Jan 31, 2023·edited Jan 31, 2023Liked by Anveṣaṇam
This is a great article, I heard David had some complaints with the dating as well. I think it is also interesting how the Eneolithic steppe can be modeled with a good amount of WSHG. Would a relationship between that new TTK (Kelteminar?) sample and Steppe populations be worth looking into, as a proxy for ANE? From what I've heard, TTK is around 3/4 ANE, 1/4 Iran_N.
Also, have you any thoughts on the notion that none of the Anatolian samples have steppe DNA? I tested some of the Kaman-Kalehoyuk samples on G25 as well as qp a while back and MA2208 (low-res albeit), MA2200, and MA2203 seem to consistently have a few percentage points (0-10%) of Steppe. 2203 is probably the best bet for EHG detection in Anatolians, because it is neither low res like MA2208 (which tends to score higher EHG/Steppe) but has more than 2200.
MA2200 and 2203 are a combined sample in the reich dataset (Turkey_OldHittitePeriod.SG) and I think it scored around 5% Yamnaya on qp with a passing score (p =~0.08)
Both Seh Gabi C and Meshkovo passes for Progress En, but both of these populations are very distinct from each other, IIRC Seh Gabi C is like 60% Iran N and Meshkovo is like 15% and like 65% CHG i don't understand why both of them would pass considering how different they are from each other. Also how would entirely neolithic model for progress en look like?
Here from Eurogenes. Love the post. Hope you don't mind me repeating myself a bit here.
A few thoughts:
Rather than ANE admixture in Progress, is it possible that it has a great deal of ancestry from a population that was somewhat intermediate between ANE and EHG? If our EHG "baseline" is too rich in WHG, that would obscure additional WHG contributions to Yamnaya too wouldn't it?
I think looking at the linguistic context is important, and the Kroonen paper (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744) is great for that. They suggest that Anatolian must have come from an early, eastern source, prior to the spread of agriculture to that region, as Anatolian languages do not share much agricultural terminologie with other IE languages, whereas "core" IE language must have come from a western, later (Yamnaya) source after the spread of agriculture. That pretty much rules out an Armenian homeland for PIE in and of itself.
I'd note that in the paper they test for Iron Gates ancestry, which I think is a good way to detect EEF ancestry.
ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA and IRN-HajjiFiruz_BA have both significant EHG and Iron Gates ancestry. I would suggest that that means these samples descend in part from western Yamnaya, and are related to "core" Indo-European speaking groups (probably proto-Armenian at least for the former).
Areni Cave Chalcolithic and the ALA026 outlier from Hatay both have EHG ancestry but no detectable Iron Gates ancestry. My suggestion is that these samples are related to Anatolian speaking populations. The Areni sample is so early too that it would give steppe ancestry plenty of time to be diluted prior to the Middle Bronze Age, much like steppe ancestry in Armenians later became diluted.
This is a great article, I heard David had some complaints with the dating as well. I think it is also interesting how the Eneolithic steppe can be modeled with a good amount of WSHG. Would a relationship between that new TTK (Kelteminar?) sample and Steppe populations be worth looking into, as a proxy for ANE? From what I've heard, TTK is around 3/4 ANE, 1/4 Iran_N.
Also, have you any thoughts on the notion that none of the Anatolian samples have steppe DNA? I tested some of the Kaman-Kalehoyuk samples on G25 as well as qp a while back and MA2208 (low-res albeit), MA2200, and MA2203 seem to consistently have a few percentage points (0-10%) of Steppe. 2203 is probably the best bet for EHG detection in Anatolians, because it is neither low res like MA2208 (which tends to score higher EHG/Steppe) but has more than 2200.
MA2200 and 2203 are a combined sample in the reich dataset (Turkey_OldHittitePeriod.SG) and I think it scored around 5% Yamnaya on qp with a passing score (p =~0.08)
This is complete bullshit. EHG was Turkic, Samarra Culture was Turkic, you can cry, stupid european, your stupid blog does not change the truth.
Both Seh Gabi C and Meshkovo passes for Progress En, but both of these populations are very distinct from each other, IIRC Seh Gabi C is like 60% Iran N and Meshkovo is like 15% and like 65% CHG i don't understand why both of them would pass considering how different they are from each other. Also how would entirely neolithic model for progress en look like?
Here from Eurogenes. Love the post. Hope you don't mind me repeating myself a bit here.
A few thoughts:
Rather than ANE admixture in Progress, is it possible that it has a great deal of ancestry from a population that was somewhat intermediate between ANE and EHG? If our EHG "baseline" is too rich in WHG, that would obscure additional WHG contributions to Yamnaya too wouldn't it?
I think looking at the linguistic context is important, and the Kroonen paper (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744) is great for that. They suggest that Anatolian must have come from an early, eastern source, prior to the spread of agriculture to that region, as Anatolian languages do not share much agricultural terminologie with other IE languages, whereas "core" IE language must have come from a western, later (Yamnaya) source after the spread of agriculture. That pretty much rules out an Armenian homeland for PIE in and of itself.
I'd note that in the paper they test for Iron Gates ancestry, which I think is a good way to detect EEF ancestry.
ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA and IRN-HajjiFiruz_BA have both significant EHG and Iron Gates ancestry. I would suggest that that means these samples descend in part from western Yamnaya, and are related to "core" Indo-European speaking groups (probably proto-Armenian at least for the former).
Areni Cave Chalcolithic and the ALA026 outlier from Hatay both have EHG ancestry but no detectable Iron Gates ancestry. My suggestion is that these samples are related to Anatolian speaking populations. The Areni sample is so early too that it would give steppe ancestry plenty of time to be diluted prior to the Middle Bronze Age, much like steppe ancestry in Armenians later became diluted.