Genetic History of Anatolia during Holocene

[Anfänger]

Genetic History of Anatolia during Holocene

Anatolia has been a key region in Eurasian history, acting as a bridge for cultural exchanges between Europe and Asia during the Holocene. However, the demographic transformation of Anatolian and neighbouring populations during these ten millennia is largely unknown. This work has two main research foci: 1) to investigate the role of gene flow in cultural interactions during the Neolithic period between Central Anatolian and Aegean communities and to evaluate the possibility of large-scale human movements during Neolithization of the Aegean, 2) to assess population continuity in Anatolia and its surrounding regions. For this aim, we produced 49 new ancient genomes and analysed this data in conjunction with published aDNA datasets. We first investigated whether early Aegean Neolithic populations were established by farmer colonization from Central Anatolia or by local hunter-gatherers. Our results showed that the Aegean Neolithic populations may have been descendants of local hunter-gatherers who adapted farming. We then tackled the question of how populations interacted in time and space from the Epipaleolithic period to the present-day. We found that genetic diversity within each region in Southwest Asia and East Mediterranean steadily increased through the Holocene. We further observed that the sources of gene flow shifted in time. In the first half of the Holocene, regional populations homogenised among themselves. Starting with the Bronze Age, however, they diverged from each other, driven most likely by gene flow from external sources. This expanding mobility in time was accompanied by growing male-bias in admixture events. This work sheds new light on fine-scale population structure in Anatolian demographic history, filling a gap in our understanding of the nature of prehistoric and historic population interactions, not only among Anatolian populations but also with their neighbouring societies.

Link:https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/99472

 

[Anfänger]

Might be interesting for our Southern European(Greek/Italian) members:

The Aegean
Recent studies showed the Neolithic Aegean populations were genetically highly similar to Anatolian Ceramic Neolithic populations, especially to the Western Anatolian Neolithic pop- ulation represented by Barcın Höyük [55, 46, 88]. During the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (BA) the Aegean received eastern (South Caucasus/Iran-related) gene flow, in parallel with Anatolia, but further received a variable degree of EHG/Steppe-related ances- try [88, 85]. Accordingly, in our qpAdm analyses we could describe Bronze Age Aegeans via two- or three-way mixture models of Aegean Neolithic-related populations (60-83%), South Caucasus/Iran-related populations (12-20%), and EHG-related populations (0-25%). Notably, there was no evidence for EHG-related ancestry in Early BA individuals, including our earliest samples from Perachora (Figure 10, 12). Later BA individuals, however, includ- ing the new samples from Sarakinos and from Theopetra, as well as published Aegean MBA individuals, showed strong genetic affinity to EHG/Steppe populations and carried 17-25% EHG-related ancestry (Figure 10, 12). This confirms the earlier observation of a gradual and partial diffusion of EHG-related ancestry in present-day Greece [85] and further informs the current discussion about the timing of the first arrival(s) of people of Steppe-related ancestry in the Greek Mainland. Based on our new data, this appear to have started by c.4200 BP, thus pushing these arrivals back into the late Early Bronze Age, i.e. before the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age as hitherto known.

Anatolia
Earlier work had shown that Central Anatolia Ceramic (i.e., late) Neolithic groups, compared to those from the earlier Aceramic Neolithic period, carried additional southern (Levant- related) and eastern (Zagros/Caucasus-related) ancestry components [49, 46, 47]. Here, we report the earliest Anatolian Neolithic genomes that carry these admixture signals in Musu- lar_N. Musular is an Aceramic site, but its genetic ancestry profile appears similar to mid-9th millennium BP Çatalhöyük of the Ceramic period. This suggests that putative eastern and southern gene flow events into Central Anatolia had occurred prior to the 10th millennium BP (Figure 10).
In the post-Neolithic period, our qpAdm results show that the Central Anatolia’s gene pool can be described as a two-way admixture between Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and additional South Caucasus/Iran-related ancestry. Little to no Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)/Steppe- related ancestry is detected in Anatolia, as opposed to that in Europe, including neighboring mainland Greece [88, 85]. The only exception to this pattern was the Kaman Kalehöyük IA individual, that carried EHG-related ancestry, which could be related to historically known interactions between Central and West Anatolia and Southeast Europe that continued during the Iron Age [99, 100]. However, this individual does not appear to have left a legacy in the gene pool, at least given the lack of EHG ancestry in Bog ̆azköy Roman individuals from Central Anatolia (n=3) (Figure 10, Figure 11).
Finally, the genomes of Ottoman individuals from Bog ̆azköy and Kaman Kalehöyük carried variable levels of additional Baikal Neolithic-related alleles (0-50%), most likely representing heterogeneous levels of Turkic admixture in the 1st millennium BP, a signature detectable in the present-day Anatolian gene pool (Figure 10, 11, see also [101]).

