Monday, September 19, 2022

The Lady from Central Asia who was found dead in a Bronze Age Turkish well

 

Site of the Alalakh 'Well Lady'. Courtesy: Skourtanioti et al 2020


The remains of the Alalakh 'Well Lady' were discovered in the archaeological site of Tell Atchana / Alalakh / Alalah, Turkey dating to ~1550BCE. Her aDna was published in 2020 (1) and she was found to be of central Asian origin, far from where she was found. She was found at the bottom of a deep well that was still in use at the time. The individual showed evidence of healed trauma on the skull's frontal bone and two healed fractured ribs, and her manner of death has been suggested as a homicide due to or before being thrown into the well (2). Her teeth also showed clear signs of enamel defects (2), a possible sign of malnutrition during childhood. Her age at death was 40-45 years.


The strontium isotope analysis of her dental enamel surprisingly suggested that she was born and raised locally (3), which means that both her parents were migrants. She had genetically inherited shovel-shaped second incisor teeth, and what's of particular interest to us is that there are three other samples from Alalakh with the same kind of teeth. Their DNA results could not be obtained, but Ingman et al 2021 (3) suggest that those three could be genetic outliers as well based on the peculiar incisor teeth.


Ancestral Sources via qpAdm Rotating Models


Fixed References: Mbuti.DG, PPN, IRQ_PPN, EHG, CHG, Iran_GanjDareh_N, Mongolia_North_N, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Turkey_N, ONG.SG

Rotating Sources/References: Tarim_EMBA1, WSHG, ARM_Masis_Blur_N, Tajikistan_C_Sarazm, IVCp, Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA, IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A, IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A, IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B, IRN_Hasanlu_MBA, Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA, Iran_BA1_ShahrISokhta, ARM_Lchashen_LBA, Russia_MLBA_Sintashta

2-Source Models - Only 1 accepted 

The only working 2 source model suggests that the Well Lady was an admixture of 70% Tajik_Sarazm_eneolithic and 30% Hasanlu_LBA_B (Assyrian - West Iran/Iraq) populations.

Someone on Twitter suggested that 3600BCE Sarazm is too far removed in time to be an actual source. That sounds fair, but we won't know if such populations existed in pockets till much later. Many modern people like Kalash & Ror still require Sarazm (or a similar label) to be modelled successfully. The fact is that the fit is superior to other choices. In any case, I also tested models after removing Sarazm from potential sources.


Fixed References: Mbuti.DG, PPN, IRQ_PPN, EHG, CHG, Iran_GanjDareh_N, Mongolia_North_N, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Turkey_N, ONG.SG

Rotating Sources/References: Tarim_EMBA1, WSHG, IVCp, IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B, Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA, Iran_BA1_ShahrISokhta, ARM_Lchashen_LBA, Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Kyrgyzstan_Aygirdjal_BA, Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1, Russia_Steppe_Catacomb

well woman 3 source modls
3-source models


Removing Sarazm, 3-source models are required for passing p-values above 0.05. Among the eastern/central Asian sources - both Gonur (BMAC) as well as Shahr-Sokhta (East Iranian) work and form the most significant ancestry components. The second necessary source is something with additional Yamnaya-like or ANE-rich ancestry - like Aygirjdal_BA or Steppe_Catacomb. Aygirjdal is a more likely source as it is proximal to BMAC in the Oxus region. The 3rd source is a minor Assyrian source like Hasanlu_LBA or from Armenia_Lchashen_LBA. Importantly, Sintashta-related steppe sources are rejected.



The Outliers from Megiddo, Israel



Bronze age Megiddo is best known as the site of the epic battle dated to the 15th century BCE between Egyptians and Canaanites and their allies. This region started receiving CHG/Iran-related ancestry before 2400 BCE from the Caucasus region (4), resulting in a homogenous population in the bronze age, labelled as Megiddo_MLBA or Israel_MLBA.

Within the Megiddo samples, there are three outliers of which 2 infants are brother-sister siblings. The authors of the paper labelled them as Israel_MLBA_oCaucasus because they think that's where they came from. The authors note:

These individuals are unlikely to be first generation migrants, as strontium isotope analysis on the two outlier siblings (I2189 and I2200) suggests that they were raised locally. This implies that the Megiddo outliers might be descendants of people who arrived in recent generations. Direct support for this hypothesis comes from the fact that in sensitive qpAdm modeling (including closely related sets of outgroups), the only working northeast source population for these two individuals is the contemporaneous Armenia_MLBA, whereas the earlier Iran_ChL and Armenia_EBA do not fit . The addition of Iran_ChL to the set of outgroups does not change this result or cause model failure. Finally, no other Levantine group shows a similar admixture pattern . This shows that some level of gene flow into the Levant took place during the later phases of the Bronze Age and suggests that the source of this gene flow was the Caucasus.


Now, one of the siblings, the boy, has Y Hg R1a1a1. The 'steppe enthusiasts' in the online genetic community, who probably themselves have R1a+ Y Hg and thus the enthusiasm, jumped at this with the claim that they had proof of Mitanni's presence in the Megiddo war. 

...whereas the bone of one of the three (I10100) was directly dated (1688–1535 BCE, ± 2S)

These outliers are dated to before the formation of Mitanni and much before the Megiddo war. There is 0 archaeological context of them being related to Mitanni. Anyway, let us proceed to find the best ancestry sources for these 3.

The parameters will be

Fixed References: Mbuti.DG, IRQ_PPN, EHG, CHG, Iran_GanjDareh_N, Mongolia_North_N, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Turkey_N, ONG.SG, Tarim_EMBA1

Rotating Sources/References: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm, IVCp, Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA, ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA, ARM_Lchashen_LBA, Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1,Russia_Steppe_Catacomb, IRN_Hasanlu_MBA, Israel_MLBA, Israel_C, Jordan_EBA, Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Turkey_Arslantepe_EBA

Allnsnps: YES, inbreed: NO

1240K dataset from Harvard will be used, no SNP filtering.


