3.8 Article

Tales from the Supplementary Information: Ancestry Change in Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age Britain Was Gradual with Varied Kinship Organization

期刊

CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 379-400

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0959774321000019

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [100713/Z/12/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [100713/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article demonstrates how unnoticed details in the supplementary information of aDNA papers can offer crucial insights into patterns of ancestry change and genetic relatedness, particularly in the context of populations in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain.
Large-scale archaeogenetic studies of people from prehistoric Europe tend to be broad in scope and difficult to resolve with local archaeologies. However, accompanying supplementary information often contains useful finer-scale information that is comprehensible without specific genetics expertise. Here, we show how undiscussed details provided in supplementary information of aDNA papers can provide crucial insight into patterns of ancestry change and genetic relatedness in the past by examining details relating to a >90 per cent shift in the genetic ancestry of populations who inhabited Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain (c. 2450-1600 bc). While this outcome was certainly influenced by movements of communities carrying novel ancestries into Britain from continental Europe, it was unlikely to have been a simple, rapid process, potentially taking up to 16 generations, during which time there is evidence for the synchronous persistence of groups largely descended from the Neolithic populations. Insofar as genetic relationships can be assumed to have had social meaning, identification of genetic relatives in cemeteries suggests paternal relationships were important, but there is substantial variability in how genetic ties were referenced and little evidence for strict patrilocality or female exogamy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据