 

[kingdavid]

table 3:

Girmeler gir001 7,738-7,597BCE 0.109 XX K1a -

Ulucak ulu007 6,800-6,600BCE 0.139 XX K1a -

Ulucak ulu008 6,800-6,600BCE 0.476 XY H G2a2a1

Ulucak ulu009 6,800-6,600BCE 0.108 XY K1a1 G2a2b2a1

Bademagacı ˘bad017 6,400-6,100BCE 3.645 XX H -

Bademagacı ˘bad019 6,400-6,100BCE 6.317 XY T1a4 H2

Bademagacı ˘bad022 6,400-6,100BCE 0.228 XY T2b+16362 G2a2a1

Bademagacı ˘bad023 6,400-6,100BCE 0.095 XY K1a4 Unknown

Bademagacı ˘bad024 6,400-6,100BCE 0.238 XX T2c1+146 -

Bademagacı ˘bad025 6,400-6,100BCE 1.443 XY N1a1a1 J2a

Bademagacı ˘bad026 6,400-6,100BCE 0.318 XY H5 BT

Bademagacı ˘bad030 6,400-6,100BCE 0.411 XY HV+16311 T1a1

Bademagacı ˘bad033 6,400-6,100BCE 0.087 XY T2c C1a1

Bademagacı ˘bad034 6,400-6,100BCE 0.209 XX J1c -



table 4:


BOG019 Bogazköy, Turkey 1725 100-350 CE 0.326 XY X2n T1a1a

BOG020 Bogazköy, Turkey 1790 130-190 CE 2.202 XY X2f BT

BOG024 Bogazköy, Turkey 1790 130-190 CE 0.484 XY H13c1a J2a1

BOG028 Bogazköy, Turkey 500 1000 - 1900 CE 1.332 XX HV1b3b -

CTG025 ÇineTepecik,Turkey 3869 1977-1772 calBCE 0.191 XX W6b -

GOR001 Gordion, Turkey2116 333 BC -0 7.548 XY H14a J2a1

GOR002 Gordion, Turkey 2116 333 BC -0 0.074 XX K1a3 -

mus005 Musular,Turkey 9222 7377-7167 BCE 2.463 XX K1a4 -

mus006 Musular, Turkey 9060 7180-7039 BCE 0.140 XY N1a1a1b F

ulu117 Ulucak, Turkey 5450 4000-3000 BCE 0.360 XX J1c11 -

G23 Theopetra, Greece 4187 2335-2140 calBCE 0.426 XY H5 I2a2a1b

G37 Sarakinos, Greece 4262 2325-2300 calBCE 0.228 XY H11a2 J

G31 Perachora, Greece 4400 2700-2200 BCE 0.213 XY J1c2 J

G62 Perachora, Greece 4400 2700-2200 BCE 0.628 XY J1c G2a2b2a

G65 Perachora, Greece 4400 2700-2200 BCE 0.271 XX T2c1d+152 -

G66 Perachora, Greece 4400 2700-2200 BCE 0.112 XX H2a -

G76a Perachora, Greece 4407 2565-2350 calBCE 0.739 XX T2c1+146 -

geo005 Didnauri, Georgia 3104 1257-1051 calBCE 0.077 XY U7b NA

geo006 Didnauri, Georgia 2881 1017-846 calBCE 0.046 XY X2 O1b1a2 ( strange probably mistake of there lab)