The sister - Sample ID I2200



I2200 models
2-source models for I2200 (Link for all results is provided later in the article)

The sample I2200 comes from a local Israeli and a bronze-age Armenian. The results agree with that of the paper. Sintashta-related Steppe_MLBA ancestry is NOT involved. All models with Sintashta are either infeasible or with failing p-values. She has 611k SNPs, which is very good and ensures that very very few non-optimal models can pass if at all they pass.

Her mtDna is U3b, first found at Turkey in 5000BCE. Which tells us that her mother was a local and that her father was not. Her father was an R1a1a1 carrying Armenian/Caucasian man.

The R1a1a brother should also have a similar ancestry profile, let us check. His SNP count is a bit on the low side at 130k (~90% missingness), so non-optimal models will pass too.


The brother - Sample ID I2189



2 source models for I2189
2 source models for I2189


As expected, the Israel_MLBA + Caucasus/West Iran models all pass. However, the Israel_MLBA + Sintashta model passes too. In conjunction with R1a1a1, does this mean there is Sintashta-related ancestry present here?

Well, no. Since the 1st relative (sister) only accepts the Israel_MLBA + Catacomb/ArmeniaBA models, that will be taken as the chosen model here. Also, it is unlikely that Sintashta-related ancestry reached the Levant via Oxus and Iran untouched by any other ancestry on the route. This model passes because of the lower power of qpAdm on samples with high missingness (low SNP count) (5).

As discussed earlier for his sister, this boy's father was likely an R1a1a1 man from Armenia. Maykop, just north of Caucasus, had 1 R1a sample from 3100bce. In Armenia, 1 R1a-Z645 sample has been found from 300BCE, giving credence to the possibility of an Armenian man from 1600BCE possessing R1a. Furthermore, 2 R1b (R-M269 of Yamnaya-like origin) have also been found at Megiddo_MLBA, although they don't show any extra Yamnaya-like autosomal ancestry. This suggests minor genetic contact between Caucasus and Levant.


3rd Megiddo Outlier - Sample Id I10100


This sample is labelled Israel_MLBA_oCaucasus by the authors.



I10100 3 source
3 source model for I10100


For this sample, a 3 source model is needed. Israel_mlba + Tajik_Sarazm or Gonur (BMAC) + Steppe_Catacomb work. A 3rd marginal p-value model with Sintashta also works. The sample is a female with mtDNA T2 (which is local, so again a foreigner father).

The other reason to reject the Sintashta model is that all our previous samples require some Yamnaya-related ancestry rather than a Sintashta-related one. She has 246k SNPs (~80% missingness) so few non-optimal models can pass as well.

Results of all rotating models for all the above targets are found in this folder.



DISCUSSION


Some or all of these 4 samples have been suggested by 'steppe enthusiasts' on online communities as possibly being Mitanni elites.  This is why I took the time to address these samples and critically analyze their ancestries to get the best models. Steppe from the Caucasus (Catacomb culture or via Armenia) cannot be related to the Mitanni Aryans as they are Yamnaya descended whereas the Kurgan theory posits Sintashta-related steppe_mlba ancestry as proto Indo-Iranian. It is essential to build models which can differentiate between the two, otherwise 'steppe enthusiasts' go on confirming their biases on a whim.

My own position is that Iranians in the west of Iran came from the Oxus/East Iran, as is also seen in the Well lady as well the recently published Hasanlu and Dinkha Tepe samples from NW Iran. I also believe that the Mitanni were connected to elites from the East of Iran/ Afghanistan/ NW India region, so the well Lady fits well into this hypothesis. However, there are some problems with the Well Lady's context:

a) There is no archaeological context which proves that she was a Mitanni elite. On the contrary, she was malnourished as a child (tooth enamel deficiency), was either a warrior or was physically abused (healed skull and healed ribs). She was murdered and thrown into a well and she landed on her front.

b) To me this seems like a case of a woman born locally to migrants from the east, and later being abused physically (either by her spouse or by her master if she was a servant).

c) There is a possibility that her injuries are because she was a warrior (and therefore an elite), but this is countered by her dental record (enamel deficiencies during childhood)


As for the Megiddo outliers, there is no context suggesting that they were Mitanni, and the carbon date from one of the samples is before or at the beginning of the establishment of the Mitanni empire. As such, they seem irrelevant to the question of Indo-Iranians.

Why is Mitanni important?


By 1500BCE at the latest, and 1700BCE at the earliest, there are traces of Indo-Aryan words and proper names found in the archaeological record in the near east. While little is known from Mitanni sites, most of the knowledge about the Mitannis comes from the empires they interacted with. For example, in the Alalakh period IV (15th century BCE), the region became a vassal state of Mitanni and various tablets recovered from Alalakh carry information about their dealings with Mitanni and their King. Although the Mitanni subjects were Hurrian speakers, many of the words are Indo-Iranian in nature. 

Witzel 2019 (7) describes 

However, a major milestone is the appearance of early IA speakers in the near east, on the northern rims of Mesopotamia. They have left many loanwords in a non-related Caucasus language, Mitanni Hurrite, from ca. 1600 BCE onwards. The Mitanni kingdom covered northern Iraq and Syria; IA speakers will have reached it from its eastern border in the Zagros mountains. The loanwords extend from horse culture (colors, number of rounds in chariot races), to the throne names of Mitanni kings, and a brief list of four Vedic deities (Mitra, Varuṇa, Aryaman, Nāsatya) attached to a treaty with the Hittites (1380 BCE).

So, a formerly Hurrian region gets a new dynasty and there appear a lot of words of Indo-Iranian origin. While Witzel (and many others) favours an Indo-Aryan nature of these words, Benedetti (8) argues that their origin is Iranian rather than Indo-Aryan in nature. The third option of proto-Nuristani is supported by Diakonoff(1996)(12). Based on some of the Mitanni words like 'sattawartanna' and other loanwords found in Akkadian texts, Diakonoff concludes:

If so, this suggests a presence of proto-Dardic tribes not only in Mitanni but also in northeastern Iran at an early epoch (say, from the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. to ca. the ninth century B.C.E.)

We have tried to show that linguistic data seem to point to the possibility that ancient Iran could have been invaded by earlier Indo-Iranian Dardo-Nuristani tribes before the arrival of Iranian-speaking tribes, that is, the Medes, about the middle of the second millennium B.C.E.

