David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

[Anfänger]

Lecture by Prof. David Reich - "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe" - "The lecture will be held at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies at 11am on Tuesday, 12 July 2022."

"We present an integrative genetic history of the Southern Arc, an area divided geographically between West Asia and Europe, but which we define as spanning the culturally entangled regions of Anatolia and its neighbors, in both Europe (Aegean and the Balkans), and in West Asia (Cyprus, Armenia, the Levant, Iraq and Iran). We employ a new analytical framework to analyze genome-wide data at the individual level from a total of 1,320 ancient individuals, 731 of which are newly reported and address major gaps in the archaeogenetic record. We report the first ancient DNA from the world’s earliest farming cultures of southeastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia, as well as the first Neolithic period data from Cyprus and Armenia, and discover that it was admixture of Natufian-related ancestry from the Levant—mediated by Mesopotamian and Levantine farmers, and marked by at least two expansions associated with dispersal of pre-pottery and pottery cultures—that generated a pan-West Asian Neolithic continuum. Our comprehensive sampling shows that Anatolia received hardly any genetic input from Europe or the Eurasian steppe from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age; this contrasts with Southeastern Europe and Armenia that were impacted by major gene flow from Yamnaya steppe pastoralists.

In the Balkans, we reveal a patchwork of Bronze Age populations with diverse proportions of steppe ancestry in the aftermath of the ~3000 BCE Yamnaya migrations, paralleling the linguistic diversity of Paleo-Balkan speakers. We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos.

A striking signal of steppe migration into the Southern Arc is evident in Armenia and northwest Iran where admixture with Yamnaya patrilineal descendants occurred, coinciding with their 3rd millennium BCE displacement from the steppe itself. This ancestry, pervasive across numerous sites of Armenia of ~2000-600 BCE, was diluted during the ensuing centuries to only a third of its peak value, making no further western inroads from there into any part of Anatolia, including the geographically adjacent Lake Van center of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu. The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal. The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."



Link: https://iias.huji.ac.il/event/david-reich-lecture

[kingjohn]

Huge!!!!!!

Indeed should be interesting paper
When it will be published
Anyway
Davidski is a fighter is going to attack mode
Already even before the lecture

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/...eople.html?m=1

[Palermo Trapani]

Lecture by Prof. David Reich - "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe" - "The lecture will be held at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies at 11am on Tuesday, 12 July 2022."

"We present an integrative genetic history of the Southern Arc, an area divided geographically between West Asia and Europe, but which we define as spanning the culturally entangled regions of Anatolia and its neighbors, in both Europe (Aegean and the Balkans), and in West Asia (Cyprus, Armenia, the Levant, Iraq and Iran). We employ a new analytical framework to analyze genome-wide data at the individual level from a total of 1,320 ancient individuals, 731 of which are newly reported and address major gaps in the archaeogenetic record. We report the first ancient DNA from the world’s earliest farming cultures of southeastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia, as well as the first Neolithic period data from Cyprus and Armenia, and discover that it was admixture of Natufian-related ancestry from the Levant—mediated by Mesopotamian and Levantine farmers, and marked by at least two expansions associated with dispersal of pre-pottery and pottery cultures—that generated a pan-West Asian Neolithic continuum. Our comprehensive sampling shows that Anatolia received hardly any genetic input from Europe or the Eurasian steppe from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age; this contrasts with Southeastern Europe and Armenia that were impacted by major gene flow from Yamnaya steppe pastoralists.

In the Balkans, we reveal a patchwork of Bronze Age populations with diverse proportions of steppe ancestry in the aftermath of the ~3000 BCE Yamnaya migrations, paralleling the linguistic diversity of Paleo-Balkan speakers. We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos.

A striking signal of steppe migration into the Southern Arc is evident in Armenia and northwest Iran where admixture with Yamnaya patrilineal descendants occurred, coinciding with their 3rd millennium BCE displacement from the steppe itself. This ancestry, pervasive across numerous sites of Armenia of ~2000-600 BCE, was diluted during the ensuing centuries to only a third of its peak value, making no further western inroads from there into any part of Anatolia, including the geographically adjacent Lake Van center of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu. The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal. The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."