geo015 Doghlauri, Georgia 4902 3015-2890 calBCE 0.189 XY K1a J2a1b1

geo017 Doghlauri, Georgia 3155 1291-1119 calBCE 0.033 XX H4b -

geo029 Didnauri, Georgia 3077 1219-1036 calBCE 0.092 XY I5c R1b1a2a2

gur016 Nazarlebi, Georgia 3250 1500-1000 BCE 0.021 XY K2a2 H1b1

gur017 Nazarlebi, Georgia 3250 1500-1000 BCE 0.215 XY N1a1a1a I

gur019 Nazarlebi, Georgia 3251 1500-1000 BCE 0.030 XX K1a4b -

zrj003 Shamakhi, Azerbaijan 1722 133 - 324 calCE 0.273 XY K1a19 J1

sha003 Shahtepe, Iran 5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 3.346 XX H14 -

sha004 Shahtepe, Iran 5121 3240 - 3102 calBCE 3.877 XY I1a J1

sha006 Shahtepe, Iran 5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 2.548 XX J1b1b1 -

sha007 Shahtepe, Iran 5121 3242 - 3101 calBCE 3.945 XX HV13b -

sha008 Shahtepe, Iran 5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 1.805 XX K1a12a -

sha009 Shahtepe, Iran 5165 3344 - 3086 calBCE 0.250 XX U5a2+16294

sha010 Shahtepe, Iran 5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 1.400 XX HV2 -

sha012 Shahtepe, Iran 5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 1.075 XY U1a J1a3

sha014 Shahtepe, Iran5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 1.996 XY HV13b T1a

 

[Silesian]

Interesting Anatolia,Iran, Levant have Seditism, Farming, Pottery at upper band of 10000 YBP. Amur river basin, Elshanka, Yamnaya development of pottery without farming and Seditism.With Amur river pottery roughly 6000+/- older than farming pottery in Mesopotamia.

 

[Jovialis]

Might be interesting for our Southern European(Greek/Italian) members:

The Aegean
Recent studies showed the Neolithic Aegean populations were genetically highly similar to Anatolian Ceramic Neolithic populations, especially to the Western Anatolian Neolithic pop- ulation represented by Barcın Höyük [55, 46, 88]. During the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (BA) the Aegean received eastern (South Caucasus/Iran-related) gene flow, in parallel with Anatolia, but further received a variable degree of EHG/Steppe-related ances- try [88, 85]. Accordingly, in our qpAdm analyses we could describe Bronze Age Aegeans via two- or three-way mixture models of Aegean Neolithic-related populations (60-83%), South Caucasus/Iran-related populations (12-20%), and EHG-related populations (0-25%). Notably, there was no evidence for EHG-related ancestry in Early BA individuals, including our earliest samples from Perachora (Figure 10, 12). Later BA individuals, however, includ- ing the new samples from Sarakinos and from Theopetra, as well as published Aegean MBA individuals, showed strong genetic affinity to EHG/Steppe populations and carried 17-25% EHG-related ancestry (Figure 10, 12). This confirms the earlier observation of a gradual and partial diffusion of EHG-related ancestry in present-day Greece [85] and further informs the current discussion about the timing of the first arrival(s) of people of Steppe-related ancestry in the Greek Mainland. Based on our new data, this appear to have started by c.4200 BP, thus pushing these arrivals back into the late Early Bronze Age, i.e. before the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age as hitherto known.