The Dardo-Nuristani option is interesting because the Kalash people need to be modelled with Sarazm as a source, and Sarazm is also the ancestry we see all over these West Asian outliers (Alalakh 'well lady' and Megiddo I10100), and also at Hasanlu.





Kalash qpAdm shows Kangju as steppe source
Rotating Source models for Kalash.SDG using Admixtools 2 on the 1240K dataset. Extract_f2 settings: maxmiss=1, Transitions=False, Transversions=True (228500 SNPs). Transitions are set to false because True gives no working models. This may be due to the differential rate of ancient damage on transition sites of the ancient sources (per Harney et al 2021). Hence we set transitions=FALSE. References and rotating sources are mentioned at end of the article.





Witzel 2019 (7) argues that some of these words were older than the language of the Rig Veda and therefore sets a terminus a quem date of RigVeda to 1400BCE. However, this sees strong refutation by Talageri (10) in his books (and adapted blog posts). Talageri argues that all the Indo-Aryan names found in the Mitanni, Nuzi and Syrian documents match only with the later Mandalas (New Books) of the Rig Veda, and therefore are much later than the earliest part of Rig Veda.

I am not in a position to judge the linguistic aspects of these arguments myself, however, I side with Talageri in this debate. The weakness of Witzel's argument, in my eyes, is that he assumes some monolithic language block across the Indo-Iranian lands, whereas the more likely scenario is that various regions had various dialects and different levels of preservation of Indo-Iranian archaisms and innovations (as is the case for all extant IE languages), some of these dialects may have been lost forever.

Another problem with Witzel's paper is that in 2019, he still quotes the hoax of the Potapovka Dadhyañc myth which was debunked 20 years back and accepted by none other than David Anthony (11). This erroneous supposition which put the Steppe Aryan theory into overdrive in the 1990s still biases his opinion. From Witzel 2019 (7)

Remnants of it have recently been discovered at Krasno-Samarskoye, just west of the Urals. In the same area, some 40 years ago, a grave has been found with a headless body; instead a horse head had been substituted, just as in the Ṛgvedic Dadhyañc myth.


So how did these words get there? There are two options:

1. The Mitanni kings were Indo-Iranians who conquered and ruled over Hurrian subjects (mainstream view). or

2. The Mitanni kings were locals but they borrowed culture and loanwords from their Indo-Iranian neighbours to their east. (6)

In either scenario, we should expect to see the genetic trail of the Indo-Iranians from the east toward Syria or western Iran latest by 1600BCE. This is the weakest link for the Kurgan theory because they should expect to see Sintashta Indo-Iranian genetic trail till western Iran. But nothing of this sort is to be seen. This is why 'steppe enthusiasts' jump at every opportunity and make crude models to prove the presence of minor at least some 3-4% Sintashta ancestry in the near east, to establish the link from Sintashta to Mitanni.

The latest data from Lazaridis et al 2022 (9) shows the presence of fresh Bactria Margiana Complex-related ancestry, along with minor IVC-related ancestry at Hasanlu Tepe and Dinkha Tepe. This inflow can clearly be seen in the 1500-1300BCE samples from this site, whereas it is completely absent in the 2000-1900BCE samples.

Hasanlu and Dinkha Tepe samples and their implications have been covered extensively in this post.



Right Pops for Kalash.SDG

Fixed Right (Only in reference, not tested as source):

Mbuti.DG, EHG, CHG, Marmara_Barcin_N, Tarim_EMBA1, WSHG, Iran_GanjDareh_N, ONG.SG, Mongolia_North_N, Serbia_IronGates_HG

Rotating Sources/References (Tested as source as well as kept in reference when not in source):

Nepal_Samdzong_1500BP.SG, Iran_BA1_ShahrISokhta, Tajikistan_Ksirov_Kushan, Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA_1, Kazakhstan_Kangju.SG, Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali, Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Sarazm_En, Irula.DG, Turkmenistan_IA, PAK_Loebanr_IA, Pakistan_Loebanr_IA_o, Pakistan_Aligrama_IA, PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H, PAK_Udegram_Medieval_Ghaznavid

Kalash.SDG Results here.


APPENDED: 3-Nov-2022

Updated models for the Megiddo outliers after adding viable Balkan sources in the rotating models.
Using the newer Harvard Allen dataset v52.2, so label names have changed a bit.

Fixed Right Sources: Mbuti.DG, EHG, CHG, WSHG, TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N, IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N, ONG.SG, MNG_North_N, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG, IRQ_PPN, PPN, ARM_Aknashen_N

Rotating Right Sources: RUS_Catacomb, IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA, TJK_Sarazm_EN, IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2, TUR_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA, IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B, IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A, IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B, IRN_Hasanlu_MBA, IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A, RUS_Sintashta_MLBA, ARM_Lchashen_LBA, ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA, UZB_Dzharkutan1_BA, BGR_NovaZagora_Yamnaya_EBA, BGR_Merichleri_MLBA, ISR_Canaanite_MLBA

Models for Megiddo Sister I2200

I2200 2 source models

With the addition of Arm_Trialeti_MBA, Bulgaria_Yamnaya, and Bulgaria_MLBA as sources, they are chosen as appropriate sources in the new rotating models. Both the sources selected in the original article (Catacomb & Lchashen_LBA) are also rejected in favour of these new sources. Sintashta is again rejected as a source.


Models for Megiddo Brother I2189

I2189 qpadm rotating models

Trialeti_MBA, Bulgaria_yamnaya, & Bulgaria_MLBA are again selected for the Megiddo brother. Two other sources are also selected - Sintashta and Catacomb, those can be rejected because the same models don't work for the sister.

Bulgarian sources can also explain R1a1a1 in this boy as I2183 Bulgaria_MLBA is also R1a1a1, and is close in date to the Megiddo site. Indeed, Bulgaria is also closer to Megiddo than north Kazakhstan.


