1
The matter of those populations appeared, because Tibetan-Xinlong and Horpa-Daofu were mentioned to carry the yDNA N1c1a haplogroup in “Genetic Structure of Qiangic Populations Residing in the Western Sichuan Corridor” by Chuan-Chao Wang, Ling-Xiang Wang, Rukesh Shrestha, Manfei Zhang, Xiu-Yuan Huang, Kang Hu, Li Jin, and Hui Li
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4121179/
Quote: N1c1a-M178 has also been detected in Horpa-Daofu and Tibetan-Xinlong at 12.50% and 2.17%, respectively. The 17-STR haplotype of N1c1a individuals in Horpa-Daofu is exactly the same with some Komi people in Russia [79], [80]. However, the haplotype of N1c1a individual in Xinlong shows more similarity with samples of its surrounding populations (…).
In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, created by geneticists from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, the following populations can be modeled as 100% Dacaozi_IA, that is, Iron Age farmers from the Upper Yellow River:
Yi
Qiang_Danba
Qiang_Daofu
Tibetan_Xinlong.
The meaning of this modeling is that the above mentioned Tibeto-Burman nationalities do not contain autosomal components, which would be alien to the genetic makeup of Iron Age farmers from the Upper Yellow River of China.
Dacaozi site
The Dacaozi site is located in Pingan county, Qinghai province. Three out of seven individuals were better preserved and were sequenced to a higher coverage.
DCZ-M17IV: East Han (~2000BP) northern East Asian mtDNA D4b2b,
DCZ-M21II: 68-128 calCE (1852±30 BP) northern East Asian mtDNA G2b1b,
DCZ-M22IV: East Han (~2000BP) southern East Asian mtDNA F1g
These three listed high coverage individuals were used in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” to model Tibeto-Burman Yi, Qiang_Danba, Qiang_Daofu, Tibetan_Xinlong. It should be noted that Tibetan_Xinlong and other groups did not require any Native American Mexican ancestry in the models. In “Ancient genome of Empress Ashina (…)” by Chuan-Chao Wang and Shao-Qing Wen, Dacaozi_IA were also considered as non-Altaic non-Mongol Iron Age farmers from the Upper Yellow River of China.
Consequently, since Yi, Qiang_Danba, Qiang_Daofu, Tibetan_Xinlong can be modeled as deriving 100% of their ancestry from Dacaozi_IA, that is, Iron Age farmers from the Upper Yellow River, who were not considered Mongol and were not considered to belong to other Altaic populations, it can be said that there was no substantial Mongol or other type of Altaic influence on the formation of gene pools of Yi, Qiang_Danba, Qiang_Daofu, Tibetan_Xinlong.
Since the Dacaozi population also included an mtDNA Z3 member, a distant Palaeolithic relative of Kolyma-related mtDNA C7 population (a basal lineage of mtDNA C7 is observed in Koreans in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”), it means that Dacaozi_IA’s mtDNA D4b2b, mtDNA G2b1b, mtDNA F1g members were probably admixed with such an mtDNA Z3 population, which points to contacts between populations in Iron Age Dacaozi’s Upper Yellow river localization and populations in Northeast China. Nonetheless, there are still diffrences between Dacaozi’s autosomal DNA and “Transeurasian” autosomal DNA in “Ancient genome of Empress Ashina (…)”
The most important and inconvenient for some people is the genomics of the Naxi populations. Naxi groups can yield from 41,7% yDNA N-M231 till 77,8% yDNA N-M231 in different studies (the known Naxi subclades belong to yDNA N-F2930).
Parts of Naxi ancestry were modeled as being equivalent to 61%, 81%, 88% of the discussed Dacaozi Iron Age farmers from the Upper Yellow River of China in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” (which means that the Naxi are no more “Hongshan-related” than any Dacaozi_IA Iron Age farmer from the Upper Yellow River, that is, any late non-Yunnan influences in the Naxi should be mediated by the Dacaozi_IA-like population, genetically related to usual farmers of the Upper Yellow River of China). Nonetheless, the Naxi required some meaningful additions in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, depending on the model.