Anatolia
Earlier work had shown that Central Anatolia Ceramic (i.e., late) Neolithic groups, compared to those from the earlier Aceramic Neolithic period, carried additional southern (Levant- related) and eastern (Zagros/Caucasus-related) ancestry components [49, 46, 47]. Here, we report the earliest Anatolian Neolithic genomes that carry these admixture signals in Musu- lar_N. Musular is an Aceramic site, but its genetic ancestry profile appears similar to mid-9th millennium BP Çatalhöyük of the Ceramic period. This suggests that putative eastern and southern gene flow events into Central Anatolia had occurred prior to the 10th millennium BP (Figure 10).
In the post-Neolithic period, our qpAdm results show that the Central Anatolia’s gene pool can be described as a two-way admixture between Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and additional South Caucasus/Iran-related ancestry. Little to no Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)/Steppe- related ancestry is detected in Anatolia, as opposed to that in Europe, including neighboring mainland Greece [88, 85]. The only exception to this pattern was the Kaman Kalehöyük IA individual, that carried EHG-related ancestry, which could be related to historically known interactions between Central and West Anatolia and Southeast Europe that continued during the Iron Age [99, 100]. However, this individual does not appear to have left a legacy in the gene pool, at least given the lack of EHG ancestry in Bog ̆azköy Roman individuals from Central Anatolia (n=3) (Figure 10, Figure 11).
Finally, the genomes of Ottoman individuals from Bog ̆azköy and Kaman Kalehöyük carried variable levels of additional Baikal Neolithic-related alleles (0-50%), most likely representing heterogeneous levels of Turkic admixture in the 1st millennium BP, a signature detectable in the present-day Anatolian gene pool (Figure 10, 11, see also [101]).

Highly interesting indeed, thank you for sharing!

 

[Dianatomia]

Might be interesting for our Southern European(Greek/Italian) members:

The Aegean
Recent studies showed the Neolithic Aegean populations were genetically highly similar to Anatolian Ceramic Neolithic populations, especially to the Western Anatolian Neolithic pop- ulation represented by Barcın Höyük [55, 46, 88]. During the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (BA) the Aegean received eastern (South Caucasus/Iran-related) gene flow, in parallel with Anatolia, but further received a variable degree of EHG/Steppe-related ances- try [88, 85]. Accordingly, in our qpAdm analyses we could describe Bronze Age Aegeans via two- or three-way mixture models of Aegean Neolithic-related populations (60-83%), South Caucasus/Iran-related populations (12-20%), and EHG-related populations (0-25%). Notably, there was no evidence for EHG-related ancestry in Early BA individuals, including our earliest samples from Perachora (Figure 10, 12). Later BA individuals, however, includ- ing the new samples from Sarakinos and from Theopetra, as well as published Aegean MBA individuals, showed strong genetic affinity to EHG/Steppe populations and carried 17-25% EHG-related ancestry (Figure 10, 12). This confirms the earlier observation of a gradual and partial diffusion of EHG-related ancestry in present-day Greece [85] and further informs the current discussion about the timing of the first arrival(s) of people of Steppe-related ancestry in the Greek Mainland. Based on our new data, this appear to have started by c.4200 BP, thus pushing these arrivals back into the late Early Bronze Age, i.e. before the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age as hitherto known.

Anatolia
Earlier work had shown that Central Anatolia Ceramic (i.e., late) Neolithic groups, compared to those from the earlier Aceramic Neolithic period, carried additional southern (Levant- related) and eastern (Zagros/Caucasus-related) ancestry components [49, 46, 47]. Here, we report the earliest Anatolian Neolithic genomes that carry these admixture signals in Musu- lar_N. Musular is an Aceramic site, but its genetic ancestry profile appears similar to mid-9th millennium BP Çatalhöyük of the Ceramic period. This suggests that putative eastern and southern gene flow events into Central Anatolia had occurred prior to the 10th millennium BP (Figure 10).
In the post-Neolithic period, our qpAdm results show that the Central Anatolia’s gene pool can be described as a two-way admixture between Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and additional South Caucasus/Iran-related ancestry. Little to no Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)/Steppe- related ancestry is detected in Anatolia, as opposed to that in Europe, including neighboring mainland Greece [88, 85]. The only exception to this pattern was the Kaman Kalehöyük IA individual, that carried EHG-related ancestry, which could be related to historically known interactions between Central and West Anatolia and Southeast Europe that continued during the Iron Age [99, 100]. However, this individual does not appear to have left a legacy in the gene pool, at least given the lack of EHG ancestry in Bog ̆azköy Roman individuals from Central Anatolia (n=3) (Figure 10, Figure 11).
Finally, the genomes of Ottoman individuals from Bog ̆azköy and Kaman Kalehöyük carried variable levels of additional Baikal Neolithic-related alleles (0-50%), most likely representing heterogeneous levels of Turkic admixture in the 1st millennium BP, a signature detectable in the present-day Anatolian gene pool (Figure 10, 11, see also [101]).