Model for unrelated sample Megiddo_o2 I10100


I10100 qpadm models

2 source models do not cross the p threshold of 0.05 so 3 source models are required. Multiple steppe sources work for this sample, however, Arm_Trialeti DOES NOT work. If we want to find commonality with the other two Megiddo siblings, then perhaps we should be looking at Bulgaria_Yamnaya or Bulgaria_MLBA as the source for this sample as well. But this sample may be independent and have other combinations of ancestry as well, so the jury is still out. Whatever the case, this sample surely has excess South Central Asian ancestry that is not present in the Megiddo siblings. This excess SC Asian is contained in labels - Sarazm, Dzharkutan (BMAC), Dinkha_BIA_B, Hasanlu_LBA_A and Shahr_Sokhta_BA.

Link for all the new rotating models, Admixtools parameters used, and all the Sample Ids and data sources used are in Google Sheets here.





REFERENCES

(1) Skourtanioti E, Erdal YS, Frangipane M, et al. Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus. Cell. 2020;181(5):1158-1175.e28. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.044

(2) Shafiq R. Come and Hear My Story: The ’Well-Lady’ of Alalakh. In: Yener KA, Ingman T, editors. Alalakh and its Neighbors: Proceedings of the 15th Anniversary Symposium at the New Hatay Archaeology Museum, June 10–12, 2015. Leiden: Peeters; 2020. p. 433–52.

(3) Ingman T, Eisenmann S, Skourtanioti E, Akar M, Ilgner J, et al. (2021) Human mobility at Tell Atchana (Alalakh), Hatay, Turkey during the 2nd millennium BC: Integration of isotopic and genomic evidence. PLOS ONE 16(6): e0241883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241883

(4) Agranat-Tamir L, Waldman S, Martin MAS, et al. The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant. Cell. 2020;181(5):1146-1157.e11. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024

(5) Éadaoin Harney, Nick Patterson, David Reich, John Wakeley, Assessing the performance of qpAdm: a statistical tool for studying population admixture, Genetics, Volume 217, Issue 4, April 2021, iyaa045, https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyaa045

(6) von Dassow, E. (2014). Levantine polities under Mittanian hegemony. In Constituent, Confederate, and Conquered Space: The Emergence of the Mittani State (pp. 11-32). Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

(7) Witzel, Michael. (2019). Early ‘Aryans’ and their neighbours outside and inside India. Journal of Biosciences. 44. 10.1007/s12038-019-9881-7. 

(8) Benedetti, Giacomo. “Were the Mitanni Aryans really Indo-Aryans?” Were the Mitanni Aryans really Indo-Aryans?, 24 May 2017, http://new-indology.blogspot.com/2017/05/were-mitanni-really-indo-aryans.html. 

(9) Lazaridis, Iosif, et al. “The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia and Europe.” Science, vol. 377, no. 6609, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4247.

(10) Talageri, Shrikant. “Two Papers by the Renowned Indologist P.E.Dumont.” Two Papers by the Renowned Indologist P.E.Dumont, 7 May 2016, https://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/two-papers-by-renowned-indologist.html. 

(11) K, Ashish. “David Anthony, Michael Witzel, Asko Parpola & the Potapovka Horse Head Burial Hoax.”, 14 Dec. 2021, https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2021/12/potapovka-horsehead-hoax.html. 

(12) DIAKONOFF, I. M. (1996). Pre-Median Indo-Iranian Tribes in Northern Iran? Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 10, 11–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24048881

(13)  Éadaoin Harney, Nick Patterson, David Reich, John Wakeley, Assessing the performance of qpAdm: a statistical tool for studying population admixture, Genetics, Volume 217, Issue 4, April 2021, iyaa045, https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyaa045

34 comments:

  1. The model with RUS_MLBA_Sintashta as source fails for I2200 but passes for her brother I2189 while the model with RUS_Steppe_Catacomb as source passes for both.

    All RUS_Steppe_Catacomb samples belong to chrY R1b-Z2103+ clades while the male outlier from Tel Meggido, I2189 (brother of I2200) belongs to chrY R1a-M417+ clade. How do you explain this discrepancy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "As for the Megiddo outliers, there is no context suggesting that they were Mitanni"

    In your previous post "The Southern Arc paper and it's data upends the Steppe Theory in multiple ways", your proposition was that Mitanni elements can be explained by IVC/Swat ancestry at Hasanlu, but the burials in which those samples were found weren't of elites either. So how can Mitanni elements be explained by presence of IVC/Swat ancestry in locals of iron age Hasanlu? If that's what was intended, IVC/Swat (alleged Indo-Aryan carrier) should've been found in samples from burials of the elite.

    ReplyDelete
  3. R1a was already resent in the Caucasus region, you can find it in 3100bce steppe-Maykop outlier SA6013 who has additional Caucasus ancestry but no steppe_MLBA ancestry.

    Apart from this, 2 yamnaya related R1b1a1b's (R1b-M269) have been found at Israel_mlba itself signaling contacts with Caucasus, however their autosomal ancestry doesnt betray any appreciable steppe autosomal ancestry IIRC. So, autosomal and uniparental markers can and often do get delinked, Lazaridis 2022 shows as much.

    Y-hgs actually move between populations, that's no mystery. We found 2 I2 samples in Swat valley but none at sintashta/andronovo, does this mean steppe ancestry is from west europe? of course not. There must be unsampled I2's at andronovo. Similarly, there must be be unsampled R1a's in the caucasus region.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Legend
    "As for the Megiddo outliers, there is no context suggesting that they were Mitanni"

    " your proposition was that Mitanni elements can be explained by IVC/Swat ancestry at Hasanlu, but the burials in which those samples were found weren't of elites either. So how can Mitanni elements be explained by presence of IVC/Swat ancestry in locals of iron age Hasanlu? If that's what was intended, IVC/Swat (alleged Indo-Aryan carrier) should've been found in samples from burials of the elite."

    Point 1: There is a clear difference between the archaeology at Megiddo/Alalakh vs Hasanlu. There is absolutely nothing there at the time period of those samples to provide us any Mitanni context. Whereas at Hasanlu, as I have shown through HP Francfort, the Hasanlu bowl has probable Mitanni elements on it.

    Point 2: We have no definite Mitanni grave, but we know that by 1600BCE Indo-Iranians must reach at least to the east of Syria. Now which ancestries were moving towards Syria at the time? The answer is BMAC related ancestry. Plus maybe minor IVC related.