Link: https://iias.huji.ac.il/event/david-reich-lecture

Anfanger: Thanks for the the abstract. Wow as others have noted, this is going to be a really interesting paper using 1,320 ancient Genomes, 731 newly reported. Some questions I am "personally" interested in on different levels. 1) There is some ancient Mesopotamian Genomes. So, with these ancient individuals, hopefully some of them will be from the period around 3300-3000 BC to give us some insight on the Ancient Sumerians, since they are the first peoples with a written record/text and thus considered the first known civilization with writings dated as far back to 3,500 BC. So it is possible that this new paper will give us the first insight on what the genetics of the ancient Sumerians were. 2) The fact that there was no difference in Steppe ancestry among the elite and non-elite Myceneans. I remember when Lazaridis et al 2014 " Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" was first published, the findings related to those 19 ancient Greeks were not well received by certain segments of the blogging and internet community. I personally get some "relatively" close distances from some of those ancient Greek samples and while I have a significant Steppe component, about 20.5% using Jovialis K8 model which I think is very accurate for modelling moderns who have 100% of their ancestry from what is today modern Italy, it is not my dominate component which is Minoan related per Jovialis K8 model (about 72%). The lack of Steppe ancestry in those ancient 19 Greek samples was attributed to the fact that it was likely the result of those 19 samples (the Mycenean ones in particular) being non-elite/commoners. This new Reich study seems to corroborate what Lazaridis et al 2014 found. I would think that the new Reich paper has a team of top notch researchers from a archeology to clearly identity the ancient individuals from elite and non-elite burial sites.

3) By extension, we don't see the Republican Romans having predominate Steppe ancestry either, they significant amounts yes (30-40%), but not majority, and Republican Romans do show some variation and approximate modern Mediterranean Europeans (Antonio et al 2019 Figure 1) ranging from Iberia to Southern France to Italy. For example, I am really close to R437 from Antonio et al 2019, the most Southern Italian Shifted Republican Roman. I saw some chatter among the Internet/blogging community similar to the chatter related to the Ancient Greeks regarding the Republican Romans reported in Antonio et al 2019 suggesting that the 11 Republicans might all be from among the non-elites.


Of course, there may be some who will argue that the lack of a significant difference between these new ancient genomes from Greece between elites and non-elites (related to Steppe ancestry) might not be the case in other archeological sites that have not yet been found or sites that have been dug but the samples have yet to be analyzed. That might be true, but the more evidence from ancient Genomes from ancient Greece that show no significant differences between ancient Greek elites and non-elites regarding Steppe ancestry makes it more and more likely that this is the case all over ancient Greece.

[Jovialis]

Highly interested in hearing the lecture.

But what does this mean for Paleolithic Georgia samples?

[kingjohn]

A striking signal of steppe migration into the Southern Arc is evident in Armenia and northwest Iran where admixture with Yamnaya patrilineal descendants occurredcoinciding with their 3rd millennium BCE displacement from the steppe itself.
I think we are going to see some r1b-z2103
(The yamnaya r1b version if i am not wrong here)
In north west iran and armenian sites

P.s
Jovialis i hope there will be some leaks
About this lecture at least in twitter

[Vallicanus]

