Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Check for new replies
Eastern steppe ancestry in Qijia culture of Qinghai?
#1
I was reading Zeng et. al. 2023, where it noted the prominent role played by Yumin-related ancestry in the formation of human populations in areas around the Baikal region starting in the early Holocene. It is stated that Transbaikal_EMN_old (irk007.SG and cta016.SG), Transbaikal_EMN (brn001, brn002, brn003, brn008, and others), and Yakutia_LNBA can be partially descended from Yumin-like ancestry, while the remaining of their ancestry is related to Amur-like ancestry.

Quote:The increased East Asian ancestry of the KhatystyrCave_M_10.2kya individual ~10,000BP from southern Yakutia appears to come mostly from Amur basin-related populations (~61% ancestry from China_AmurRiver_Mesolithic + ~24% ancestry from Cisbaikal_LNBA + ~15% from China_SEastAsia_Coastal_EN; Tables VI. A-16). On the other hand, two individuals (irk007.SG and cta016.SG) from the Baikal and Buryatia regions from ~8,200–8,000 BP who are part of the Transbaikal_EMN_old cluster demonstrate high levels of admixture from an Inland Northeast Asian-related population, represented here by an Early Neolithic Inner Mongolian (i.e. the Yumin individual, under the population label China_NEastAsia_Inland_EN). A total of ~34% to ~51% of their ancestry comes from China_NEastAsia_Inland_EN in two- or three-way models when the rest of ancestry comes from Amur basin-related populations (Table VI. A-17 and 18). This ancestry is retained in Transbaikal_EMN in Buryatia (~7,400 years BP to ~6,000 years BP), which demonstrates near-complete continuity with Transbaikal_EMN_old, and is augmented by further admixture in Mongolia_N_North, which can be modeled as Transbaikal_EMN_old with additional admixture from Inland Northeast Asians

The authors noted the Yumin-like ancestry among the ancient Yellow River farmers from the Qinghai-Gansu region, but the affinity would reduce once we moved from west to east along the Yellow River.


Quote:We note that agriculturalist populations along the Yellow River ~5,300-4,000BP likewise increase in affinity to Inland Neolithic East Asians as we move westward; such affinity peaks in a population of the Upper Yellow River (China_Upper_YR_LN). This suggests that populations related to the Yumin individual may have extended further west between the North China Plain and Mongolian Steppes, and been the source of the increased non-agriculturalist Ancient North Asian/ANA admixture other studies have found among agriculturalists of the Upper Yellow River valley

Previous studies also noted the strange ANA-like ancestry among the Qinghai farmers and ancient Napalese genomes which is not present in YR_MN, quoting from Liu et. al. 2022

Quote:These include Late Neolithic individuals from the Jinchankou and Lajia sites in the Upper Yellow River region belonging to the Qijia culture (ca. 2300-1800 BCE; Upper_YR_LN), individuals from the Late Neolithic Shimao site of Shengedaliang in Shaanxi province (ca. 2250-1950 BCE; Shimao_LN), and those from the Middle Neolithic Miaozigou site in Inner Mongolia (ca. 3550-3050 BCE; Miaozigou_MN). These three groups have a similar genetic profile, deriving ~80% of their ancestry from a gene pool related to the Middle Neolithic individuals of the Yangshao culture sites of Wanggou and Xiaowu in the Central Plain (ca. 4000-3000 BCE; YR_MN) and the remaining ~20% from the Ancient Northeast Asian (ANA) gene pool related to Neolithic-era hunter-gatherers from the Devil’s Gate Cave site of the Russian Far East (“DevilsCave_EN”)
Taking Upper_YR_LN and YR_MN as representatives of lowland gene pools, we modeled the relationship between aMMD [Ancient Napal] and Upper_YR_LN/YR_MN via a graph-based approach using qpGraph. YR_MN fails to mimic the primary source of the aMMD groups [Ancient Napal] and present-day Sherpa/Tibetans, mainly due to the extra affinity of aMMD to the ANA gene pool. In contrast, Upper_YR_LN, having a stronger genetic affinity to ANA, is consistently chosen as their primary genetic source in the best- scored graphs.