    So, either of these 2 ancestries is responsible for the I-Ir elements at Mitanni, and for the Iranization of west Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  5. According to Shrikanth Talageri, the Mittani language was not pre rig Vedic but contemporary to the later mandalas of the rig veda . Meaning Mittani’s must have migrated out of India after the “aryans” established themselves in India.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @vAsiSTha Correct, I was just asking about the presence of R1a cuz if Sintashta was actually the correct source it would've gotten accepted by the higher coverage sister.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @vAsiSTha But wasn't Mitanni involved in the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC)?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hope you don't mind my spamming but after reading the sources cited in your blogs, I have tons of queries 😓. In your previous post "The Southern Arc paper and it's data upends the Steppe Theory in multiple ways", you concluded that Iranians arrived into western Iran from BMAC (by bridging two different theories by two different scholars).

    1. T. C. Young's theory- Iranians arrive in western Iran during the Iron Age I period (ca. 1300/1250 to 1000 BCE) and we see archeological continuity till the Iron Age II period (ca. 1000 to 800 BCE) & the Iron Age III period (ca. 750 to 550 BCE).

    2. Viktor Sarianidi's theory- Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex is the Proto-Iranian homeland.

    We know that BMAC lasted for about half a millennium (ca. 2250–1700 BC) until its decline (ca. 1700–1500 BC). In your qpAdm modelling, BMAC already scores significant ancestry (36.4% ± 1.9%) in IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B. Since this is an evidence of migration of population from mature BMAC (Iranian, according to Sarianidi) towards western Iran we should've started observing Iranian penetration since 1800 BCE only, no? But we don't see this so maybe Sarianidi's theory has issues?

    Now, let's talk about T. C. Young's theory. According to him, Iranians initiate the Iron I tradition (ca. 1300/1250 to 1000 BCE) which means we should see external ancestry arriving in this period and not before that. But for Hasanlu_IA, you for some reason "prefer the Hasanlu_LBA_A + Hasanlu_LBA_B model as it requires no external ancestry". If we accept a model in which a foreign source isn't present, it actually means that Iranians (BMAC, acc. to Sarianidi) didn't arrive during Iron Age I period at Hasanlu at least. The fact that there is no external ancestry in IRN_Hasanlu_IA, disproves T. C. Young's theory of Iranian arrival in Iron Age I period instead of confirming it and therefore it can't bridge it with Sarianidi's theory.

    Do let me know if there's any issue in my inference of data presented in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @legend

    "@vAsiSTha But wasn't Mitanni involved in the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC)?" They were. Thats 1500-1400bce.

    But the Megiddo outlier samples are dated earlier. So no apparent relation.
    "...whereas the bone of one of the three (I10100) was directly dated (1688–1535 BCE, ± 2S)"

    "We know that BMAC lasted for about half a millennium (ca. 2250–1700 BC) until its decline (ca. 1700–1500 BC). In your qpAdm modelling, BMAC already scores significant ancestry (36.4% ± 1.9%) in IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B. Since this is an evidence of migration of population from mature BMAC (Iranian, according to Sarianidi) towards western Iran we should've started observing Iranian penetration since 1800 BCE only, no? But we don't see this so maybe Sarianidi's theory has issues?"

    I don't understand. Why is it necessary to see BMAC people in west Iran since 1800BCE? Just because BMAC was declining? That does not make sense to me. BMAC might have declined, but various settlements remained with similar ancestry. Eg. check Bustan, parkhai, sumbar samples.

    In any case, we do see 1 Dinkha sample (13912) dated to around 1800bce with same BMAC ancestry like the later 1400-1000BCE Dinkha_B samples. If the carbon date is correct, then this person is an outlier among the other Dinkha samples (Dinkha_A) from similar date who have continuity from Neolithic ancestry. We also see that at Hasanlu_LBA, 1 of the 2 samples is like a local (same ancestry as Hasanlu_MBA 2000bce) whereas the other Hasanalu_LBA_A is almost a BMAC person. So clearly, a homogenous population had not been formed by then at Hasanlu.

    But the Dinkha_B samples from 1400-1000bce, all of them show a clear BMAC shift. So by 1200bce, Dinkha population was likely homogenous. Earliest of these has a carbon date of 1411-1274 calBCE.

    "Now, let's talk about T. C. Young's theory. According to him, Iranians initiate the Iron I tradition (ca. 1300/1250 to 1000 BCE) which means we should see external ancestry arriving in this period and not before that. But for Hasanlu_IA, you for some reason "prefer the Hasanlu_LBA_A + Hasanlu_LBA_B model as it requires no external ancestry". If we accept a model in which a foreign source isn't present, it actually means that Iranians (BMAC, acc. to Sarianidi) didn't arrive during Iron Age I period at Hasanlu at least. The fact that there is no external ancestry in IRN_Hasanlu_IA, disproves T. C. Young's theory of Iranian arrival in Iron Age I period instead of confirming it and therefore it can't bridge it with Sarianidi's theory."

    This is not an issue. 1496-1323 calBCE is the date for LBA_B which has local ancestry. 1400bce as average.

    Hasanlu_LBA_A is the proxy for the external ancestry coming into Hasanlu. This sample is carbon dated to 1425-1284 calBCE (3095±25 BP, PSUAMS-1948). So 1350bce on avg. He has 50-60% ancestry from Sarazm/BMAC/Shahr-Sokhta. His Y hg is from Geoksyur and Gonur.

    Now obviously, he is not the ancestor of all the Hasanlu_IA samples (hasanlu_IA has a lot of R1bs). So we can assume that the mixing between local Hasanlu folk (LBA_B) and LBA_A kind of ancestry occurred between 1400 and 1000BCE or close to produce people like Hasanlu_IA. This is perfectly compatible with the start of Iron Age I at Hasanlu.
    We have no samples between 1750 & 1450bce from these 2 sites.

