Eastern steppe ancestry in Qijia culture of Qinghai?

[CLTVTE]

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.