which according to Chinese historical records lived in the coastal zone that now exists between Shanghai and Hanoi 2,000 years ago. This family, in turn, descended from the most powerful ethnic family in South China 8–2,000 years ago (Song, 1991). Their ancestors had comparatively advanced cultures (Song, 1991) (Hemudu Culture, Liangzhu Culture, etc) in these areas during prehistory, and they may have lived in South China for at least 30,000 years”
See also Linguisitic position, Ta-Kadai has early phlogeny – NE Tai-Kadai Hainan Island; N. Vietnam and SEChina (Guizhou and Guangxi) = the TK Homeland Sagart, L. 2004. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai  [Separately, consider the origins of The Negrito of Thailand – Mani and Sakai see]

M7c Sabah / Philippines For help on East Asian lineages, for example, we could take a look at this mtDNA map of M7; M7a (in situ branched off its own M7); M7b (China) and M7c (Sabah or Philippines from the south) Source – The Emerging Twigs of the East Asian mtDNA Tree . It is suggested in the paper though that all the M7 populations separated in Japan and Korea during Jomon times (which is now supported by newer studies that say agriculture (millet) and rice cultivation began in Jomon times far earlier than the supposed traditional Yayoi period. It appears that Japan was probably the terminus for a great many incoming migrating lineages. Looking at the branches of the M7 twig, you can see Japan’s M7a alongside with China, Korea or Island SEA. Haplogroups B5, B6 could be indicative of Austronesian migrations that brought neolithic culture and perhaps megalithic culture (dolmens, jar burials) although the latter are generally thought to have come from Korea because of Kyushu’s proximity

mtDNA of Nias-Borneo is pure Austronesian –  including M7?genes see Unexpected Island Effects at an Extreme: Reduced Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in Nias” all NRY and virtually all mtDNA haplogroups observed in Nias can be attributed to the Austronesian expansion, in line with linguistic data, and in contrast with archaeological evidence for a pre-Austronesian occupation of Nias that, as we show here, left no significant genetic footprints in the contemporary population”.

Conflicting conclusions however emerged in a most recent paper by Schurr and Wallace, Mitochondrial DNA diversity in Southeast Asian populations  “In a previous study of Southeast Asian genetic variation, we characterized mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) from six populations through high-resolution restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. Our analysis revealed that these Southeast Asian populations were genetically similar to each other, suggesting they had a common origin. However, other patterns of population associations also emerged. Haplotypes from a major founding haplogroup in Papua New Guinea were present in Malaysia; the Vietnamese and Malaysian aborigines (Orang Asli) had high frequencies of haplogroup F, which was also seen in most other Southeast Asian populations; and haplogroup B, defined by the Region V 9-base-pair deletion, was present throughout the region. In addition, the Malaysian and Sabah (Borneo) aborigine populations exhibited a number of unique mtDNA clusters that were not observed in other populations. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to compare these patterns of genetic diversity with those shown in subsequent studies of mtDNA variation in Southeast Asian populations because the latter have typically sequenced the first hypervariable segment (HVS-I) of the control region (CR) sequencing rather than used RFLP haplotyping to characterize the mtDNAs present in them. For this reason, we sequenced the HVS-I of Southeast Asian mtDNAs that had previously been subjected to RFLP analysis, and compared the resulting data with published information from other Southeast Asian and Oceanic groups. Our findings reveal broad patterns of mtDNA haplogroup distribution in Southeast Asia that may reflect different population expansion events in this region over the past 50,000-5,000 years.”

Also useful reading:

M7 is found in Cham (South-Central VN) and Kinh individuals from N. Vietnam. Around 77% and 95% matrilineal components in the Chams and the Kinhs, respectively, could be assigned into the defined mtDNA haplogroups. Additionally, three common East Eurasian haplogroups B, R9, and M7 account for the majority (.60%) of maternal components in both populations Tracing the Austronesian footprint…). (Possible source of other mtDNA hg lineages: F1b (frequent in Central Asians and Mongols, Koreans) and hgs A http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/10/1737/F4.large.jpg and B http://wapedia.mobi/en/Haplogroup_B_(mtDNA)).
[Blood immunoglobin marker studies show prevalent in Japanese populations are the Caucasoid Gm ag and axggenes northern genes Eurasian/Caucasian “Northern Mongoloid” Gm ab3st components as well as “Southern Mongoloid” afb1b3 genes Source: Japanese Roots http://www.geocities.jp/ikoh12/kennkyuuno_to/gm_genes_by_hideo_matsumoto.html.]

