If you have their file(s), can you also run other Western Iranian groups whenever you can? I want to see to which extent they differ from Kurds in specific percentages. (I know that qpAdm takes a lot of time to load up, but I would highly appreciate that.)
Thanks for the nice comment! It's on my to-do list, but unfortunately I do not know when I will be able to do that. Currently I am working on another subject, but let us see.
Hello. There is something I am curious about. If a study similar to this were conducted, generally for the Central Anatolia region and specifically for the Cappadocia region, what results would be encountered? Since we can mention a historical presence of Armenians there, in addition to the Greek influence, Armenians must also have undoubtedly left a genetic heriitage. However I'm not sure which one is dominant and to what extent.
I agree with your Slab Grave as source for Turkic conclusion, however the acceptance of the central asian source of Iranic has its problems. YazII is not the only source of BMAC for all the Iranic speakers (from Kurds to iranians to pashtuns). In fact, in most Iranics, The BMAC:Steppe ratio is much higher than what is present in DA382. G25 here https://imgur.com/N4PujhU
This need for excess BMAC ancestry can be checked with qpAdm by adding it to the right pops (eg in your updated Kurds qpAdm, you can add BMAC and sintashta to right pops and see if the model still holds up, my bet is that p-value will plummet). Kurds should model as 50% syria_ebla, 20% DA382, 30%BMAC, in my opinion. DA382 is still Iranian speaking imo, however the source of that Iranian is BMAC, in my opinion.
So for people like me who also consider Sarianidi's claim of an Iranian speaking BMAC, the modern Iranian speaker ancestry is unable to disprove that claim. In fact, the overall steppe% in Iranics is quite low as compared to BMAC like ancestry.
While I recognize that there are multiple successful models, I think the reason why the BMAC ratio is so high in your calculations might be that there is no proper Chalcolithic Zagrosian proxy used. Also I am not totally neglecting the idea of an Iranic BMAC and it is always a pleasure to read your articles defending alternative theories in a logical and consistent way; but I tend to agree with the mainstream. Anyways, soon I will publish another post with alternative models and would be glad if you share your thoughts on them too.
The use of chalcolithic (4-3k bce) ancestries for modern populations has issues, hence i never use it. I always use sources from the same era, so for post IA populations, I always use either all IA, or LBA/BA populations.
But Iran_chalcolithic/BMAC is not a problem, because BMAC is ultimately a TepeHissar/SehGabi_C like population. So they're mostly interchangeable when used as source. This also agrees with Viktor Sarianidi's claim of a western BMAC origin.
As for the mainstream view, the steppe view has been totally wrong for BMAC, where BMAC samples were sadly lacking in steppe ancestry which was crucial for the Kuzmina/Mallory/Mair view of steppe origin of indo-iranians. The consensus for PIE has also now shifted to Armenia/Iran, much closer in geography to the Iran_chalcolithic locations.
The question to be asked is whether a 15-18% Steppe ancestry in Kurds is responsible for their Iranic language or a 50% Iran_Chalc/BMAC is responsible, in the context of Basques being nonIE speakers even with 40% steppe ancestry and almost 100% steppe R1b.
Nezih hocam çalışmalarınızı takdirle takip ediyorum. Sizin bu konularda slab grave, catacomb, yaz gibi modellemelerin avrupa milletlerindeki karşılığını görebileceğimiz bir yer var mı acaba? örneğin hollandalıların bell beaker, yamnaya, nordic bronz, corded ware ...gibi
What is Italy_Imperial_Anatolian.SG? As far as I know, the samples found in Imperial Rome do not have a definite origin. How can you assume some set of these samples are Anatolian out of thin air? There are no public samples of West Anatolians from pre-Turkic period, what you seem to be doing is making huge assumptions about the autosomal profile of West Anatolian Greeks and then using these assumptions to artificially obtain results that fit your biased agenda.
You also claim that it was 'inhabited by Anatolian Greeks - who are considerably different from mainland Greeks'... again, what evidence do you have for this? It defies logic to assume to neighboring territories occupied by the same ethnic group would be drastically different genetically. Perhaps CURRENT DAY/MODERN DAY mainland Greeks have a drastic different to 10th-13th century Greeks as a whole, not that West Anatolian Greeks were somehow completely different to their neighboring Greeks.
