Amur Neolithic Echoes

The earliest sampled individuals from the China_AmurRiver_N set date to c. 6690 BCE, situated within a changing post‑glacial landscape along the Amur River. Archaeological data indicates a Neolithic mosaic: pottery production appears alongside specialized fishing and water‑edge foraging. Shell and bone tools, hearths, and shallow burials recovered from riverine sites suggest communities adapted to rich aquatic resources.

Limited evidence suggests these groups were part of a long regional tradition of riverine exploitation rather than a sudden farming migration. The environmental abundance of fish, migratory birds, and floodplain plants could support relatively dense seasonal encampments and recurrent occupations of favorable localities. Over the span to 4270 BCE, material culture shows continuity with local innovations rather than wholesale replacement.

Because the genetic dataset comprises 10 genomes spanning nearly three millennia, interpretations about demographic origins must remain cautious. Archaeological layers give context to the DNA — pottery styles, toolkits, and burial practices — but connecting objects and genomes requires careful stratigraphic and chronometric correlation. Together, the material and genetic records evoke a resilient human presence shaped by the river’s seasonal rhythms.

The China_AmurRiver_N dataset comprises 10 ancient genomes dated between 6690 and 4270 BCE. Five male individuals carry Y‑chromosome haplogroup C, indicating a strong paternal lineage signal across the sampled timespan. On the maternal side, mtDNA haplogroup D appears in three individuals, with single occurrences of haplogroup F and the subclade D4o.

Haplogroup C is widespread in modern Northeast Asian and some Siberian populations, and its prominence here suggests regional paternal continuity or repeated local transmission across generations. Maternal haplogroup D is likewise broadly distributed in East Asia and forms part of the deep genetic substrate that also contributed to populations moving into the Americas; however, the specific sublineages present in these ancient individuals are not sufficient alone to assert direct ancestry to any single modern group.

Archaeogenetic patterns here align with archaeological indications of long‑term regional persistence rather than large‑scale replacement. Still, with only 10 genomes spanning ~2400 years, conclusions are preliminary: observed frequencies may reflect local kin structure, burial practices that biased sampling, or temporal shifts. Further sampling — both spatially across the Amur catchment and temporally within stratified sites — is required to refine population dynamics, sex‑biased mobility, and links to later Tungusic and other Northeast Asian groups.