Naxi,Yi,Tib-Xinlong, Qiang Danba/Daofu with Komi-like yDNA modeled as non-Mongol IA farmers of China

[Oasis]

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 *pài in Middle Korean sài-pài “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.

[Oasis]

The shared mutation in mainstream “Samodian” more than 4600-year-old yDNA N-P43 and “Japanese” yDNA O1b2-K14

yDNA O1b2-K14 (found in Japanese and and ancient non-rice farming pre-Yayoi Ryukyuan) and more than 4600-year-old yDNA N-P43 as a whole, the basic lineage of Samoyedic/Samodian-speaking Nganasans, share the mutation Y3214. In general, its basic explanation in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” is that it was related to (94%+6%) ancient CT*/DE populations, which also evolved in Tibet, and the component was also observed in ancient IndusPeriphery and appeared in the gene pool of an ancient yDNA O1b1/O1b2-related Qihe3 individual in Fujian.

Possibly in order to also account for this yDNA O1b2-K14/ yDNA N-P43 connection, in “The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East”, European geneticists showed the existence of a component, shared by the Japanese, Han Chinese and, to a small degree, by the Nganasans.



As this model involves a component, shared by both Chinese and Japanese, Chinese geneticists in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” showed that such a component (which is also present in modern Tungusic-speaking Evens in that Chinese study) was to a certain degree related to a component, observed in Austroasiatic-speaking yDNA O1b1-rich Htin Mal population, while yDNA O1b1 is also present in Han Chinese to a certain degree along with the dominant yDNA O-M122, and O1b1’s ca. 31000-year-old Palaeolithic brother yDNA O1b2 is also observed in the Japanese.

“The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” showed the connection between a Japanese yDNA O1b2-K14 sample and an “autosomally related to yDNA N-P43-related/yDNA NO-M214*-related Hezhen” sample from China, which clustered with other populations, deriving their components from the territory of the ancient Kingdom of Puyo.

Since yDNA O1b2-K14 is younger than its O1b2-47z father, in Samoyedic/Samodian-related populations (that is, Nganasan-related populations) Chinese geneticists observed mutation G5054A in mtDNA D3a4. This mutation is found in the main sequence of mtDNA M74, which is a rare lineage characteristic of yDNA O1b1-rich Austroasiatic populations, according to “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, and if an yDNA O1b2-related Japanese population consider the language of their ancestors Para-Austroasiatic, that is, a Palaeolithic relative of a proto-Austroasiatic language, they also should have been related to an mtDNA M74-related population in the Palaeolithic (as for Austroasiatic-Japanese connection, there exists Katsumi Matsumoto’s statement about “N-M Pronouns” in the Proto-Austroasiatic language and in the Japanese language, which is different from pronouns in languages of Sino-Tibetan yDNA O-M122-related populations, and relatedness of yDNA O1b1 Austroasiatics O1b2 Para-Austroasiatics to mtDNA M74 populations can be used by the Chinese scientists to explain the difference, which appeared in pronouns of languages, spoken by yDNA O bearers). Since Nganasan-related populations also have this mtDNA M74-related connection, there should have been a genuine contact between the ancestors of the whole yDNA N-P43 population and an yDNA O1b2-related population.

“The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” showed that, prior to the interaction with yDNA N-P43-related population, the yDNA O1b2-related population interacted with mtDNA D4h4 in the Palaeolithic. Indeed, mtDNA D4h4 carries defining mutation C15022T, which, beside mtDNA D4h4, is only observed in mtDNA F1e1a in China, and nowhere else, while mtDNA F1e1a (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1e1a/) has a developed Japanese branch, and mtDNA F1e1a and yDNA O1b2 had to interact in the past. Later, yDNA O1b2/mtDNA D4h4-related population interacted with mtDNA D4b2b3-related population (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4b2b-a/).



After the Pianpu culture formed, its yDNA O1b2-related populations started to migrate via Shandong as well. yDNA O1b2-related populations mixed with Shandong’s mtDNA B5b2a2-related populations, and mtDNA B5b2a2a bearers went to ancient Xitoucun (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/B5b2a2a/), while, according to “Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago”, the migration to “Hezhen” (related to ancestors of yDNA N-P43 population) also started 5400-4600 years ago (see the picture above), ending in the area of the future Kingdom of Puyo (Jilin, China), from where it continued to the territory of the future Northern Puyo (before the assimilation of its population by the Daur and prior to the Xiongnu invasion), and finally yDNA N-P43-related population reached Sayan-Altai mountains, from where it became a part of Samoyedic (Samodian) and Turkic populations, and this situation with some ancient yDNA N-P43 branches being preserved in China lasts till today. Interestingly, in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, an yDNA D-M174 sample on the yDNA N-P43-yDNA-N-M128 cline (in China) carries a mutation shared with yDNA N-Z1936, which points to the same migration as yDNA N-P43, at least starting from the future Kingdom of Puyo’s territory, from which some people could migrate to Dacaozi_Iron Age/Horpa-Daofu, being non-Xiongnu and non-Mongol.

According to “In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory” edited by John D. Bengston, “the combination of lexical innovativeness with grammatical conservativeness would place Samoyedic in the category of languages of the Japanese type”. Nonetheless, it is difficult to say, to which degree the language of yDNA O1b2 bearers might have had influenced the language of ancestors of yDNA N-P43 bearers. In any case, the Pianpu culture was not a rice farming culture 5400-4600 years ago prior to the birth of yDNA O1b2-47z bearers. According to the IVPP, the mainland China’s part of the Japonic-speaking rice-farming ancestors of Yayoi accumulated their genetic influences in the ancient Longshan Pingliangtai mtDNA F2h sample (for more details, see the PCA https://i.ibb.co/wdhB01h/70.png from "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" and compare with the location of the same mtDNA F2h ancient sample on the PCA below), while rice farming, influenced by the Yangtze’s Shijiahe culture, was already practiced in the Longshan culture, whereas late Lower Yangtze demographic influenced could not be the mainstream origin, their story about Tàibó of Wu being absent from the Kojiki. Unlike this, the language of the Kingdom of Puyo, whose ancestors formed under the influence of the autosomally Xiaojingshan-related (non-Paleoasian Xiaojingshan is a distant relative of all kinds of Jiangjialiang inhabitants as well) Machengzi culture, was described as Para-Japonic by Christopher J. Beckwith, and earlier pre-Machengzi populations from the area of the future Kingdom of Puyo, e.g. those akin to AR3.4K_outlier and AR7.3K_outlier (that is, an earlier layer of non-Paleoasian Xiaojingshan-related populations, migrating from the south), etc, were also included in the Machengzi-influenced Xituanshan culture’s population, from which ancestors of the Puyo population originated. In Northeast China, the Kingdom of Puyo’s population was assimilated by different Tungusic and Mongolic populations and later Northern Puyo’s population was assimilated predominantly by Mongolic populations in the Middle Ages.

According to historians, some representatives of the Kingdom of Puyo-related populations (that is, non-Paleoasiatics, non-Paleoasians as well as non-Mongol and non-Xiongnu linguistically) could flee to territories of China, Korea, Japan.



The inscriptions for the connection between a sample related to yDNA N-P43, a Japanese yDNA O1b2-K14 sample and ancient Xitoucun samples were added onto the previous PCA from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, an article by the IVPP authors. Authors from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) can have a different view than authors from regional institutions.