Anfanger: Thanks for the the abstract. Wow as others have noted, this is going to be a really interesting paper using 1,320 ancient Genomes, 731 newly reported. Some questions I am "personally" interested in on different levels. 1) There is some ancient Mesopotamian Genomes. So, with these ancient individuals, hopefully some of them will be from the period around 3300-3000 BC to give us some insight on the Ancient Sumerians, since they are the first peoples with a written record/text and thus considered the first known civilization with writings dated as far back to 3,500 BC. So it is possible that this new paper will give us the first insight on what the genetics of the ancient Sumerians were. 2) The fact that there was no difference in Steppe ancestry among the elite and non-elite Myceneans. I remember when Lazaridis et al 2014 " Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" was first published, the findings related to those 19 ancient Greeks were not well received by certain segments of the blogging and internet community. I personally get some "relatively" close distances from some of those ancient Greek samples and while I have a significant Steppe component, about 20.5% using Jovialis K8 model which I think is very accurate for modelling moderns who have 100% of their ancestry from what is today modern Italy, it is not my dominate component which is Minoan related per Jovialis K8 model (about 72%). The lack of Steppe ancestry in those ancient 19 Greek samples was attributed to the fact that it was likely the result of those 19 samples (the Mycenean ones in particular) being non-elite/commoners. This new Reich study seems to corroborate what Lazaridis et al 2014 found. I would think that the new Reich paper has a team of top notch researchers from a archeology to clearly identity the ancient individuals from elite and non-elite burial sites.

3) By extension, we don't see the Republican Romans having predominate Steppe ancestry either, they significant amounts yes (30-40%), but not majority, and Republican Romans do show some variation and approximate modern Mediterranean Europeans (Antonio et al 2019 Figure 1) ranging from Iberia to Southern France to Italy. For example, I am really close to R437 from Antonio et al 2019, the most Southern Italian Shifted Republican Roman. I saw some chatter among the Internet/blogging community similar to the chatter related to the Ancient Greeks regarding the Republican Romans reported in Antonio et al 2019 suggesting that the 11 Republicans might all be from among the non-elites.


Of course, there may be some who will argue that the lack of a significant difference between these new ancient genomes from Greece between elites and non-elites (related to Steppe ancestry) might not be the case in other archeological sites that have not yet been found or sites that have been dug but the samples have yet to be analyzed. That might be true, but the more evidence from ancient Genomes from ancient Greece that show no significant differences between ancient Greek elites and non-elites regarding Steppe ancestry makes it more and more likely that this is the case all over ancient Greece.

Any academic work that puts a stake through the heart of the Nordicist monster is OK by me.

[Ralphie Boy]

“The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal.”

This argument does not seem to be good news for those who’ve invested so much emotional energy and time in the Steppe IE homeland theory.

[billyh]

“The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal.”

This argument does not seem to be good news for those who’ve invested so much emotional energy and time in the Steppe IE homeland theory.

Reich and his colleagues are the ones with “emotional investment” or more accurately, political investment in the destruction of the steppe hypothesis. As were those ages ago who propped up the Anatolian Hypothesis. CHG introgression happened long before Anatolian split from IA, and Anatolians in general were probably the most strongly assimilated group of Indo-Europeans, with most of their deities (at least among the Hittites) being non-IE. Anatolian likely came in from the west and moved east based on linguistic diversity, Steppe Y-Haplogroups are predominantly European which I would find very unlikely if their language wasn’t, and I’m pretty sure Minoans and Helladic Greeks who also received the CHG DNA injection were not indo-european speakers because the pre-Greek substrate exists (although I’m not sure about that). As far as I see, the simplest explanation would be the existence of all the other linguistic groups in and entering Anatolia.

Any academic work that puts a stake through the heart of the Nordicist monster is OK by me.

See what I mean? Obviously your first thought when seeing a paper shouldn’t be “I will accept this if it says group x is less close to Northern Europeans”

[Angela]

I think it would behoove us to wait and see what the samples show.