So the Ottoman individuals carried higher Turkic admixture than modern Turks do on average.

In the Early Bronze Age the EHG levels in Greece were up to 25%. In contrary to the MBA Mycenaeans who had some 15%. Seems like they were more similar to MBA Thessalians Log01 and Log02. Or it could be that this is closer to the standard, but we simply have very few Ancient Greeks to work with. The Anatolians were similar to Aegean people prior to the arrival to of the Early Hunter gatherers. This is as expected. But it seems that Early Hunter gatheres did not take the Anatolia Caucasus route.

 

[Angela]

Interesting Anatolia,Iran, Levant have Seditism, Farming, Pottery at upper band of 10000 YBP. Amur river basin, Elshanka, Yamnaya development of pottery without farming and Seditism.With Amur river pottery roughly 6000+/- older than farming pottery in Mesopotamia.

I'm afraid you're mixing up pottery and farming.

There was very little farming on the steppe, and what little there was arrived very late, and was brought by incomers.

https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=first farming on the steppe


The same is true for the Amur River Valley.


"The Neolithic period (8,000-7,000 BCE) is often taken to signify the start of land cultivation. However, the native peoples living in Siberia at that moment in history did not join in this global movement because of the difficulties associated with its severe climate.^[7] Agricultural stirrings did reach Siberia by the second half of the 3rd millennium, when the peoples of the Afanasevo culture of southern Siberia (located, more specifically, in the southern reaches of the Ob River), started to practice agronomy. It was a slow start, however, as these peoples had very rudimentary cultivation skills. They used digging sticks (the previously mentioned mattocks) as their main farming tool, and they were not able to subsist solely on this practice and turned as well toward hunting, gathering, and the domestication of sheep, cows, and horses.<sup>[8]

"</sup>Only during the Bronze Age, with the advent of bronze scythes, were Siberians able to reach the same agricultural level as had already been achieved in many other areas of the world. This occurred with the rise of the Andronovo culture that inhabited the area between the Tobol River and the Minusinsk Basin. These peoples were sedentary wheat farmers who engaged in barter with the Chinese people to the southeast of their lands, along the periphery of what was to later become Siberia.^[9]"

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Highly interesting indeed, thank you for sharing!

Jovialis: A few points to consider (which I think are interesting), nothing dogmatic on my part, but just some quick observations/questions.

1) Are these new samples from Anatolia from this Dissertation (it looks like) not in the Southern Arc papers?
2) I assume they are not in the Southern Arc papers so these new Anatolian samples also show no Steppe admixture (EHG/CHG) into Anatolia which is one of the main findings of the Southern Arc papers. So the results here are consistent with the Southern Arc.
3) The Aegean shows some Steppe impact, which was also documented in the Southern Arc papers (Myceneans harbor some Steppe) so these findings seem to be in line with what we know about the Myceneans harboring some Steppe.

 

[Moja]

This confirms the earlier observation of a gradual and partial diffusion of EHG-related ancestry in present-day Greece [85] and further informs the current discussion about the timing of the first arrival(s) of people of Steppe-related ancestry in the Greek Mainland. Based on our new data, this appear to have started by c.4200 BP, thus pushing these arrivals back into the late Early Bronze Age, i.e. before the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age as hitherto known.

Steppe-related ancestry in the Greek Mainland in 2200 BC?

 

[eupator]

geo029 Didnauri, Georgia 3077 1219-1036 calBCE 0.092 XY I5c R1b1a2a2


is R-L23, probably Z2103>L584.

 

[eupator]

Caucasus/Iran admixture of up to 20% is in line with Herodotus accords of the existence of kinship between Greeks and Persians.

 

[Moja]

geo029 Didnauri, Georgia 3077 1219-1036 calBCE 0.092 XY I5c R1b1a2a2


is R-L23, probably Z2103>L584.