Roger Blench’s Stratification of the Peopling of Chinese DNA: “The underlying population was probably highly ethnolinguistically diverse but would have consisted of Tungusic-Koreanic speakers in the North, Miao-Yao in the centre, intertwined with a wide range of diverse Sino-Tibetan groups, and Austroasiatic and Austronesian speakers in the south”

Latest M phylo tree at http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_M.htm – see map at Toomas’s 2004 paper of this southern route/trail taken by macrohaplogroup M, and the broad areas from where the various haplogroups expanded, including M7 gene. Using this as a guide, plus various other miscellaneous papers on SEA (VN, Laos, JP and phylo gen tree of M)

M7 splits off from M6

Haplogroup M6 (Figure 6) is primarily found in the Indus Valley and on the western shores of the Bay of Bengal where its sub-clades M6a and M6b are concentrated towards the southwest and the northeast, respectively (Figure 1, panel M6, M6b cline is significant SAA p < 0.05, Figure 4). The highest frequencies of M6a and M6b were found amongst the Mukri scheduled caste from Karnataka (17%) and in Kashmir (10%), respectively. The Mukri form an endogamous group of no more than 10,000 individuals, who dwell on an area less than 2000 km2 [35]. That, together with the observation that all the sixteen M6 sequences found among the Mukri belong to a single haplotype, suggests that genetic drift has played a major role in the demographic history of the Mukri. The statistical significance of the high M6 frequency in Kashmir is undermined by the small sample size (19 individuals), which results in the very wide error margins for the frequency estimate (CR: 3.2–31.7%).

SouthWest Han Chinese carriers of M7 (and B)  strangely enough, are prone to AMS (acute mountain sickness)  which may indicate their having originated in the south (away from high altitude mountains)?…while Tibetans adapted to high altitudes genetically, see “On the Origin of Tibetans and Their Genetic Basis in Adapting High-Altitude Environments”

M8-M10 and M13 Note: Tibetans located in the Tibetan Plateau do not have M7 mtDNA and have differing frequency distributions of major haplogroups ( among Tibetan populations residing outside Tibet), such as M9, F, and B haplogroups in Qinghai and most haplogroups in Yunnan. M8, M9, M10, M13, D, G, A, B, F are names of Haplogroups. – Torroni A, Mitochondrial DNA analysis in Tibet: implications for the origin of the Tibetan population and its adaptation to high altitude. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994 Feb;93(2):189-99. full paper here:
“Humans first reached the Tibetan Plateau during the Last Glacial Maximum (22–8 kya) [1], and modern Tibetans can be traced back to Neolithic immigrants based on evidence found in the Y chromosome [2] and mitochondrial DNA [3]. However, the exact origin of modern Tibetans has been widely debated due to varying and conflicting evidence from archaeology, historical records, linguistics, and genetics [3], [4]. Previous studies have suggested, based on genetic evidence, two distinct possibilities for whom the ancestors of modern Tibetans were: people who lived in the upper and middle Yellow River basin [3], [5] and Northern Asian populations [6]. A suspected migration route for the Tibetans’ ancestors was the so-called “Zang (meaning Tibetan people) – Yi (the Yi people) – Corridor” which supposed that Tibetans first migrated from Qinghai to the Tibetan Plateau and then subsequently spread throughout the surrounding area [7].

The Tibetan Plateau is unique in its high absolute elevation and low temperature. However, Tibetans have lived on the plateau for tens of thousands of years and adapted to the high-altitude environment better than other populations. Tibetans exhibit many biological features in common with other high-altitude mammalian species (such as antelopes and pigs), including absence of chronic mountain sickness (CMS), thin-walled pulmonary vascular structure, and high blood flow [8]; all these phenotypes are highly correlated with physiological responses to low oxygen concentration in the air, which facilitate uninterrupted oxygen-processing and the up-regulation of erythropoiesis and angiogenesis to allow for more efficient oxygen utilization.

Human adaptation to high-altitude environment is believed to a result of advantageous genetic mutation and selective pressure. Many well-characterized human genes that play important roles in environmental adaptation have been identified, such as HBB (Hemoglobin-B), which causes resistance to malaria, and LCT (lactase), which is essential for the digestion of dairy products [9]. Similarly, genes that participate in the physiological response to hypoxia may also be excellent indicators of adaptation. This idea is supported by two lines of evidence. First, Tibetans have distinctive biological characteristic – elevated resting ventilation, which offsets the huge stress of hypoxia [10]. Second, Tibetans have been exposed to hypoxia for about 1,100 generations [1] when enough time has passed for an increase in the frequency of adaptive alleles to be fixed [10].

Three recent studies have identified several genes that play important roles in high-altitude adaptation, including EGLN1, PPARA, and EPAS1 [11], [12], [13]. However, these studies have not been entirely adequate. In two of the three studies, the Tibetan samples or part of them were collected in Qinghai Province [12] or Yunnan Province [11], but not Tibet itself. Meanwhile, samples are admixture with 2 [13] or 3 [11] geographic locations. Furthermore, none of the studies provided information concerning migration or ancestry. ”

After the incorporation of the Tibetan data, we observed a new ancestral component arisen predominantly from the Tibetans, which divided the EA populations into two new groups other than the well-defined Northern and Southern groups (Figures 1A and S1B) [14]. At K = 2, we had two ancestral components: the Tibetan and Japanese ancestries, while from K = 3 to 6, the Southern (Cambodian and Lahu), Northern (Mongolian, Daur, and CHB which is Chinese Han from HapMap), CHB, and Lahu populations appeared accordingly. At K = 6, we had the Tibetan, Cambodian, Lahu, Daur, and JPT (Japanese from HapMap) populations, and each exhibited only one major component in its ancestry. In sharp contrast, there were the Yi, Mongolian, and Han populations (represented by CHB); all had multiple ancestries (Figure 1B). In short, Tibetans appeared to share the majority of their ancestry with EA populations.