[Angela]

Anfanger: Thanks for the the abstract. Wow as others have noted, this is going to be a really interesting paper using 1,320 ancient Genomes, 731 newly reported. Some questions I am "personally" interested in on different levels. 1) There is some ancient Mesopotamian Genomes. So, with these ancient individuals, hopefully some of them will be from the period around 3300-3000 BC to give us some insight on the Ancient Sumerians, since they are the first peoples with a written record/text and thus considered the first known civilization with writings dated as far back to 3,500 BC. So it is possible that this new paper will give us the first insight on what the genetics of the ancient Sumerians were. 2) The fact that there was no difference in Steppe ancestry among the elite and non-elite Myceneans. I remember when Lazaridis et al 2014 " Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" was first published, the findings related to those 19 ancient Greeks were not well received by certain segments of the blogging and internet community. I personally get some "relatively" close distances from some of those ancient Greek samples and while I have a significant Steppe component, about 20.5% using Jovialis K8 model which I think is very accurate for modelling moderns who have 100% of their ancestry from what is today modern Italy, it is not my dominate component which is Minoan related per Jovialis K8 model (about 72%). The lack of Steppe ancestry in those ancient 19 Greek samples was attributed to the fact that it was likely the result of those 19 samples (the Mycenean ones in particular) being non-elite/commoners. This new Reich study seems to corroborate what Lazaridis et al 2014 found. I would think that the new Reich paper has a team of top notch researchers from a archeology to clearly identity the ancient individuals from elite and non-elite burial sites.

3) By extension, we don't see the Republican Romans having predominate Steppe ancestry either, they significant amounts yes (30-40%), but not majority, and Republican Romans do show some variation and approximate modern Mediterranean Europeans (Antonio et al 2019 Figure 1) ranging from Iberia to Southern France to Italy. For example, I am really close to R437 from Antonio et al 2019, the most Southern Italian Shifted Republican Roman. I saw some chatter among the Internet/blogging community similar to the chatter related to the Ancient Greeks regarding the Republican Romans reported in Antonio et al 2019 suggesting that the 11 Republicans might all be from among the non-elites.


Of course, there may be some who will argue that the lack of a significant difference between these new ancient genomes from Greece between elites and non-elites (related to Steppe ancestry) might not be the case in other archeological sites that have not yet been found or sites that have been dug but the samples have yet to be analyzed. That might be true, but the more evidence from ancient Genomes from ancient Greece that show no significant differences between ancient Greek elites and non-elites regarding Steppe ancestry makes it more and more likely that this is the case all over ancient Greece.

Palermo, to the best of my recollection, the Mycenaean samples which Lazaridis analyzed did have steppe ancestry, ranging from 7% to some number in the teens. The problem was that a week before the paper came out Eurogenes went on record saying that the "ELITE" Mycenaeans would be just like Polish Corded Ware. When they clearly weren't, the fall back position was that they were commoners. In actuality, one of the samples was of an elite woman, and she also didn't have high percentages of steppe.

I've said for about ten years now that it was a mistake to expect the people in the Southern European countries to have the same kind of percentages of steppe as did those of northwestern, northern, central and eastern Europe. The farmers of Britain were almost wiped out, those in Central Europe had their numbers dwindle because of crop failures and the newly introduced plague. Much of northern Europe and eastern Europe were empty of settlers. The admixed steppe/farmer groups (almost 50% steppe), became the dominant group.

This was not the case in the south, which seems to always have been more densely populated. If the findings for Greece hold true elsewhere, it may have been that steppe men, in particular, filtered in, perhaps as mercenaries, perhaps as guards, etc. It's all speculation, but it does not seem to have been a folk migration taking the reins of power and subjugating the locals, as was the case, for example, with the Langobards.

At any rate, until we have the samples, it's difficult to be certain of anything.

I too, btw, can't wait to see what the Sumerians were like. From the clues in the article, they may have been high in Natufian, like Levant Neolithic.

Alas not.

[billyh]

Palermo, to the best of my recollection, the Mycenaean samples which Lazaridis analyzed did have steppe ancestry, ranging from 7% to some number in the teens. The problem was that a week before the paper came out Eurogenes went on record saying that the "ELITE" Mycenaeans would be just like Polish Corded Ware. When they clearly weren't, the fall back position was that they were commoners. In actuality, one of the samples was of an elite woman, and she also didn't have high percentages of steppe.