These R1b samples have been found in places where we know Indo-Europeans didn't live there.

 

[kingdavid]

This study is great for our T
Members in the forum (torzio, salento)
From the table 3 and 4
i posted above:

6000 bc southwest turkey ( impressive)

Bademagacı ˘bad030 6,400-6,100BCE 0.411 XY HV+16311 T1a1

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bademağacı

Also in north iran close to caspian sea
But in a later date
sha014 Shahtepe, Iran5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 1.996 XY HV13b T1a

​https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Tepe

 

[Angela]

[/FONT][/COLOR]Steppe-related ancestry in the Greek Mainland in 2200 BC?

It's just echoing the Southern Arc paper. They appear at the end of the Early Bronze Age, and so, contrary to the story which held sway for so long, Indo-European speakers did NOT bring the Bronze Age to Europe. Greece was already in it.

Also, interesting how patchy it was, which goes along with their statement that it was very gradual. Hardly a conquest; more an absorption. That also explains why it wasn't structured: no upper class with steppe and lower class without it.

Amazing how wrong the people who slavishly followed Anthony turned out to be.

 

[Angela]

Caucasus/Iran admixture of up to 20% is in line with Herodotus accords of the existence of kinship between Greeks and Persians.

Goodness knows what Herodotus meant by Persians, though. Persians as in straight from Persia, or Persians as in people in the Persian Empire, which would have included Anatolians?

Ethnography was not exactly his forte, as we have discovered in his writings about the Etruscans.

Also, the spread was pretty extreme, from ten or less to a few with 20%, and the Caucasus/Iran Neo in Iranians looks like 80% in some of them, so I guess it depends on what you mean by kinship.

 

[Angela]

I'm not sure why the authors feel so confident that the Aegeans adopted agriculture instead of there being a movement of Anatolian Neolithic people into the area. Genetically, they appear almost indistinguishable, so you'd think they would need isotope analysis to try to clarify the issue.

Also interesting on the PCA is the movement of Greek Bronze Age samples from a position virtually indistinguishable from Aegean/Anatolian Neolithic to getting pulled away a bit toward EHG, whereas the Anatolian Bronze Age samples make a pronounced movement toward Iran and the Caucasus. Then, there's another movement toward the Caucasus, explained by, for some of the samples, a lot of Siberian, i.e. Turkic ancestry by the Ottoman period.

All of this would seem to make the statement that Anatolia never changed a bit of an overstatement.

The relationship of the Anatolian and Levantine Bronze Age samples is also interesting. The Levantine Bronze shows a pronounced pull toward the Caucasus, as well as on the part of some of the Anatolian samples. There's also been what looks to me like a pull of some of the Levantine Bronze toward the Anatolian Bronze.

We've had quite a bit of discussion about how different the Iron Age Anatolian samples might be from the Bronze Age ones. In the case of these particular samples from these areas, the Bronze and Iron Age are virtually indistinguishable for one sample, but one is definitely pulling toward the Aegean, which makes sense given that the western coast of Anatolia was one area where the Greeks did admix with the locals.

It would be interesting to see a combined PCA with all of these samples along with the Southern Arc samples from these areas.

 

[Silesian]

I'm afraid you're mixing up pottery and farming.

There was very little farming on the steppe, and what little there was arrived very late, and was brought by incomers.

https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=first farming on the steppe


The same is true for the Amur River Valley.


"The Neolithic period (8,000-7,000 BCE) is often taken to signify the start of land cultivation. However, the native peoples living in Siberia at that moment in history did not join in this global movement because of the difficulties associated with its severe climate.^[7] Agricultural stirrings did reach Siberia by the second half of the 3rd millennium, when the peoples of the Afanasevo culture of southern Siberia (located, more specifically, in the southern reaches of the Ob River), started to practice agronomy. It was a slow start, however, as these peoples had very rudimentary cultivation skills. They used digging sticks (the previously mentioned mattocks) as their main farming tool, and they were not able to subsist solely on this practice and turned as well toward hunting, gathering, and the domestication of sheep, cows, and horses.<sup>[8]