Tibetans are clustered within EA populations, in agreement with the results of ancestry analysis (Figure 1D). The first eigenvector shows the divergence between Tibetans and Japanese within EA populations. The second eigenvector shows the Northern and Southern distinction. The third eigenvector distinguishes Mongolian and Daur from CHB in the Northern EA populations, and the fourth eigenvector distinguishes Cambodian from Lahu in the Southern EA populations (Figure S2). The closest population to Tibetans is the Yi, whose genetic variability has contributions from both Tibetans and Han Chinese (Figure 1D).

Tibetans share the common ancestors with East Asian populations, but not Central/South Asian populations who settled on the western and southern side of Himalayas. Our finding is consistent with the results of a previous study which suggested gene-flow inhibition caused by the Himalayas [27]. We also showed that the closest relatives of the Tibetans are the Yi people, who live in the Hengduan Mountains and were originally formed through fusion with natives along their migration routes into the mountains [28]. The Tibetan and Yi languages belong to the Tibeto-Bruman language group and their ancestries can be traced back to an ancient tribe, the Di-Qiang [3], [28]. Both Tibetans and Yi are found in the same clade in the phylogenic tree, having emerged from ancient EA populations.

The migration routes of the Chinese population as a single group have been outlined based on Y chromosome haplotype distributions. After the ancestors of Sino-Tibetans reached the upper and middle Yellow River basin, they divided into two subgroups: Proto-Tibeto-Burman and Proto-Chinese [2]. These two subgroups were similar to the two ancestral components of EA populations at K = 2 (Figure S1B). The ancestral component which was dominant in Tibetan and Yi arose from the Proto-Tibeto-Burman subgroup, which marched on to south-west China and later, through one of its branches, became the ancestor of modern Tibetans. Proto-Tibeto-Burmans also spread over the Hengduan Mountains where the Yi have lived for hundreds of generations [28]. Taking the optimal living condition and the easiest migration route into account, we favor the single-route hypothesis; it is more likely that their migration into the Tibetan Plateau through the Hengduan Mountain valleys occurred after Tibetan ancestors separated from the other Proto-Tibeto-Burman groups and diverged to form the modern Tibetan population.” Source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017002#pone-0017002-g001

Bandelt’s 2006 “Pioneer Settlement of Modern Humans in Asia” considers whether Asian mtDNA genes are of northern or southern origins, concluding that all the M-derived D2, D4 and G hgs in East Asia do not originate in the N or NE but from the south.

In Did early humans go north or south?Science, 308:965-966, 13 May 2005 Foster and Matsumura also preferred a hypothesis of southern “routes along the Indian Ocean coastline that could have been taken by early humans emigrating out of Africa. The oldest human traces outside of Africa and the Levant are at Lake Mungo in Australia (>46,000 years old) and in the Niah Cave of Borneo (>45,000 years ago). New mtDNA data, from Malaysians and aboriginal Andaman islanders, suggest that human settlements appeared along the Indian Ocean coastline 60,000 years ago. In the Andaman Islands, Thangaraj et al. identified the M31 and M32 mtDNA types among indigenous Andamanese. These two mtDNA types branched directly from M mtDNA, which arose as a founder 65,000 years ago. This time estimate for the arrival of M founder mtDNA is matched by that of Macaulay and co-workers. These investigators found mtDNA types M2l and M22 in their Malaysian data set. These M types are geographically specific branches of M that branched off from other Asian mtDNA lineages around 60,000 years ago. Thus, the first Eurasians appear to have reached the coast of the Indian Ocean soon after leaving Africa, regardless of whether they took the northern or the southern route. Interestingly, the adjacent Nicobar Islands do not harbor any old mtDNA branches specific to the islands. Instead, their mtDNA has a close and hence recent genetic relationship (on the order of 15,000 years or less) with the mtDNA of other Southeast Asian populations. This is not unexpected given the more Asian appearance of the Nicobar islanders.”

Further readings:

Umetsu K, Yuasa I.  and”Recent progress in mitochondrial DNA analysis” Leg Med (Tokyo). 2005 Jul;7(4):259-62.

“Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences in Koreans:…”

East Asian mtDNA haplogroup determination in Koreans: haplogroup-level coding region SNP analysis and subhaplogroup-level control region sequence analysis. 

A possibly very important paper for sorting out or separating which migrations came first and which arrived later:

Major Population Expansion of East Asians Began before Neolithic Time: Evidence of mtDNA Genomes, PLoS ONE 6(10): e25835. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025835 Table 2 has the expansion times