{"title":"The South Caucasus from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic: Intersection of the genetic and archaeological data","authors":"Christine Chataigner","doi":"10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.109061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The genomic characterisation of human remains and the study of archaeological assemblages are complementary keys to understanding the evolution of ancient human groups. This article proposes a dialogue between these two approaches for the South Caucasus between the Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic periods.</div><div>In the Upper Palaeolithic before the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 40.-23. ka cal BP), genetic and archaeological data demonstrate the originality of the populations of the South Caucasus (<em>Caucasus_UP</em> genome) compared with their neighbours in SE Europe and SW Asia and also show the existence of links between these different regions. For the post-LGM phase (ca. 20.9–11.7 ka cal BP), archaeological data suggest a certain continuity with the previous period during the cold phase of the Oldest Dryas, followed by a marked rapprochement with the Zarzian culture in the Zagros starting with the warming of the Bølling-Allerød. Genetic analyses, which are available only for the latter phase, reveal a new genome (<em>Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer</em> or <em>CHG</em>), that is very close to that of the ancestors of the Neolithic populations of the Zagros.</div><div>For the Early Holocene (ca. 11.7–8.2 ka cal BP or 9700-6200 cal BCE), the <em>CHG</em> genome, which still characterises the populations of the South Caucasus, is difficult to distinguish in modelling from that of the Zagros <em>(Iran_N</em>). However, archaeological data suggest that the spread of the <em>Iran_N/CHG</em> gene pool from Iran to Upper Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia was due to populations from the northwest Zagros, and not to those from the South Caucasus, who had only occasional contacts with the Fertile Crescent.</div><div>At the beginning of the Middle Holocene (ca. 8.2–7.2 ka cal BP or 6200-5200 cal BCE), the appearance in the South Caucasus of animals and plants presenting a high level of domestication, as well as the introduction of new techniques (pressure knapping with a lever, pottery), are clearly due to the arrival of populations from the Fertile Crescent, as confirmed by genetic analyses. These analyses also show that there was not a replacement of local Mesolithic communities by Neolithic farmers, which the archaeological evidence confirms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20926,"journal":{"name":"Quaternary Science Reviews","volume":"345 ","pages":"Article 109061"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaternary Science Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124005638","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The genomic characterisation of human remains and the study of archaeological assemblages are complementary keys to understanding the evolution of ancient human groups. This article proposes a dialogue between these two approaches for the South Caucasus between the Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic periods.
In the Upper Palaeolithic before the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 40.-23. ka cal BP), genetic and archaeological data demonstrate the originality of the populations of the South Caucasus (Caucasus_UP genome) compared with their neighbours in SE Europe and SW Asia and also show the existence of links between these different regions. For the post-LGM phase (ca. 20.9–11.7 ka cal BP), archaeological data suggest a certain continuity with the previous period during the cold phase of the Oldest Dryas, followed by a marked rapprochement with the Zarzian culture in the Zagros starting with the warming of the Bølling-Allerød. Genetic analyses, which are available only for the latter phase, reveal a new genome (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer or CHG), that is very close to that of the ancestors of the Neolithic populations of the Zagros.
For the Early Holocene (ca. 11.7–8.2 ka cal BP or 9700-6200 cal BCE), the CHG genome, which still characterises the populations of the South Caucasus, is difficult to distinguish in modelling from that of the Zagros (Iran_N). However, archaeological data suggest that the spread of the Iran_N/CHG gene pool from Iran to Upper Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia was due to populations from the northwest Zagros, and not to those from the South Caucasus, who had only occasional contacts with the Fertile Crescent.
At the beginning of the Middle Holocene (ca. 8.2–7.2 ka cal BP or 6200-5200 cal BCE), the appearance in the South Caucasus of animals and plants presenting a high level of domestication, as well as the introduction of new techniques (pressure knapping with a lever, pottery), are clearly due to the arrival of populations from the Fertile Crescent, as confirmed by genetic analyses. These analyses also show that there was not a replacement of local Mesolithic communities by Neolithic farmers, which the archaeological evidence confirms.
人类遗骸的基因组特征和考古组合研究是了解古人类群体演变的互补关键。在末次冰川极盛期(约公元前 40.-23.ka. BP)之前的上旧石器时代,遗传学和考古学数据表明,与欧洲东南部和亚洲西南部的邻近地区相比,南高加索地区的人群(高加索_UP 基因组)具有独创性,同时也表明这些不同地区之间存在联系。考古数据表明,LGM 后阶段(约 20.9-11.7 ka cal BP)与上一个时期(最古老的旱季的寒冷阶段)有一定的连续性,随后随着博林-阿勒罗德气候变暖,与扎格罗斯地区的扎尔齐亚(Zarzian)文化发生了明显的和解。仅对后一阶段进行的基因分析表明,一种新的基因组(高加索狩猎采集者或 CHG)与扎格罗斯新石器时代人群的祖先的基因组非常接近。在全新世早期(约 11.7-8.2 ka cal BP 或 9700-6200 cal BCE),CHG 基因组仍然是南高加索人群的特征,在模型上很难与扎格罗斯(Iran_N)的基因组区分开来。然而,考古数据表明,Iran_N/CHG 基因库从伊朗向美索不达米亚上游和安纳托利亚中部扩散的原因是来自扎格罗斯山脉西北部的人群,而不是来自南高加索的人群,他们只是偶尔与新月沃土接触。在中全新世初期(约公元前 8.2-7.2 千卡或公元前 6200-5200 卡),南高加索地区出现了高度驯化的动物和植物,并引进了新的技术(用杠杆压制陶器),这显然是由于新月沃土居民的到来,遗传分析也证实了这一点。这些分析还表明,当地的中石器时代社区并没有被新石器时代的农民所取代,考古证据也证实了这一点。
期刊介绍:
Quaternary Science Reviews caters for all aspects of Quaternary science, and includes, for example, geology, geomorphology, geography, archaeology, soil science, palaeobotany, palaeontology, palaeoclimatology and the full range of applicable dating methods. The dividing line between what constitutes the review paper and one which contains new original data is not easy to establish, so QSR also publishes papers with new data especially if these perform a review function. All the Quaternary sciences are changing rapidly and subject to re-evaluation as the pace of discovery quickens; thus the diverse but comprehensive role of Quaternary Science Reviews keeps readers abreast of the wider issues relating to new developments in the field.