[1] 39,3% ancestry of Chamdo2.8k_1 (Late Bronze Age Chamdo), which in this study was shown to be unrelated to Yumin ancestry and Zongri Upper Yellow river ancestry, but instead was observed in the Yellow River Middle Neolithic, which was already admixed with some individuals akin to Yangtze rice farmers. Nonetheless, other kinds of this ancestry were observed in populations, whose ancestors at least contacted the yDNA O-M122 beares, originating from Yellow River populations, in the past (that is, in N-F1360 specimens from Shamanka_EN of Baikal and in the pre-Houli culture’s Bianbian). In order to appear in Chamdo2.8k_1, when following a route, unrelated to the route of various Zongri-related populations, this kind of ancestry should have entered the Yangtze river basin, where yDNA N-F2930 part of ancestors of the Naxi should have mixed with this ancestry. The archaeological correlate for the appearance of this ancestry would be the appearance in the Yangtze River basin of populations practicing early millet cultivation. For example, recently the life of dwellers of the Dashuitian Neolithic site of the rice farming Daxi culture on the Yangtze River was described, where the Dashuitian population started to practice rice farming, adopting it from central sites of the Daxi culture, and simultaneously practicing millet farming to counter food shortage, while food shortage contributed to poor health of the site’s individuals who were also dying from hard work of early agriculturalists (see https://www.anthropol.ac.cn/CN/10.16.../AAS.2023.0047). The Dashuitian Neolithic site of the Daxi culture on the Yangtze River presents the dark side of early rice farming. The ancestry of individuals, which should have been related to the Daxi culture, was also shown to be present in the Naxi individuals (including yDNA N-F2930 ones) in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".
Interestingly, since rice cultivation depends on the sun, the Japanese rice farming population produced a sun worship cult. The “Nostratic” proto-Japonic *pí “sun, day” was compared by Nostraticists to the rare Korean *pŕi in Middle Korean sŕi-pŕi “dawn” (while sāi was a verb meaning “to dawn”), but also to Finnish and Saami *päiwä “sun, day” and to “Nostratic” Egyptian of the Book of the Dead pʕw “fire, embers”.
[2] 19,3% of ancestry, which might be very distantly related to slightly younger 19% in other Africans, and simultaneously to 49%(male) of ancestry in the Cushitic-speaking Agaw in “Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history” (both percentages derive from the same node in that study). In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, 19,3% of ancestry can be observed in yDNA D-M174-related Yushu2.8K, the ancient Nepalese Chokhopani, but also in the Austronesian-speaking Atayal, likely due to their “Timor-Alor-Pantar-related” substratum. 19,3%, being similar to 19% and 49% in Africans might be a more natural way for partial explanation of findings of global Austronesian linguistic influence, than selections of individual mtDNA lineages, which are not even present in Timor populations, while the Timor-Alor-Pantar linguistic substratum in Austronesian was found in Jager, 2016.
[3] 11,8% of “mtDNA pre-L3 population”-related ancestry, found in the first place in an ancient Nepalese Lubrak for the Naxi individuals, but also in Ust-Ishim in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. Since Lubrak failed to show a connection to Ust-Ishim in qpGraph models in “Ancient genomes from the Himalayas illuminate the genetic history of Tibetans and their Tibeto-Burman speaking neighbors”, it is possible that this 11,8% of ancestry is a tracer dye for the relatedness with another ca. 54000-year-old yDNA K2a* population, than yDNA K2a* Ust-Ishim, and this population may be distantly related to Oase1 and Oase2, whose relatives, largely unadmixed with the Neanderthal, distributed between southern and northern populations, respectively. After Vallini et al article appeared, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" suggested by its models that the early Homo Sapiens population of mtDNA M* and R*, akin to mtDNA R+T16189C and mtDNA M50, contributed to the formation of 44000-year-old Vindija Neanderthals in Europe, whereas modern “Oase1-intermediating branches” of mtDNA R+T16189C*, mtDNA M50 and mtDNA M76, lacking apparent Neanderthal mutations in their main sequencies, do not show evidence of origin in Europe, instead deriving from a geographically closer population and interacting with mtDNA M80’D*-related population, akin to yDNA NO-M214 bearers. Any cases of “northern” Siberian ”Oase1-intermediating branch” mtDNA M50, after the interaction between mtDNA M50-related and mtDNA M80’D related population during the split of NO-M214 into N-M231 and O-M175, did not survive and were not found so far. Thus, the northern “non-Neanderthal” Oase2-related affinity was shown by the IVPP to be distributed from the geographical junction of the Near East and Central Asia by Western Eurasian-related lineages, whose ancestors possibly contacted Oase2-affiliated populations in the Palaeolithic past.
Bookmarks