    Most importantly, so as not to miss the forest for the trees - is that

    1. By 1600BCE, at least some Indo Iranians had made way into Syria (Mitanni evidence).
    The only ancestry moving west at this time is seen in the 1881-1693 calBCE
    Dinkha_B BMAC pulled sample and the ~1550BCE Alalakh well lady (even though she likely is not a Mitanni herself)

    2. by 900bce at the very latest as per Assyrian tablets, Iranians are near their kingdom. Which external ancestry corresponds to that? Certainly not Sintashta.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I started a blog, its gonna be OIT I guess

    Here is the first post
    https://paraneolithic.wordpress.com/2022/09/20/why-the-ancient-dna-field-is-wrong-about-so-much-admixture-vs-drift/

    Hope you dont mind me posting this here..

    ReplyDelete
  11. @vAsiSTha
    "They were. Thats 1500-1400bce."

    Yes, what I actually mean is that it wouldn't be surprising if Mitanni elite sample is found there as they were an established state by 1600 BCE.

    "Why is it necessary to see BMAC people in west Iran since 1800BCE?"

    It's got nothing to do with decline of BMAC, but with mature BMAC. The oldest IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B sample (I3912) is dated to 1881-1693 calBCE. I used your final model (Dinkha_A + BMAC + Yamnaya) on him-

    Target: IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B:I3912
    Distance: 2.4159% / 0.02415911
    54.6 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
    42.8 UZB_Bustan_BA
    2.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

    T. C. Young regards the old ceramic traditions getting literally cut off, and new ones being introduced in Iron Age I period as evidence of arrival of a new population i.e. Iranians. As mature BMAC is Iranian acc. to Sarianidi and I3912 has 40% BMAC ancestry, Dinkha Tepe should've started being Iranianized few decades or centuries prior to what I3912 is dated (1881-1693 calBCE, avg. 1787 BCE), right? But archeological record from Dinkha Tepe doesn't tell any such tale as we observe no cultural break & introduction of new ceramic traditions as we observe in Hasanlu V, Sialk V and Giyan 1⁴-I³ with appearance of Iron I grey ware and an almost complete truncation of earlier painted pottery traditions at those sites. We don't see any evidence of Iranian culture in Dinkha Tepe either like we see in BMAC (as per Sarianidi)...

    "Hasanlu_LBA_A is the proxy for the external ancestry coming into Hasanlu. This sample is carbon dated to 1425-1284 calBCE (3095±25 BP, PSUAMS-1948). So 1350bce on avg. He has 50-60% ancestry from Sarazm/BMAC/Shahr-Sokhta."

    Actually I tried to replicate your rotating models on Hasanlu_LBA_A with these three ancestries being representative of an external ancestry and IRN_Hasanlu_MBA as local ancestry. Sarazm is a chalcolithic population, so I don't think it even makes sense to use it as source. But yeah these are my results-

    Sarazm fails with BMAC and SiSBA1 on right
    BMAC fails with Sarazm and SiSBA1 on right
    SiSBA1 fails with Sarazm and BMAC on right

    They all fail, even though I've used your fixed reference populations.

    "So we can assume that the mixing between local Hasanlu folk (LBA_B) and LBA_A kind of ancestry occurred between 1400 and 1000BCE or close to produce people like Hasanlu_IA. This is perfectly compatible with the start of Iron Age I at Hasanlu."

    Neither BMAC nor Shahr-i-Sokhta_BA1 pass as external source for Hasanlu_LBA_B though.

    "2. by 900bce at the very latest as per Assyrian tablets, Iranians are near their kingdom. Which external ancestry corresponds to that? Certainly not Sintashta."

    Agreed, Sintashta is nowhere to be found.

    Let me summarize my thoughts-

    1. Significant BMAC ancestry arrives at Dinkha Tepe by 1881-1693 calBCE (avg. 1787 BCE) but the Iranian cultural package doesn't arrive as it should've (BMAC = Proto-Iranian as per Sarianidi).

    2. Iranians i.e. external ancestry should arrive in Iron Age I period (ca. 1300/1250 to 1000 BCE) at Hasanlu according to T. C. Young (cultural break and introduction of new pottery traditions). Hasanlu_LBA_B is a proxy for external ancestry but it can't be modelled with BMAC or Shahr-i-Sokhta_BA1 as external source.

    I hope this sums everything up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @vAsiSTha Okay something very bizarre happened when I ran the 6 models which passed with your rotation script. I just decided to keep Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA & IRN_Hasanlu_MBA in the reference population list to see what happens.

    Only 1/6 actually passes-

    ARM_Masis_Blur_N + Tajikistan_C_Sarazm passes

    Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN + Tajikistan_C_Sarazm fails
    Iran_HajjiFiruz_N + Tajikistan_C_Sarazm fails
    Tajikistan_C_Sarazm + Israel_C fails
    Tajikistan_C_Sarazm + IRN_Hasanlu_MBA fails
    Russia_Steppe_Maikop + Iran_C_SehGabi fails

    So I guess there are issues with the script? Because the table shows very high p-values and I can't get them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Legend

    There's no problem with my script. You use only fixed references in the right pops, whereas the other rotating sources not in the left should also be added to the right as per the rotating model. That's how you make competing sources compete directly against each other.

    So, you're not replicating my work. You're making your own models. Proper rotating qpAdm models are always superior to fixed reference models (especially with neolithic references). Below, I replicate the settings from my Southern Arc post.

    For example:

    Here's the output for Hasanlu_LBA_B = Hasanlu_MBA, p-value 0.59

    Similarly, here is the passing output for Hasanlu_LBA_A.
    Hasanlu_LBA_A = Hasanlu_MBA + Sarazm, p-value 0.16


    If you use the settings that I have used, you can replicate each of the output of my South Arc post.


    Your final comments.

    "1. Significant BMAC ancestry arrives at Dinkha Tepe by 1881-1693 calBCE (avg. 1787 BCE) but the Iranian cultural package doesn't arrive as it should've (BMAC = Proto-Iranian as per Sarianidi).

    2. Iranians i.e. external ancestry should arrive in Iron Age I period (ca. 1300/1250 to 1000 BCE) at Hasanlu according to T. C. Young (cultural break and introduction of new pottery traditions). Hasanlu_LBA_B is a proxy for external ancestry but it can't be modelled with BMAC or Shahr-i-Sokhta_BA1 as external source."

    1. BMAC ancestry is seen at 1800bce Dinkha, but it is 1 outlier sample. Rest of the 5 samples at that time are local. So there is no reason to expect BMAC pottery at that time as no significant influx of people is seen.