I've said for about ten years now that it was a mistake to expect the people in the Southern European countries to have the same kind of percentages of steppe as did those of northwestern, northern, central and eastern Europe. The farmers of Britain were almost wiped out, those in Central Europe had their numbers dwindle because of crop failures and the newly introduced plague. Much of northern Europe and eastern Europe were empty of settlers. The admixed steppe/farmer groups (almost 50% steppe), became the dominant group.

This was not the case in the south, which seems to always have been more densely populated. If the findings for Greece hold true elsewhere, it may have been that steppe men, in particular, filtered in, perhaps as mercenaries, perhaps as guards, etc. It's all speculation, but it does not seem to have been a folk migration taking the reins of power and subjugating the locals, as was the case, for example, with the Langobards.

At any rate, until we have the samples, it's difficult to be certain of anything.

I too, btw, can't wait to see what the Sumerians were like. From the clues in the article, they may have been high in Natufian, like Levant Neolithic.

Alas not.

A lot of people care taking what he said to mean “Every Mycenaean had the current profile” even though in the article says there was significant variation. This clearly means some people with no steppe, but it could also mean some people with much higher steppe than what we’ve seen. I’d also like to see the dating and location (north-south) of the samples, as maybe there’s a trend there

[Ralphie Boy]

Reich and his colleagues are the ones with “emotional investment” or more accurately, political investment in the destruction of the steppe hypothesis. As were those ages ago who propped up the Anatolian Hypothesis. CHG introgression happened long before Anatolian split from IA, and Anatolians in general were probably the most strongly assimilated group of Indo-Europeans, with most of their deities (at least among the Hittites) being non-IE. Anatolian likely came in from the west and moved east based on linguistic diversity, Steppe Y-Haplogroups are predominantly European which I would find very unlikely if their language wasn’t, and I’m pretty sure Minoans and Helladic Greeks who also received the CHG DNA injection were not indo-european speakers because the pre-Greek substrate exists (although I’m not sure about that). As far as I see, the simplest explanation would be the existence of all the other linguistic groups in and entering Anatolia.



See what I mean? Obviously your first thought when seeing a paper shouldn’t be “I will accept this if it says group x is less close to Northern Europeans”

Argument is too strong a word perhaps, the author is making a suggestion that IE started in the eastern “Southern Arc” (Iran or thereabout). Via incoming gene flow, IE gathered and spread later, from the Steppe. Looks like a major study, can’t wait to see it and the samples, whether they reinforce the suggestion or conclusion.

[Angela]

A lot of people care taking what he said to mean “Every Mycenaean had the current profile” even though in the article says there was significant variation. This clearly means some people with no steppe, but it could also mean some people with much higher steppe than what we’ve seen. I’d also like to see the dating and location (north-south) of the samples, as maybe there’s a trend there

Perhaps, but the important thing from my point of view is that it wasn't stratified by class, with those with more steppe being in the highest caste, etc.

That does seem to have been the case in India, although even there, the warrior caste has more steppe than the Brahmins if I remember correctly.

So, each area had, perhaps its own dyamics.

[Palermo Trapani]

Palermo, to the best of my recollection, the Mycenaean samples which Lazaridis analyzed did have steppe ancestry, ranging from 7% to some number in the teens. The problem was that a week before the paper came out Eurogenes went on record saying that the "ELITE" Mycenaeans would be just like Polish Corded Ware. When they clearly weren't, the fall back position was that they were commoners. In actuality, one of the samples was of an elite woman, and she also didn't have high percentages of steppe.

I've said for about ten years now that it was a mistake to expect the people in the Southern European countries to have the same kind of percentages of steppe as did those of northwestern, northern, central and eastern Europe. The farmers of Britain were almost wiped out, those in Central Europe had their numbers dwindle because of crop failures and the newly introduced plague. Much of northern Europe and eastern Europe were empty of settlers. The admixed steppe/farmer groups (almost 50% steppe), became the dominant group.