Too many unverified assumptions here, you should have waited until there was actual evidence for your assumptions (i.e. public samples of East Romans from the 10th-13th century AD) to actually raise valid points.
How unfortunate it is that you are accusing me of having a "biased agenda" instead of just asking simple questions.
Maybe I was not clear enough and should have stated that the use of Imperial Roman samples as a proxy for pre-Turkic Western Anatolian Greeks was based on them being in the same cluster with modern Cappadocian Greeks. Still it is an assumption and I do not expect anyone to consider the qpAdm results I have shared as literal truth. It is just to give an idea about what the truth is. But, these are not bad models.
I really do not know why do you think that I am trying to fit a biased agenda. I have no horse in this race.
Your post only makes sense if you knew what the autosomal was like. Assuming that some random samples from Rome that are similar to modern Cappadocians came from West Anatolia doesn't make sense in the slightest. Consider the time elapsed, and that they aren't even from the same area (the coast of West Anatolia is geographically much closer to Mainland Greece and the Greek islands than it is to Central Anatolia). Why didn't you assume an Izmir-like autosomal, for example?
I feel like you had an end result in mind and selectively chose a subset of random samples of unknown origin to achieve that result. Maybe agenda was a bad word, but in my opinion you are not proving anything with your methods. If you do not have proof of about the actual autosomal of the populations living in Anatolia at the relevant time period, then make that clear.
It has been clearly stated in the article that the samples used as a proxy for Anatolian Greeks are of Imperial Romans from early first millenium CE. Again, I do not know why do you assume that I had these results in mind in the first place. Unfortunately I cannot prove my intentions.
It is of course possible that pre-Turkic Western Anatolian Greeks were genetically different from the Imperial Roman samples I have used, but it is not likely that the end result would differ much since coastal Western Anatolian Turks do have considerable Slab Grave related admixture (around 15%). Note that this is not the average Turkish results. Turks from various regions of Anatolia can hardly be considered as genetically homogenous.
If you consider MA2198 as a genuine representative of pre-Turkic Western Anatolian Greeks, I am afraid that I cannot see any reason to discuss this issue with you any further, please forgive me.
Deny the existence of an actual public ancient sample that anybody can check for themselves and instead fabricate false 'West Anatolian' 'proxy' based upon a series of questionable assumptions. There was never a discussion here, I just wanted to point out that you're stating things as fact which are not known. Good bye and good riddance.
Hello Nezih, thanks a lot for this study.
If you have their file(s), can you also run other Western Iranian groups whenever you can? I want to see to which extent they differ from Kurds in specific percentages. (I know that qpAdm takes a lot of time to load up, but I would highly appreciate that.)
Thanks for the nice comment! It's on my to-do list, but unfortunately I do not know when I will be able to do that. Currently I am working on another subject, but let us see.
very good
my models:
Target: Kurdish(Central_Anatolia)
Distance: 0.9675% / 0.00967526
52.0 Zagrosian
24.0 Steppe_Bronze_Age
12.4 Caucasian
9.0 Levantine
2.4 Siberian
0.2 Ancestral_South_Indian
Target: Kurdish(Alewite)
Distance: 0.5957% / 0.00595689
53.8 Zagrosian
21.6 Steppe_Bronze_Age
10.0 Levantine
8.4 Caucasian
4.2 Siberian
1.0 Anatolian
1.0 Ancestral_South_Indian
Target: Iranian_Kurd_Kermanshah
Distance: 1.3320% / 0.01332046
59.4 Zagrosian
23.4 Steppe_Bronze_Age
6.2 Anatolian
4.8 Levantine
3.6 Siberian
2.6 Ancestral_South_Indian
Target: Iranian_Kurd_Urmia
Distance: 1.3167% / 0.01316679
53.0 Zagrosian
21.6 Anatolian
19.6 Steppe_Bronze_Age
4.6 Levantine
0.6 Ancestral_South_Indian
0.6 Siberian
Target: Iranian_Kurd_Kordestan
