2018
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23607
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New genetic evidence of affinities and discontinuities between bronze age Siberian populations

Abstract: This study provides new elements that contribute to our understanding of the genetic interactions between populations in Eneolithic and Bronze Age southern Siberia. Our results support the hypothesis of a genetic link between Afanasievo and Yamnaya (in western Eurasia), as suggested by previous studies of other markers. However, we found no Y-chromosome lineage evidence of a possible Afanasievo migration to the Tarim Basin. Moreover, the presence of Y-haplogroup Q in Okunevo individuals links them to Native Am… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The Pamir Plateau was likely a key route in this extensive transcontinental network of cultural exchange across Eurasia. Its importance has been previously investigated by archaeological, anthropological, and ancient DNA analysis in this region as well as in the southern part of the Tarim Basin (Cui et al, ; Cui, Li, Gao, Xie, & Zhou, ; Gao et al, ; Han, ; Hollard et al, ; Li et al, , ; Liu, ; Ning et al, ; Oskar et al, ; Wang et al, ; Wei, ; Xie et al, ). Since at least the second millennium BC, most of the Bronze Age cemeteries in the Pamir region were mainly attributed to the Afanasievo and Andronovo populations which could be classified as “Proto‐European type.” These populations have broad faces and are found in sites such as Vakhsh (Tajikistan), Sapali (Uzbekistan), and the Xiaohe and Gumugou sites (Xinjiang Province, China) (Ning et al, ; Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Pamir Plateau was likely a key route in this extensive transcontinental network of cultural exchange across Eurasia. Its importance has been previously investigated by archaeological, anthropological, and ancient DNA analysis in this region as well as in the southern part of the Tarim Basin (Cui et al, ; Cui, Li, Gao, Xie, & Zhou, ; Gao et al, ; Han, ; Hollard et al, ; Li et al, , ; Liu, ; Ning et al, ; Oskar et al, ; Wang et al, ; Wei, ; Xie et al, ). Since at least the second millennium BC, most of the Bronze Age cemeteries in the Pamir region were mainly attributed to the Afanasievo and Andronovo populations which could be classified as “Proto‐European type.” These populations have broad faces and are found in sites such as Vakhsh (Tajikistan), Sapali (Uzbekistan), and the Xiaohe and Gumugou sites (Xinjiang Province, China) (Ning et al, ; Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Populations: Tagar —Tagar series (red pentagon) (this study); Iron Age populations related with the ‘Scythian world” (red circles): Pazyryk —Pazyryk culture from Altay Mountains (Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia) [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 22 – 25 ]; Aldy_Bel —series from Aldy Bel culture, Arjan-2 burial complex, Tuva, Russia [ 4 ]; Scythians —Classic Scythians from North Pontic region [ 3 , 4 , 26 ]; Neolithic and Bronze Age populations (black squares): Yamnaya —Yamnaya culture population (Early Bronze Age) [ 18 , 27 29 ]; Catacomb —Catacomb culture population (Bronze Age) [ 18 , 29 ]; Afanasievo —Afanasievo culture population from the Minusinsk Basin (Early Bronze Age) [ 27 , 30 ]; Okunevo — Okunevo culture population from the Minusinsk basin (Bronze Age, pre-Andronovo time); Andronovo_B —Andronovo time population from West-Siberian forest-steppe zone [ 31 ]; Andronovo_M —Andronovo culture population from Minusinsk basin [ 10 ]; Cisbaikalian_Neo —Serovo and Glazkovo cultures from Cis-Baikal region, Russia (Neolithic and Bronze Age) [ 32 ]; Tianshanbeilu —Tianshanbeilu site, eastern Xinjiang, China, Bronze Age (1900–1300 YBC) [ 33 ]; Bronze_MA —Middle Bronze Age population from the Mongolian Altai [ 34 ]; Lajia_Neo —population from the Lajia site, Qinghai, northwestern China (3800–3400 YBP) [ 35 ]; Jiangjialiang_Neo —Neolithic population from the Jiangjialiang site, North China [ 36 ]; Iron Age populations not related with the ‘Scythian world” (black triangles): Xiongnu —Xiongnu population from Mongolia and Transbaikalia [ 12 , 37 , 38 ]; Taojiazhai —Taojiazhai site, Qinghai, northwestern China (1900–1700 YBP) [ 39 ]; Dondhu —Donghu population from Jinggouzi site, Inner Mongolia, northern China (~2500 YBP) [ 40 ]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3300-2500 BCE). Although the Shatar Chuluu site so far provides no additional evidence about subsistence practices, the Yamnaya-Afanasievo relationship is presumed to mark the diffusion of cattle, sheep and goat pastoralism into East Asia via the Altai mountains (Gryaznov 1969;Anthony 2007;Svyatko et al 2013;Polyakov et al 2017;Hollard et al 2018;however cf. Frachetti 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Afanasievo archaeological culture has been genetically and culturally linked with the late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age Yamnaya archaeological culture (ca. 3300-2500 BCE) located on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as far east as the Ural River (Hollard et al 2018;Allentoft et al 2015). A long-standing explanation for the arrival of domestic herd animals and new material culture and burial forms in the Altai mountains at circa 3100 BC has argued for migrations of Yamnaya groups between the Urals and the Altai, a distance of more than 2000 km (Anthony 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%