It will be interesting to know when this Eastern Steppe ancestry entered into western China or it is autochthonous to this region for very long time.
It should be noted that nearly every male in the Baikal region with Yumin-like ancestry was y-hg N1, especially N1a2-L666, with brn002 having N1a2-F1101 (the so-called East Asian-specific N1a2 line and sister to N1a2-P43). I wonder if Yumin-related groups are the source of N1-L666 and N1-CTS6128 in the Lake Baikal region or if they were sourced from eastern Amur HGs, but it cannot be demonstrated as of now.
Reply
#2
In Zeng, 2023, the “inland Northeast Asian”, from which the Yumin branch separated in the scheme of that article, contributed to the Cisbaikal_LNBA, potentially akin to the Yeniseians, but it also contributed to pre-Yakutia_LNBA Syalakh-Belkachi, which at least formally should have contained a specimen Russia_MiddleLena_Syalakh_Matta1_EN, belonging to mtDNA F1d, whereas mtDNA F1 is considered to be a haplogroup, mainly distributed in Southern East Asia in “Maternal genetic structure of a neolithic population of the Yangshao culture”, but, surprisingly, no Southeast Asia-like ancestry appeared in Syalakh-Belkachi in the general scheme of Zeng, 2023. However, the ancestry of mtDNA F1d-related population, which should have appeared in Zeng’s populations of “inland Northeast Asian” , from which the Yumin branch separated, should not suit the yDNA N1a-L729 populations, because at the Shamanka_EN site, where the most deeply diverged yDNA N1a-L666 was found, ancient mtDNA F1b1+152 was reported instead:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1-a/

In “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”, mtDNA F1b did not appear in Early Neolithic Shandong, and, apparently, “its” populations had already been replaced there to a considerable degree.
Reply
#3
(05-30-2024, 11:03 PM)CLTVTE Wrote: In Zeng, 2023, the “inland Northeast Asian”, from which the Yumin branch separated in the scheme of that article, contributed to the Cisbaikal_LNBA, potentially akin to the Yeniseians, but it also contributed to pre-Yakutia_LNBA Syalakh-Belkachi, which at least formally should have contained a specimen Russia_MiddleLena_Syalakh_Matta1_EN, belonging to mtDNA F1d, whereas mtDNA F1 is considered to be a haplogroup, mainly distributed in Southern East Asia in “Maternal genetic structure of a neolithic population of the Yangshao culture”, but, surprisingly, no Southeast Asia-like ancestry appeared in Syalakh-Belkachi in the general scheme of Zeng, 2023. However, the ancestry of mtDNA F1d-related population, which should have appeared in Zeng’s populations of “inland Northeast Asian” , from which the Yumin branch separated, should not suit the yDNA N1a-L729 populations, because at the Shamanka_EN site, where the most deeply diverged yDNA N1a-L666 was found, ancient mtDNA F1b1+152 was reported instead:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1-a/

In “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”, mtDNA F1b did not appear in Early Neolithic Shandong, and, apparently, “its” populations had already been replaced there to a considerable degree.

The data from Le Tao et al, 2023 (“Ancient Genomes Reveal Coexistence of Demic and Cultural Diffusion in the Development of Neolithic Mixed Millet and Rice Farming in Southwest China”) may provide a clue about the reason for the existence of the autosomally “more northern” mtDNA F1-related populations in the northern part of the Yangtze River basin. Indeed, ancient DNA from Le Tao et al’s locations was collected from rather southern Sichuan’s and Yunnan’s ancient sites in the Yangtze river basin, whose population contributed to later Tibeto-Burman populations there. However, this ancient DNA from the Southwestern China was still more similar to the Neolithic population of North China, but not to modern South China’s minority populations, which implies the later arrival of such more southern populations. Apparently, mtDNA F1b and some representatives of mtDNA F1d originated from such a “non-Southern-like” part of the ancient mtDNA F1-related populations, which lived in the northern part of the Yangtze River basin in the Paleolithic, and the materials of “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” also provide a clue for the existence of the population of such an ancestry. The ancient mtDNA F1b-related population mixed with local inhabitants and gradually migrated from the Yangtze River basin, one of more prominent “substratal” autosomal remains of such a population being detected in one of later Early Neolithic Shandong Xiaojingshan ancient specimens in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. The absence of preservation of the particular mtDNA F1b1+152 representatives in Shandong coincided with the similar absence of the deeply diverged yDNA N-L666(xF1101,xP43) there.

Unlike the above, the new article “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans” provided a clue that the deeply diverged specimen of the 24000-year-old yDNA O1b1 branch, detected in Southwest China, was related to a population of the “already-mountainous” origin and joined the local Naxi population of the Yangtze River basin. It means that it is such individuals, belonging to the deeply diverged 24000-year-old yDNA O1b1 branch, that should be responsible for the appearance of the hypothesized Para-Austroasiatic “Rongic” branch, which is speculated to be assimilated by the Tibeto-Burman Lepcha people from Southern Himalayas. Moreover, the late Southwestern China’s Hoabinhian component, detected in Le Tao et al, 2023, is also better explained by the later contribution of the yDNA O1b1-related population to a Hoabinhian of the La368 type in another IVPP article. Consequently, all Para-Austroasiatic-looking things in Southwestern China should be explained by the activities of the former deeply divereged yDNA O1b1-related population (of which the above mentioned bearer of the deeply diverged 24000-year-old yDNA O1b1 branch should be considered a descendant), and the equally deeply diverged yDNA O1b2 should not be hypothesized to be present in Southwestern China in the Late Paleolithic or Early Neolithic past just for the sake of explaining such Para-Austroasiatic affinities.
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)