[330] Ancient Genomics of Neolithic to Bronze Age Baikal Hunter-Gatherers
Damgaard, Peter de Barros (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen), Jeremy Choin (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen), Andrzej Weber (Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta), Martin Sikora (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen) and Eske Willerslev (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen)
Who were Inner Asia HG?
I think they were related with Sagsai Culture and maybe chandman people, where lived in western Mongolia at bronze age. They were classifed as UP type people. Moreover, this chandman is anthropologically connected to XiounNu(Hun) and finally ancient Turk. XioungNu also had R1a-z93 and Q1a2.
-Individuals from early Neolithic Lokomotiv and Shamanka II were found to possess haplogroups K, R1a1 and C3, and individuals from Late Neolithic-bronze Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI were found to belong to haplogroups Q, K and unidentified SNP (L914).
Damgaard, Peter de Barros (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen), Jeremy Choin (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen), Andrzej Weber (Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta), Martin Sikora (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen) and Eske Willerslev (Center for GeoGenetics, University of Copenhagen)
82nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (Vancouver, BC, Canada: March 29–April 2, 2017)Genome-wide data from hunter-gatherer populations of the Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic has provided unprecedented insight into the human evolutionary and demographic trajectory. However such datasets have hitherto been largely confined to Western Eurasia. The sole representative of Inner Asian past populations post-dating the split between paleolithic Europeans and Asians, as well as paleolithic Siberians and East Asians, are the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora individuals, the Ancient North East Asian (ANE) branch, clouding the dating of the population split, and subsequent admixture events, between ANE and East Asian hunter-gatherers. Our genome data (~1X) reveal that Baikal Hunter-Gatherers (BHG) are an uncharacterized genetically homogeneous branch of Inner Asian hunter-gatherers, displaying highest shared genetic drift with present-day East Asians. Targeted sampling strategies coupled to excellent biomolecule preservation has permitted the generation of an advantageous sample size dataset (n = 31), rendering possible to estimate allele frequencies within these groups, thereby optimizing population tests. BHG model as an excellent proxy for an Inner Asian source population admixing into the late Bronze Age Andronovo groups, becoming Iron Age steppe nomads. With genomes allowing for kinship analyses, pathogen detection and strontium ratios, coupled to archaeological interpretative approaches we extend possible means to elucidate behavioral processes and cultural transformation.
Good to see the Baikal-Hokkaido Archaeological Project collaborating with a top-rate palaeogenomics lab. The Middle Holocene Cis-Baikal region has preserved well-stratified habitation sites and formal hunter-gatherer cemeteries of continental importance, which continue to lend remarkable insights into Neolithic South Siberian social configurations and ecological strategies.
The archaeology and earlier ancient uniparental marker work (mtDNA and Y-DNA from Early Neolithic Kitoi and Late Neolithic–Bronze Age Isakovo/Glazkovo samples) suggested an interesting discontinuity across the Middle Neolithic — maybe involving shifts in relatedness to ancestral Yeniseians. However, if Kitoi and succeeding Late Neolithic groups were both members of a homogeneous “BHG”, these cultural transformations and uniparental lineage turnovers must belie a bigger picture of substantial genome-wide continuity, potentially going as far back as the Mesolithic.
“Andronovo” would be a disagreement with the recent model in Unterländer et al. (2017), Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe, doi:10.1038/ncomms14615.
Here Iron Age eastern Scythians were instead modeled as “Yamnaya”1 + East Eurasian (Han and Nganasan were adequate stand-ins but it stands to reason that this was something more like BHG).
Who were Inner Asia HG?
I think they were related with Sagsai Culture and maybe chandman people, where lived in western Mongolia at bronze age. They were classifed as UP type people. Moreover, this chandman is anthropologically connected to XiounNu(Hun) and finally ancient Turk. XioungNu also had R1a-z93 and Q1a2.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33670-Afanasievo-was-R1b1a2Sagsai Culture, 1400-900 BC
Q1a3a-L54, Q1a3a-L54, Q1a3a-L54, R1a-Z93, R1a-Z93, R1a-Z93, C-M130
What emerges in this tree is a distinct clustering of the Bronze Age Chandman, Mongol Turk, and Xiongnu Egiin Gol samples with theAinu and ancient Jomon of Japan.
-Individuals from early Neolithic Lokomotiv and Shamanka II were found to possess haplogroups K, R1a1 and C3, and individuals from Late Neolithic-bronze Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI were found to belong to haplogroups Q, K and unidentified SNP (L914).
Last edited: