[1] "distance%=0.2912 / distance=0.002912" |
|
Kura-Araxes_Kalavan
|
|
CHG 54.0
|
Barcin_N 28.6
|
Abdul_Hosein_N 11.2
|
Natufian 6.2
|
But isn't Kalavan (2619-2465 B.C.) a bit too late to be a good proxy for the population that probably mixed with more Levantine-like people (Afro-Asiatic only makes sense, compared with all the African branches, if it came from the Levant and ultimately Natufian) and started to spread Proto-Semitic dialects? Proto-Semitic is dated to before ~3500 B.C. By ~2500 B.C. the Akkadians, already a specifically East Semitic branch, were already well known by the Sumerians and lived to their north and northwest. I assume the bulk of the ethnogenesis of that BA Levant population would've happened before Akkadians appear in the historic record, maybe even before 3000 B.C.
I keep getting a necessary mix of Iranian_Chalcolithic+CHG
(maybe a much more CHG-enriched population with a lot of Iranian_Neolithic too?) as the main if I use only Chalcolithic and Neolithic samples, assuming that the Proto-Semitic-speaking population was already pretty much formed. Kalavan doesn't seem to fit that (too little Iran_Neo). Whatever, I guess that a so-called "very CHG-enriched population related to Iranian_Chalcolithic" would end up looking quite similar to Armenia_Kalavan, maybe just a bit more Iranian-like, so we both may be finding similar results in fact. Another population south of Armenia, closer to Upper Mesopotamia (and also to the Zagros) would fit that scenario perfectly. I just think we haven't found "the" right population
(not that many samples from the Chalcolithic and EBA in that region) that introgressed into a much more Levant_Neo/Natufian-like population as it moved to the flatlands and formed the Proto-Semitic and early Semitic tribes which later contributed to other populations of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia.
Using 10 dimensions
(and I did include Armenia_Chl, Maykop, Hajji_Firuz_Chl and others):
[1] "distance%=0.2386 / distance=0.002386"
|
|
Levant_BA_South
|
|
Levant_ChL 38.85
|
Natufian 24.35
|
Seh_Gabi_ChL 18.90
|
CHG 10.55 |
Levant_N 7.35 |
Using more proximate 25 dimensions
(often less reliable and realistic in my opinion, so I don't take its results too seriously), in one model adding EMBA Kalavan and in the other, not:
[1] "distance%=2.6335 / distance=0.026335"
|
|
Levant_BA_South
|
|
Levant_ChL 84.75
|
Tepe_Hissar_ChL 14.00
|
Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 1.25
|
[1] "distance%=2.2745 / distance=0.022745"
Levant_BA_South
Levant_ChL 23.7
Natufian 23.6
Seh_Gabi_ChL 21.6
Levant_N 20.9
Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 10.3
*** NOW WITHOUT KALAVAN...***
[1] "distance%=2.6339 / distance=0.026339"
Levant_BA_South
Levant_ChL 85.1
Tepe_Hissar_ChL 14.9
[1] "distance%=2.6727 / distance=0.026727"
Levant_BA_South
Levant_ChL 86.8
Namazga_Eneolithic 13.2
*** By the way, Tepe Hissar was like this, still mostly Iranian_Neolithic:
[1] "distance%=0.3705 / distance=0.003705"
Tepe_Hissar_ChL
Abdul_Hosein_N 72.8
Barcin_N 14.3
CHG 12.8
Let's not forget that much of the Levant was under Hurrian rule, but that was much later in the MLBA, nonetheless what matters is that it's possible that this CHG/Iranian input may have come with different ethnicities from different places, not all of it with the "primordial" Caucasus/Iran+Levant Semitic-speaking expansion that defined the post-BA Levant linguistically and culturally.