This was not the case in the south, which seems to always have been more densely populated. If the findings for Greece hold true elsewhere, it may have been that steppe men, in particular, filtered in, perhaps as mercenaries, perhaps as guards, etc. It's all speculation, but it does not seem to have been a folk migration taking the reins of power and subjugating the locals, as was the case, for example, with the Langobards.

At any rate, until we have the samples, it's difficult to be certain of anything.

I too, btw, can't wait to see what the Sumerians were like. From the clues in the article, they may have been high in Natufian, like Levant Neolithic.

Alas not.

Angela, yes your memory is correct (it usually is). Yes, the Myceneans in the Laz et al 2014 paper were not high Steppe in admixture, which as you note some over at the Eurogenes blog (I have read some of the stuff there in the past) but other sites as well, based on comments I have seen here (Anthrogenica) and that I have read myself, attributed to the samples likely being from non-elites. Going by the new Reich research project and based on the abstract, I was admittedly drawn to the statement of the no significant difference in Steppe admixture between the elites and non-elites. However, you are correct 100% to be cautious. It could be these new Mycenean samples may have > Steppe admixture than the ones in the Lazaridis paper and still the differences between the Mycenean elites and non-elites are statistically not significant. So I sort of have a assumption built in that the Myceneans in this new Reich project have similar admixture as the ones in the Lazaradis et al 2014 paper, which of course might be an incorrect assumption.

So thanks again for suggesting caution on my part.

Yes, the ancient Mesopotamian samples is really going to be interesting. In fact, there has been some really interesting discussions here regarding them just recently, of which I think I chimed in with a few of my own thoughts.

[Jovialis]

"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."

Krause now knows where Reich thinks the Imperial era immigrants came from.

[torzio]

"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."
Krause now knows where Reich thinks the Imperial era immigrants came from.

I said long ago........that Republican Rome had nearly zero Anatolian/Middle East markers

[Palermo Trapani]

I said long ago........that Republican Rome had nearly zero Anatolian/Middle East markers

I tend to agree, but I think you mean from contemporaneous Iron/Republican age Anatolian/Middle East populations. However, I would be cautious with over generalizing since the Antonio et al 2019 paper did document some Iranian Neolithic ancestry in the Republican/Iron Age, which might not be exactly the same as the Iranian ancestry from the Iron Age/Republican age, which is likely the case. In addition, in the Neolithic period, there was a substantial increase in Early European Farmer related DNA (Anatolian Farmers) and Iranian Farmers as well.

Now if you want to argue the 11 Republican/Iron Age Romans are "non elites" like some of the dogmatic Indo-European Steppe blogger/website groupies or the more Nordicist types, then you are back to the same way of thinking that was out there regarding the Mycenean Greeks.

[Jovialis]

I said long ago........that Republican Rome had nearly zero Anatolian/Middle East markers

The majority of Latin and Etruscan autosomal DNA was Anatolia_N, that was attributed by Central Italian neolithic farmers.


I think this lecture also confirms that Minoan-like ancestry plus a smaller steppe component was ubiquitous in Ancient Greece. Which I also agree with academics, may have been common in Southern Italy during this time.


The description seems careful to note it was "Imperial Rome" where Anatolia_ChL-IA ancestry (Eastern Mediterraean C5) was present. As we know, it seemed to fade out of existence in Rome after Late Antiquity.

[Jovialis]

The K8 Model I put together assigned Anatolia_BA which is pretty much like Anatolia_ChL, to the Imperial era immigrants:

[Palermo Trapani]

A lot of people care taking what he said to mean “Every Mycenaean had the current profile” even though in the article says there was significant variation. This clearly means some people with no steppe, but it could also mean some people with much higher steppe than what we’ve seen. I’d also like to see the dating and location (north-south) of the samples, as maybe there’s a trend there

The Lazaradis et al 2014 paper indicates that the 4 Myceneans and the 10 Minoans were genetically similar (5 other ancients were in the paper). All had 3 major source populations, with Anatolian Early European Farmer DNA accounting for about 75% of the admixture, with CHG and Iran Neolithic also present and accounting for most of the remaining admixture (per abstract of paper). The Myceneans were the ones that had Steppe ancestry, ranging from 4% to 16%.

