Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Eastern hunter-gatherer" in English language version.
ANE makes up the principal share of the EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) autosomal component, whose content is especially high in the genomes of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic inhabitants of northeastern Europe buried at Yuzhny Oleny Ostrov, Popovo, Sidelkino, Lebyazhinka IV, etc. (Haak et al., 2015; Damgaard et al., 2018).", "Mesolithic, northern Russian Plain, Yuzhny Oleny Ostrov (Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984)
Haak et al. (2015): 38–40% ANE (MA-1), 60–62% WHG (Fig S8.6). (Alternative topologies where EHG and ANE are unadmixed sister lineages, with WHG being admixed, are not rejected)
ANE makes up the principal share of the EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) autosomal component, whose content is especially high in the genomes of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic inhabitants of northeastern Europe buried at Yuzhny Oleny Ostrov, Popovo, Sidelkino, Lebyazhinka IV, etc. (Haak et al., 2015; Damgaard et al., 2018). They passed EHG on to the Yamnaya people, from whom it was inherited by several filial populations, including Afanasyevans. As early as the Mesolithic, EHG was introduced from northern Russia to Scandinavia, as evidenced by genomes of the Motala people in southern Sweden. Their ancestors had migrated there from the east along the coast of Norway, because the share of EHG in more southern populations, such as the earlier Kunda people of the eastern Baltic, is lower (Haak et al., 2015; Mittnik et al., 2018).
Haak et al. (2015): 38–40% ANE (MA-1), 60–62% WHG (Fig S8.6). (Alternative topologies where EHG and ANE are unadmixed sister lineages, with WHG being admixed, are not rejected)
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal'ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
We then modeled gene flow from the lineage leading to CHB to the EEHG at 9.4% (95% CI 4.4%–14.7%).
ANE makes up the principal share of the EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) autosomal component, whose content is especially high in the genomes of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic inhabitants of northeastern Europe buried at Yuzhny Oleny Ostrov, Popovo, Sidelkino, Lebyazhinka IV, etc. (Haak et al., 2015; Damgaard et al., 2018).", "Mesolithic, northern Russian Plain, Yuzhny Oleny Ostrov (Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984)
Although demic diffusion may have a role, on the basis of its speed we argue that pottery production was rapidly disseminated through knowledge transfer across established networks between dispersed hunter-gatherer communities
Haak et al. (2015): 38–40% ANE (MA-1), 60–62% WHG (Fig S8.6). (Alternative topologies where EHG and ANE are unadmixed sister lineages, with WHG being admixed, are not rejected)
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal'ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
Haak et al. (2015): 38–40% ANE (MA-1), 60–62% WHG (Fig S8.6). (Alternative topologies where EHG and ANE are unadmixed sister lineages, with WHG being admixed, are not rejected)
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal'ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
We then modeled gene flow from the lineage leading to CHB to the EEHG at 9.4% (95% CI 4.4%–14.7%).
Although demic diffusion may have a role, on the basis of its speed we argue that pottery production was rapidly disseminated through knowledge transfer across established networks between dispersed hunter-gatherer communities
Haak et al. (2015): 38–40% ANE (MA-1), 60–62% WHG (Fig S8.6). (Alternative topologies where EHG and ANE are unadmixed sister lineages, with WHG being admixed, are not rejected)
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal'ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
We then modeled gene flow from the lineage leading to CHB to the EEHG at 9.4% (95% CI 4.4%–14.7%).
Although demic diffusion may have a role, on the basis of its speed we argue that pottery production was rapidly disseminated through knowledge transfer across established networks between dispersed hunter-gatherer communities
ANE makes up the principal share of the EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) autosomal component, whose content is especially high in the genomes of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic inhabitants of northeastern Europe buried at Yuzhny Oleny Ostrov, Popovo, Sidelkino, Lebyazhinka IV, etc. (Haak et al., 2015; Damgaard et al., 2018). They passed EHG on to the Yamnaya people, from whom it was inherited by several filial populations, including Afanasyevans. As early as the Mesolithic, EHG was introduced from northern Russia to Scandinavia, as evidenced by genomes of the Motala people in southern Sweden. Their ancestors had migrated there from the east along the coast of Norway, because the share of EHG in more southern populations, such as the earlier Kunda people of the eastern Baltic, is lower (Haak et al., 2015; Mittnik et al., 2018).
Haak et al. (2015): 38–40% ANE (MA-1), 60–62% WHG (Fig S8.6). (Alternative topologies where EHG and ANE are unadmixed sister lineages, with WHG being admixed, are not rejected)
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal'ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
We then modeled gene flow from the lineage leading to CHB to the EEHG at 9.4% (95% CI 4.4%–14.7%).
Although demic diffusion may have a role, on the basis of its speed we argue that pottery production was rapidly disseminated through knowledge transfer across established networks between dispersed hunter-gatherer communities
