Genetic History of Tibetans.

[Angela]

Ancient genomes from the Himalayas illuminate the genetic history of Tibetans and their Tibeto-Burman speaking neighbors (nature.com)See:

"Present-day Tibetans have adapted both genetically and culturally to the high altitudeenvironment of the Tibetan Plateau, but fundamental questions about their origins remainunanswered. Recent archaeological and genetic research suggests the presence of an earlypopulation on the Plateau within the past 40 thousand years, followed by the arrival ofsubsequent groups within the past 10 thousand years. Here, we obtain new genome-widedata for 33 ancient individuals from high elevation sites on the southern fringe of the TibetanPlateau in Nepal, who we show are most closely related to present-day Tibetans. They derivemost of their ancestry from groups related to Late Neolithic populations at the northeasternedge of the Tibetan Plateau but also harbor a minor genetic component from a distinct anddeep Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry. In contrast to their Tibetan neighbors, present-day nonTibetan Tibeto-Burman speakers living at mid-elevations along the southern and easternmargins of the Plateau form a genetic cline that reflects a distinct genetic history. Finally, acomparison between ancient and present-day highlanders confirms ongoing positive selection of high altitude adaptive alleles."

[ThirdTerm]

Here, we obtain new genome-wide data for 33 ancient individuals from high elevation sites on the southern fringe of the Tibetan Plateau in Nepal, who we show are most closely related to present-day Tibetans.

The ancient samples for this study are mostly taken in Nepal and 13 of the 14 males belong to O-M117 lineages. Nepalese Tibetans form the Tibetan cline as they are closely related to present-day Tibetans, while they are quite apart from indigenous Tibetans with D1a1. O-M117 lineages arrived in the region around 7,000–5,000 BP with the spread of Sino-Tibetan languages from northern China. Haplogroup D1a1 originated in Tibet 40,000-50,000 years before present and subsequently migrated to Siberia and Japan (D1a2a) 35,000-40,000 years before present. D1a1 is ancestral to the Japanese and Onge branches and it is found in 46.6% of Tibetan people.

But why do they claim D1a1 originated in Tibet 40,000-50,000 years before present?

That was my personal observation based on what I have read so far. The ancestors of Tibetans and the Denisovans coexisted on the Tibetan Plateau as early as 40 ka. Zhang et al. (2021) provided a timing estimate of the East Asian-specific Denisovan introgression (D0) at around 48 ka. The Sherpa in the Tibet Autonomous Region have the highest amount of Denisovan ancestry (0.1%) in Asia.

[bicicleur 2]

The ancient samples for this study are mostly taken in Nepal and 13 of the 14 males belong to O-M117 lineages. Nepalese Tibetans form the Tibetan cline as they are closely related to present-day Tibetans, while they are quite apart from indigenous Tibetans with D1a1. O-M117 lineages arrived in the region around 7,000–5,000 BP with the spread of Sino-Tibetan languages from northern China. Haplogroup D1a1 originated in Tibet 40,000-50,000 years before present and subsequently migrated to Siberia and Japan (D1a2a) 35,000-40,000 years before present. D1a1 is ancestral to the Japanese and Onge branches and it is found in 46.6% of Tibetan people.

I admit I haven't read the study yet.
But why do they claim D1a1 originated in Tibet 40,000-50,000 years before present?
Isn't this haplogroup represented in many Tibeto-Burman populations?

[kingjohn]

interesting
the only 1 D here came from samdzong on the extreme north of nepal
and he is the most recent
all other ancient male in this paper belong to y haplogroup O
so there might be real divide when you move from tibet to nepal
how and when did D became huge in tibet ?

[bicicleur 2]

Interestingly,
among ancient lowland East Asians28,31–33, Middle/Late
Neolithic groups from the Upper Yellow River region and its periphery
(Fig. 1) show the closest genetic affinity to the aMMD groups
(Supplementary Fig. 8). 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).

What about Majiayao culture?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiayao_culture
It is older than Qijia culture.
Do we have DNA?
Could their DNA be similar to Yangshao MN ?
Could they be the source for the non-Tibetan Tibeto Burman populations mentioned in this study?

[Diictodon]

Was this Onge related ancestry similar to what is found in Jomon samples or is it more hoahianbinh stuff? Most of Tibetan ancestry seem to be lower Yellow River farmer stuff which was 75% North East Asian derived

[xiongmao]

Interestingly,
among ancient lowland East Asians28,31–33, Middle/Late
Neolithic groups from the Upper Yellow River region and its periphery
(Fig. 1) show the closest genetic affinity to the aMMD groups
(Supplementary Fig. 8). 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).

What about Majiayao culture?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiayao_culture
It is older than Qijia culture.
Do we have DNA?
Could their DNA be similar to Yangshao MN ?
Could they be the source for the non-Tibetan Tibeto Burman populations mentioned in this study?

Yes,We have,Qijia is M117 but with One single D,Ma jiayao is full M117

[kingjohn]

Yes,We have,Qijia is M117 but with One single D ,Ma jiayao is full M117

Nice
This the first case of D i am aware of in bronze age china ( rare thing)