"The Minoans could be modelled as a mixture of the Anatolia Neolithic-related substratum with additional ‘eastern’ ancestry, but the other two groups had additional ancestry: the Mycenaeans had
approximately 4–16% ancestry from a ‘northern’ ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia (Table 1), while the Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians may have had ~6% ancestry related to Neolithic Levantine populations. The elite Mycenaean individual from the ‘royal’ tomb at Peristeria in the western Peloponnese did not differ genetically from the other three Mycenaean individuals buried in common graves" [p.216].

[Jovialis]

I also think Krause was wrong about medieval Central Italy. The people in the graph I have provided from medieval Lazio and Tuscany, do not look like they were significantly or at all admixed with ChL_IA-Anatolians or Levantines. They do not have any significant Anatolia_BA component that the model would pick up. Rather they look like they are part of the C6 cluster (Mediterranean) which is highly similar to the people adjacent to them in the south, and in Greece, but mixed with more WHG-admixed populations.

[Stefano]

I am really interested by the new sumerian and mycenean samples, i can't wait to see them.

[bicicleur]

I am really interested by the new sumerian and mycenean samples, i can't wait to see them.

sumerian or mesopotamian?

sumeria is submerged under very thick layers of sediments, hard to reach

[Leopoldo Leone]

I highly doubt the Anatolian hypothesis holds any water, and I see this as a desperate attempt to account for something that oughtn't be a problem at all: there needn't be a 100% correlation between language and genetics, so indo-european languages could have ended up being spoken in Anatolia thanks to language recruitment and indeed the linguistic evidence also points to a heavy substratum effect on the anatolian languages, which strengthens the idea of a spread due to large number of not anatolian speakers adopting anatolian languages as a second language first.

As for the Myceneans, the samples from Iberia point to massive genetic turnover in south Europe too, with the difference being that the incoming IE speakers were already mixed with EEF so the final steppe admixture got further diluted; further the paper about Iberia showed that the two groups somehow lived roughly for some centuries side by side before merging into one population, and I believe similar dynamics were at work in Greece between 2000-1500 BC, though I believe that in the case of Greece it was almost a complete population replacement (that is proto-Greeks and helladic locals merged to form the bulk of "proto-Myceneans'" ancestry somewhere around north Greece)

I can't explain the emphasis on Natufians since we already have a paper about south east Turkey and it showed that the farmers were modelled with a modest Levant_N-like ancestry(10-20%), which was a very confusing choice imo since Levant_N was around 50% Natufian and 50% Anatolia_N or Iran_N, which made up the rest of the ancestry of the aforesaid farmers, so in the end the true natufian was around 5%-10%.

I had suspected that the bulk of the "east med" foreigners in Rome looked like the Anatolians from the Danubian limes paper, who were modelled as 50% Balkan_IA so Reich forgot to mention some really obvious gene flow from Europe to Anatolia during the IA (Phrygians, Greeks, Thracians and maybe Paeonians/Mysians, and finally Celts). Since in the end Anatolians ended up being not so dissimilar to SE Europeans genetically, I think there ought to be some caution in trying to disentangle the "east med" contribution from the "mediterranean" substratum (that is, thinking that the "mediterraneum" cluster in Antonio et al 2019 was primarily formed by Italics mixing with Anatolians instead of representing an already existing population)

[real expert]

“The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal.”

This argument does not seem to be good news for those who’ve invested so much emotional energy and time in the Steppe IE homeland theory.

Well,Yamnaya had some EEF admixture and was part CHG, thus the reference to West Asia. Sometimes the abstract doesn't tell the whole story. We have to wait for the raw data.

Nothing is clear cut here and Eastern Europe as the PIE homeland still holds water and can't be written off yet.