"</sup>Only during the Bronze Age, with the advent of bronze scythes, were Siberians able to reach the same agricultural level as had already been achieved in many other areas of the world. This occurred with the rise of the Andronovo culture that inhabited the area between the Tobol River and the Minusinsk Basin. These peoples were sedentary wheat farmers who engaged in barter with the Chinese people to the southeast of their lands, along the periphery of what was to later become Siberia.^[9]"

Right you are. By the looks of it, pottery in Siberia predates the the pottery listed in the tables by 6000+/- years
​Ancient Siberian Hunters Survived the Ice Age by Inventing Pottery and Eating Fish

https://www.rug.nl/news/2020/02/anc...-by-inventing-pottery-and-eating-fish?lang=en

From around 16,000 years ago, we start to see some of these groups inventing radically new kinds of survival technology - this includes some of the world’s oldest examples of clay cooking pots
. This ancient pottery starts to appear in small quantities at a number of sites on the Amur River in the Russian Far East between circa 16,000 and 12,000 years ag

• Finally, the new study also demonstrated that the world’s oldest clay cooking pots were being made in very different ways in different parts of Northeast Asia: this appears to indicate a “parallel” process of innovation, where separate groups that have no contact with each other started to move towards similar kinds of technological solution under times of climate stress.
• Pottery quickly proved to be highly attractive tool for the processing of aquatic and terrestrial resources and ancient hunter-gatherers adopted it extremely widely, especially after the onset of the warm Holocene period around 11,000 years ago. This was long before any transition to farming.

Anatolia Historical developments15,000 - 10,000 BP Incipient farming, Semi-sedentism/sedentism10,000 - 8,000 BP Farming, Sedentism, Pottery8,000 - 6,000 BP Pyrometallurgy, Long-distance trade6,000 - 4,000 BP Wheel, Domestic equids, Centralisation/Urbanisation, Kura-Araxes expansion,Indo-European migrations?, Agricultural surplus..


Levant Historical developments15,000 - 10,000 BP Incipient farming, Semi-sedentism/sedentism10,000 - 8,000 BP Farming, Sedentism, Pottery8,000 - 6,000 BP Pyrometallurgy, Long-distance trade6,000 - 4,000 BP Wheel, Domestic equids, Urbanisation, Writing, Agricultural surplus

Iran Historical developments15,000 - 10,000 BP Incipient farming, Semi-sedentism/sedentism10,000 - 8,000 BP Farming, Sedentism, Pottery8,000 - 6,000 BP Pyrometallurgy6,000 - 4,000 BP Wheel, Domestic equids, Urbanisation, Writing, Long-distance trade, Indo-Europeanmigrations, Agricultural surplus4,000 - 2,000 BP Inter-regional empires, Greek/Hellenic expansion, I

 

[bigsnake49]

Am I to understand that there were people in the Aegean area with higher steppe content than the Mycenaeans? And that they came through the Southern route while we think that the Greek tribes were later arrivals through the Balkans?

EDIT: Never mind about EHG coming through Anatolia. I just reread the summary.

 

[torzio]

This study is great for our T
Members in the forum (torzio, salento)
From the table 3 and 4
i posted above:
6000 bc southwest turkey ( impressive)
Bademagacı ˘bad030 6,400-6,100BCE 0.411 XY HV+16311 T1a1
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bademağacı
Also in north iran close to caspian sea
But in a later date
sha014 Shahtepe, Iran5100 3200 - 3100 BCE 1.996 XY HV13b T1a
​https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Tepe

not exactly ......our branch split off 13500 years ago .( T1a2 )...........I have not found any Iran sample for our branch, that I can recall ( though some say the Medes had a lot of T ydna )......but have found a lot of T in Kurds and Armenians ......even Turkish lands along the black sea

 

[kingdavid]

not exactly ......our branch split off 13500 years ago .( T1a2 )...........I have not found any Iran sample for our branch, that I can recall ......but have found it in Kurds and Armenians ......even Turkish lands along the black sea

it still a T you should be happy
i see in this paper again there is no E
even the southern arc paper had some
mainly in armenia late bronze age they were hiding there