    2. Hasanlu_LBA_B is not a proxy for external ancestry, it is local. Hasanlu_LBA_A is the proxy, and I have shown that it has external ancestry from Sarazm (above and also in Southern Arc post). Also, the Y haplogroup of Hasanlu_LBA_A J1a2a1b1a
    is only found at Geoksyur (4 samples) and Gonur (1 sample). So it definitely is from Oxus region.

    Wrt to Shahr-Sokhta, it was not part of my southern arc post at all. I did a second rotating run on Hasanlu_LBA_A due to a debate on Eurogenes few days back. This time reducing some extra references and adding Shahr Sokhta.

    Here are the results which again validate that of my Southern Arc post. Gonur and ShahrSokhta barely pass, but Sarazm passes with good pvalues.
    Google sheet results

    To replicate these, please use the settings that I have used and what is described in Harney et al 2021. All the competing sources MUST be added to the right pops.

    For example, when there are 20 labels used, 1 of them is outgroup and 1 of them is target. We are left with 18 potential sources. In a 2 source model, we will have 18C2 number of models, the left list will have 3 labels while the right list will have 1 outgroup + 16 references = 17 labels. 17+3=20.

    18C2 = 153 models, these take a lot of time to run even if from qpfstats output. Since I wanted proximal models only, so I barred neolithic pops from being used as sources (they still stay in references). Eg. ONG, CHG, IranN, EHG, Serbia_Irongates, Tarim_EMBA, PPN were used only as references, but not in source.

    This saves time as now only 11C2 = 55 models have to be evaluated.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Legend

    I also tested your simple model with small right pop list. Only difference is IRQ_PPN instead of PPN and Sapalli Tepe instead of Bustan. It works just fine.

    Hasanlu_LBA_A = Hasanlu_MBA + Sarazm, p-value=0.08
    Output File

    Looking at the generated dstats, I see that there is a problem with too less Onge ancestry. eg
    gendstat: ONG.SG Iran_BA1_ShahrISokhta 3.050

    Thats too much ShahrSokhta and too less Onge, Zstats are big causing a p-value fall. So I decided to add a 3rd IVC source.

    left pops:
    IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A

    IRN_Hasanlu_MBA: 47.6% +- 3.9
    Tajikistan_C_Sarazm: 39% +- 6.4
    IVCp: 13.4% +- 5.5
    P-value: 0.30
    Output file


    That Sarazm is a chalcolithic population is not a good argument. That region along with east iran, afghanistan, pakistan and India is one of the most poorly sampled regions of the world. You don't know where that ancestry survived. It was not as if I wanted that outcome, Sarazm was one of the rotating sources and it turns out that it just works.

    Many modern Indians - like Rors & Kalash still need Sarazm to model them. I modeled a person with Pandit/Khatri parents a few days back, their model would not pass without Sarazm as source. So should we stop using Sarazm as a source? of course not.

    Here's the output for the Pandit/Khatri mix individual

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am not sure if you take seriously grottochronology, but this paper puts proto Indo Iranian at the middle of the 4th millenium. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2020-0060/html?lang=en

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mitanni contains forms that are closer to Nursitani. But that would take too much time to write an article about it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Very interesting Daniel. Because Kalash also need Sarazm ancestry, and Im seeing the need for a Sarazm source everywhere in these west iranian and alalakh, megiddo samples. Can you provide a source?

    Also, thanks for the grotto-chronology paper.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Legend

    You can use admixtools2 on R. They also have a fast qpadm_rotate function.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Added the following to the article.

    The third option of proto-Nuristani is supported by Diakonoff(1996)(12). Based on some of the Mitanni words like 'sattawartanna' and other loanwords found in Akkadian texts, Diakonoff concludes:

    "If so, this suggests a presence of proto-Dardic tribes not only in Mitanni but also in northeastern Iran at an early epoch (say, from the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. to ca. the ninth century B.C.E.)

    We have tried to show that linguistic data seem to point to the possibility that ancient Iran could have been invaded by earlier Indo-Iranian Dardo-Nuristani tribes before the arrival of Iranian-speaking tribes, that is, the Medes, about the middle of the second millennium B.C.E."

    The Nuristani option is interesting because Kalash need to be modelled with Sarazm as a source (upcoming analysis), and Sarazm is the ancestry we see all over these West Asian outliers (Alalakh 'well lady' and Megiddo I10100), and also at Hasanlu.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @vAsiSTha I mean you're relying on a possibility that Sarazm survived unadmixed. Now that's not a convincing argument, is it? And if you want to confirm that BMAC people are the Iranians which introduce Iron Age I ceramic traditions according to T. C. Young, you have to show that BMAC is the external ancestry in Hasanlu_LBA_A. But BMAC fails as the source for Hasanlu_LBA_A (output) even without Sarazm or Shahr-i-Sokhta_BA1 in the reference population list. Even if Sarazm passes it doesn't serve your purpose anyway, right?

    "1. BMAC ancestry is seen at 1800bce Dinkha, but it is 1 outlier sample. Rest of the 5 samples at that time are local. So there is no reason to expect BMAC pottery at that time as no significant influx of people is seen."

    Actually what we see is that I3912 [1881-1693 calBCE(avg. 1787 BCE)] is younger than the youngest sample in Dinkha_A cluster [I4274: 1890-1749 calBCE(avg. 1820 BCE)], and identical to all Dinkha_B samples. What does this suggest? That BMAC must've arrived between 1820-1787 BCE and we get a homogenous Dinkha_B cluster (click here) ...

    "That region along with east iran, afghanistan, pakistan and India is one of the most poorly sampled regions of the world."

    Sure, but BMAC sites aren't poorly sampled. Sarazm surely doesn't survive at BMAC sites so it can't bring Iranian cultural package right? You have to show that Iranians arrive from BMAC to connect and confirm Sarianidi & T. C. Young's theories.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Alalakh 'Well Lady' ALA019 is from Gedrosia region as an origin not from Central Asia, this case also applied to many BMAC remains, They have genetic affinity to the Gedrosian modern population.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Legend

    Lol.
    I have shown everything. If Sarazm doesn't float your boat because of your silly stuckup ness, there are various 3 source models with Gonur and Shahr-Sokhta which work for Hasanlu_LBA_A, and none of them use any steppe_mlba related ancestry. The Y_hg for LBA_A is from Gonur. Some IVC ancestry works too.