Distance: 0.8491% / 0.00849079
50.6 Zagrosian
20.0 Steppe_Bronze_Age
14.8 Levantine
6.6 Anatolian
5.0 Caucasian
2.2 Siberian
0.8 Ancestral_South_Indian
Target: Dersim
Distance: 0.7392% / 0.00739234
45.0 Zagrosian
20.4 Steppe_Bronze_Age
12.2 Anatolian
12.0 Levantine
7.0 Caucasian
2.6 Siberian
0.8 Ancestral_South_Indian
Target: Ezid
Distance: 0.5213% / 0.00521298
50.2 Zagrosian
22.0 Steppe_Bronze_Age
14.0 Levantine
6.6 Caucasian
3.6 Anatolian
2.0 Ancestral_South_Indian
1.6 Siberian
Target: Kurdish(Iraq)
Distance: 0.9377% / 0.00937668
56.4 Zagrosian
19.2 Steppe_Bronze_Age
10.0 Anatolian
9.8 Levantine
2.4 Caucasian
2.0 Siberian
0.2 Ancestral_South_Indian
Target: Syrian_Kurd
Distance: 0.7955% / 0.00795493
51.6 Zagrosian
24.4 Steppe_Bronze_Age
10.8 Levantine
9.0 Anatolian
3.2 Siberian
1.0 Ancestral_South_Indian
Fantastic commentary. The calculations are very similar to mine in terms of their end result. Both accurate and precise, well done.
Hello. There is something I am curious about. If a study similar to this were conducted, generally for the Central Anatolia region and specifically for the Cappadocia region, what results would be encountered? Since we can mention a historical presence of Armenians there, in addition to the Greek influence, Armenians must also have undoubtedly left a genetic heriitage. However I'm not sure which one is dominant and to what extent.
I'm a Feyli kurd, could you provide information regarding my ancestry? I can provide my raw data
https://imgur.com/YOkgKuq
There are Kurds with even 4:1 BMAC:steppe ancestry, and on average Kurds possess a 2.5:1 BMAC:Steppe ratio.
Hi Nezih, Nice post.
I agree with your Slab Grave as source for Turkic conclusion, however the acceptance of the central asian source of Iranic has its problems. YazII is not the only source of BMAC for all the Iranic speakers (from Kurds to iranians to pashtuns). In fact, in most Iranics, The BMAC:Steppe ratio is much higher than what is present in DA382. G25 here https://imgur.com/N4PujhU
This need for excess BMAC ancestry can be checked with qpAdm by adding it to the right pops (eg in your updated Kurds qpAdm, you can add BMAC and sintashta to right pops and see if the model still holds up, my bet is that p-value will plummet). Kurds should model as 50% syria_ebla, 20% DA382, 30%BMAC, in my opinion. DA382 is still Iranian speaking imo, however the source of that Iranian is BMAC, in my opinion.
So for people like me who also consider Sarianidi's claim of an Iranian speaking BMAC, the modern Iranian speaker ancestry is unable to disprove that claim. In fact, the overall steppe% in Iranics is quite low as compared to BMAC like ancestry.
I have written about this here.
https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/02/iranian.html
Namaste Vikram ji, thank you for the comment!
While I recognize that there are multiple successful models, I think the reason why the BMAC ratio is so high in your calculations might be that there is no proper Chalcolithic Zagrosian proxy used. Also I am not totally neglecting the idea of an Iranic BMAC and it is always a pleasure to read your articles defending alternative theories in a logical and consistent way; but I tend to agree with the mainstream. Anyways, soon I will publish another post with alternative models and would be glad if you share your thoughts on them too.
The use of chalcolithic (4-3k bce) ancestries for modern populations has issues, hence i never use it. I always use sources from the same era, so for post IA populations, I always use either all IA, or LBA/BA populations.
But Iran_chalcolithic/BMAC is not a problem, because BMAC is ultimately a TepeHissar/SehGabi_C like population. So they're mostly interchangeable when used as source. This also agrees with Viktor Sarianidi's claim of a western BMAC origin.
As for the mainstream view, the steppe view has been totally wrong for BMAC, where BMAC samples were sadly lacking in steppe ancestry which was crucial for the Kuzmina/Mallory/Mair view of steppe origin of indo-iranians. The consensus for PIE has also now shifted to Armenia/Iran, much closer in geography to the Iran_chalcolithic locations.
The question to be asked is whether a 15-18% Steppe ancestry in Kurds is responsible for their Iranic language or a 50% Iran_Chalc/BMAC is responsible, in the context of Basques being nonIE speakers even with 40% steppe ancestry and almost 100% steppe R1b.
The steppe in some other Iranics is even lower.
Looking forward to your alternate models.
I'm a Feyli kurd, can you please add assess my results?
Nezih hocam çalışmalarınızı takdirle takip ediyorum. Sizin bu konularda slab grave, catacomb, yaz gibi modellemelerin avrupa milletlerindeki karşılığını görebileceğimiz bir yer var mı acaba? örneğin hollandalıların bell beaker, yamnaya, nordic bronz, corded ware ...gibi
What is Italy_Imperial_Anatolian.SG? As far as I know, the samples found in Imperial Rome do not have a definite origin. How can you assume some set of these samples are Anatolian out of thin air? There are no public samples of West Anatolians from pre-Turkic period, what you seem to be doing is making huge assumptions about the autosomal profile of West Anatolian Greeks and then using these assumptions to artificially obtain results that fit your biased agenda.
You also claim that it was 'inhabited by Anatolian Greeks - who are considerably different from mainland Greeks'... again, what evidence do you have for this? It defies logic to assume to neighboring territories occupied by the same ethnic group would be drastically different genetically. Perhaps CURRENT DAY/MODERN DAY mainland Greeks have a drastic different to 10th-13th century Greeks as a whole, not that West Anatolian Greeks were somehow completely different to their neighboring Greeks.
Too many unverified assumptions here, you should have waited until there was actual evidence for your assumptions (i.e. public samples of East Romans from the 10th-13th century AD) to actually raise valid points.
How unfortunate it is that you are accusing me of having a "biased agenda" instead of just asking simple questions.
Maybe I was not clear enough and should have stated that the use of Imperial Roman samples as a proxy for pre-Turkic Western Anatolian Greeks was based on them being in the same cluster with modern Cappadocian Greeks. Still it is an assumption and I do not expect anyone to consider the qpAdm results I have shared as literal truth. It is just to give an idea about what the truth is. But, these are not bad models.
I really do not know why do you think that I am trying to fit a biased agenda. I have no horse in this race.
Your post only makes sense if you knew what the autosomal was like. Assuming that some random samples from Rome that are similar to modern Cappadocians came from West Anatolia doesn't make sense in the slightest. Consider the time elapsed, and that they aren't even from the same area (the coast of West Anatolia is geographically much closer to Mainland Greece and the Greek islands than it is to Central Anatolia). Why didn't you assume an Izmir-like autosomal, for example?
I feel like you had an end result in mind and selectively chose a subset of random samples of unknown origin to achieve that result. Maybe agenda was a bad word, but in my opinion you are not proving anything with your methods. If you do not have proof of about the actual autosomal of the populations living in Anatolia at the relevant time period, then make that clear.
It has been clearly stated in the article that the samples used as a proxy for Anatolian Greeks are of Imperial Romans from early first millenium CE. Again, I do not know why do you assume that I had these results in mind in the first place. Unfortunately I cannot prove my intentions.
It is of course possible that pre-Turkic Western Anatolian Greeks were genetically different from the Imperial Roman samples I have used, but it is not likely that the end result would differ much since coastal Western Anatolian Turks do have considerable Slab Grave related admixture (around 15%). Note that this is not the average Turkish results. Turks from various regions of Anatolia can hardly be considered as genetically homogenous.
Ancient sample MA2198 from Hellenistic Anatolia already has significant Slab Grave admixture much earlier than the Oghuz arrival.
If you consider MA2198 as a genuine representative of pre-Turkic Western Anatolian Greeks, I am afraid that I cannot see any reason to discuss this issue with you any further, please forgive me.
Deny the existence of an actual public ancient sample that anybody can check for themselves and instead fabricate false 'West Anatolian' 'proxy' based upon a series of questionable assumptions. There was never a discussion here, I just wanted to point out that you're stating things as fact which are not known. Good bye and good riddance.