    I have now run 4000 rotating models with n= 1 to 8 for hasanlu_LBA_A on admixtools. How about you do that first before commenting with any confidence?

    "You have to show that Iranians arrive from BMAC to connect and confirm Sarianidi & T. C. Young's theories."

    Right, next you will ask me to record their spoken language on video. Lmao.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Various 3 source models which work for Hasanlu_LBA_A.
    https://imgur.com/a/Stn88OH

    ReplyDelete
  24. @legend

    "Actually what we see is that I3912 [1881-1693 calBCE(avg. 1787 BCE)] is younger than the youngest sample in Dinkha_A cluster [I4274: 1890-1749 calBCE(avg. 1820 BCE)], and identical to all Dinkha_B samples. What does this suggest? That BMAC must've arrived between 1820-1787 BCE and we get a homogenous Dinkha_B cluster"

    There is 1 sample I3911 dated archaeologically to 2000-1000BCE. I3912 is nothing but an outlier.

    2012-1775 calBCE (3555±25 BP, PSUAMS-1944)
    1919-1747 calBCE (3510±25 BP, PSUAMS-2985)
    1895-1749 calBCE (3510±20 BP, PSUAMS-2957)
    1890-1749 calBCE (3505±20 BP, PSUAMS-3119)
    1881-1693 calBCE (3465±25 BP, PSUAMS-1943)

    These are the 5 Dinkha_A dates, the last one is for I3912. What sort of statistic tells you that the last one is younger than the others? What is the confidence level of that assertion mathematically? The lower ranges of the top 4 are 100-130yrs younger than the higher range of I3912.

    Especially the 3 and 4th are almost same as the 5th one, just that SE is higher for the last.

    I3912 is an outlier, and to make the conclusion that a swarm of BMAC people came before 1800bce is too much of a reach, especially when at Hasanlu 1350BCE we find 1/2 samples which is a local with MBA ancestry and another who is almost a BMAC person, who looks like a recent migrant.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is the second time I try to post the links. I guess it was blocked before because I posted directly to the sci hub.

    On Some Supposed Indo-Iranian Glosses in Cuneiform Languages
    I. M. DIAKONOFF

    Pre-Median Indo-Iranian Tribes in Northern Iran?
    I. M. DIAKONOFF

    ReplyDelete
  26. @danirl thanks

    @Gedrosia
    "The Alalakh 'Well Lady' ALA019 is from Gedrosia region as an origin not from Central Asia, this case also applied to many BMAC remains, They have genetic affinity to the Gedrosian modern population."

    Gedrosia= baloch region? If so, yes shahr-sokhta has affinity to the 'well lady'

    ReplyDelete
  27. @vAsiSTha
    “Gedrosia= baloch region? If so, yes shahr-sokhta has affinity to the 'well lady'”

    It’s seeming you are generalizing your statement without giving an exact conclusion. Shahr I Sokhta!?
    Shahr-I-Sokhta BA1 = Gedrosian
    Shahr-I-Sokhta BA2 = ANI/IvcP

    https://s4.gifyu.com/images/The-Lady-from-Central-Asia3ce1559cd8b5f362.jpg
    https://genoplot.com/shared/g25/?share=Gedrosian/183696355f3#1

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yeah Shahr-Sokhta BA1 is what I meant. Though SiS_BA1 also has 15% ancestry from SiSBA2.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Language-Tree Divergence Times Support the Anatolian Theory of Indo-European Origin
    December 2003Nature 426(6965):435-9

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry was kind of busy due to university.

    "What sort of statistic tells you that the last one is younger than the others?"

    Not any statistic but the fact that his profile is completely identical to that of the younger samples suggests that.

    "I3912 is an outlier, and to make the conclusion that a swarm of BMAC people came before 1800bce is too much of a reach, especially when at Hasanlu 1350BCE we find 1/2 samples which is a local with MBA ancestry and another who is almost a BMAC person, who looks like a recent migrant."

    Don't you think NW Iran's samples can't be used to infer things like that? It could also be that a ancestry that is found as 1 site doesn't affect the other one that significantly. For example, Hajji_Firuz_BA has 50% Catacomb ancestry but Hasanlu_MBA which is just a few centuries young can be modelled as Hajji_Firuz_BA + Israel_C + SehGabi_C or Aknashen_N + Hajji_Firuz_BA/Yamnaya_Samara with Steppe input being very low.

    "there are various 3 source models with Gonur and Shahr-Sokhta which work for Hasanlu_LBA_A, and none of them use any steppe_mlba related ancestry. The Y_hg for LBA_A is from Gonur. Some IVC ancestry works too."

    But if that's the case, why would you bat on Sarazm rather than on the population which Sarianidi proposes to be Iranian? That threw me off lol. Well, I never said Steppe_MLBA arrived because Lazaridis et al. 2022 categorically rejected it. I'd say you should consider 3 source models over Sarazm model.

    Also, I finally found a way to rotate models on Admixtools2 without giving weights. But there's a problem with normal qpAdm run, I cannot see gendstat on it. Have you encountered the same problem?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'Why do you bat on sarazm than on bmac'
    Because it just works better on qpAdm. That takes precedence over whatever minor biases I may have.

    If bmac is iranian, then sarazm has to be indo European as well because bmac, shahr-sokhta etc descend from those oxus eneolithic cultures. Furthermore, in my latest post i have also shown that the southern ancestry in khvalynsk and steppe eneolithic is from a sarazm like population (but older).

    Yea gendstats is a problem in admixtools2.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Updated the Kalash model in the post, this time using all snps (1155k) instead of Transversion SNPs only (228k).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Appended new rotating models for the 3 Megiddo outliers to the end of the article.

    Turns out that Bulgaria_yamnaya and Bulgaria_MLBA (R1a1a) samples are also good sources for the 3 outliers.

    ReplyDelete

No censorship unless spam