|
Post by Admin on Dec 11, 2021 3:46:36 GMT
Supplementary Figure 16. Adding Yamnaya_Caucasus. The model d6.e4-c6.f6, in which Yamnaya_Caucasus are admixed deriving ancestry from Eneolithic_Steppe and Globular_Amphora related lineages, which is a fit to the data in the sense that there are no f-statistics more than |Z|>3 different between model and expectation. The Zscore of the worst f-statistic (MA1, Loschbour; EHG, Eneolithic_Steppe) = -2.044.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 11, 2021 21:42:14 GMT
Supplementary Figure 17. Adding Maykop. The best model by fitting Maykop deriving ancestry from CHG and Globular_Amphora related lineages, which is not a fit to the data in the sense that there is one f-statistic outlier: the Z-score of f (MA1, Maykop; EHG, Eneolithic_Steppe) = -3.369.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2021 22:25:23 GMT
Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus Summary Here, we report genome-wide data analyses from 110 ancient Near Eastern individuals spanning the Late Neolithic to Late Bronze Age, a period characterized by intense interregional interactions for the Near East. We find that 6th millennium BCE populations of North/Central Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus shared mixed ancestry on a genetic cline that formed during the Neolithic between Western Anatolia and regions in today’s Southern Caucasus/Zagros. During the Late Chalcolithic and/or the Early Bronze Age, more than half of the Northern Levantine gene pool was replaced, while in the rest of Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus, we document genetic continuity with only transient gene flow. Additionally, we reveal a genetically distinct individual within the Late Bronze Age Northern Levant. Overall, our study uncovers multiple scales of population dynamics through time, from extensive admixture during the Neolithic period to long-distance mobility within the globalized societies of the Late Bronze Age. Introduction Since the beginnings of agriculture, the Near East has been an influential region in the formation of complex and early state-level societies and has drawn considerable research interest in archaeology since the 19th century (Killebrew and Steiner, 2014, McMahon and Steadman, 2012). Developments in the field of ancient DNA (aDNA) over the last decade have shed light onto questions related to the process of Neolithization. Near Eastern farmers from South-Central Anatolia, the Southern Levant, and Northwestern Iran were descended from local foragers, and the transition from foraging to farming in these areas was shown to have been a biologically continuous process with only minor gene flow among them (Broushaki et al., 2016, Feldman et al., 2019, Lazaridis et al., 2016). Almost two millennia later, this situation had changed. In contrast to these Early Holocene populations, Chalcolithic/Eneolithic and Bronze Age populations from Western and Central Anatolia, the Southern Levant, Iran (Zagros), and the Caucasus show less genetic differentiation from each other, suggesting that these later periods were characterized by an extensive process of gene flow spanning a large area (Allentoft et al., 2015, de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018, Haber et al., 2017, Harney et al., 2018, Jones et al., 2015, Lazaridis et al., 2016, Lazaridis et al., 2017, Wang et al., 2019). However, the spatiotemporal scope of this process is poorly understood because of the lack of ancient genomes from areas that bridge these distant regions (i.e., Central and Eastern Anatolia) that, in turn, requires denser sampling. To date, the spatial distribution of features attributed to the “Neolithic package” across Anatolia suggests a heterogeneous multiple-event process that correlates with broader geographical zones (Özdoğan, 2014). However, whether population movement played a prominent role in the formation of these zones within Anatolia remains an open question. Throughout Western Asia, archaeological evidence for the movement of peoples, material, and/or ideas is well documented (Figure 1). In the Southern Caucasus, archaeological research indicates relations with Northern Mesopotamia during the Late Neolithic (Halaf and Samarra cultures) (Badalyan et al., 2010, Nishiaki et al., 2015), and in Eastern Anatolia, a network of cultural connections marked by several expansive events, mostly related to the Mesopotamian world, is attested. These include an early intrusion of the South Mesopotamian Ubaid culture into Upper Mesopotamia as far as the Taurus mountains of Southeastern Anatolia during the 5th millennium BCE (Frangipane, 2015a, Carter and Philip, 2010). It was followed, in the Southern Caucasus, by a strong influence at this time from Upper Mesopotamia during the late 5th–mid 4th millennium (Lyonnet, 2007, Lyonnet, 2012). From the middle to the end of the 4th millennium, another Southern Mesopotamian influence (the so-called “Middle and Late Uruk expansion”) reached Upper Mesopotamia and the upper stretches of the Euphrates and Tigris river valleys in Eastern Anatolia (Allen and Rothman, 2004). At the same time, during the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, the Kura-Araxes culture, which is generally thought to originate in the Southern Caucasus, expanded outward around 3000–2900 BCE, spreading westward to Eastern Anatolia and the Northern and Southern Levant (Palumbi, 2017, Palumbi and Chataigner, 2014) and eastward to Iran (Rothman, 2011). Evidence of these events comes from numerous excavations and is especially apparent in the long and extensively excavated sequence of occupations at Arslantepe in the Malatya plain of Eastern Anatolia. In the Northern Levant, material connections with Northern Mesopotamia start appearing in the 4th millennium BCE and have been attributed to either extensive cultural contacts or population movements.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2021 1:51:00 GMT
Figure 1. Cultural Developments and Territorial State Formation in Western Asia (Near East) from the 6th to the 2nd Millennia BCE (A) Approximate areas where important material cultures mentioned in the text developed between the 6th and 3rd millennia BCE. Approximate expansion range of these cultures outside of their proposed original land is given (dashed lines). Archaeological sites related to our study that have been influenced by these cultures are plotted in corresponding colors. (B) Territorial shifts between Bronze Age kingdoms from the 16th to the 13th centuries BCE and location of studied sites Alalakh and Ebla. The major question is, therefore: what was moving? Was this a movement of populations, material culture, ideas, or some combination? These earlier developments lead to the increasing “globalization” in the Eastern Mediterranean basin from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) onward, which is characterized by an intensification of resource exploitation and management through connected sea and land routes (Akar, 2013, Feldman, 2006, Hodos, 2017). However, the role of human mobility is unclear and a challenging question to address due to the scarcity of Middle and Late Bronze Age (LBA) burials. In this regard, the site of Alalakh in the Amuq Valley (Turkey), with more than 300 burials dated to that period, represents an exceptional case for the application of aDNA studies. Understanding the nature of this movement was the primary motivation behind this study. Here, we present a large-scale analysis of genome-wide data from key sites of prehistoric Anatolia, the Northern Levant, and the Southern Caucasian lowlands. Our goal was to reconstruct the genomic history of this part of the Near East by systematically sampling across this transition from the Neolithic to the interconnected societies of the MBA and LBA. Our new ancient genome-wide dataset consists of 110 individuals and encompasses four regional time transects in Central/North Anatolia, East Anatolia, the Southern Caucasian lowlands, and the Northern Levant, each spanning 2,000 to 4,000 years of Near Eastern prehistory. We find that mid-6th millennium populations from North/Central Anatolia and the Southern Caucasian lowlands were closely connected; they formed a genetic gradient (cline) that runs from Western Anatolia to the Southern Caucasus and Zagros in today’s Northern Iran. This cline formed after an admixture event that biologically connected these two regions ca. 6500 BCE. Chalcolithic and Bronze Age populations across Anatolia also mostly descended from this genetic gradient. In the Northern Levant, by contrast, we identified a major genetic shift between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods. During this transition, Northern Levantine populations experienced gene flow from new groups harboring ancestries related to both Zagros/Caucasus and the Southern Levant. This suggests a shift in social orientation, perhaps in response to the rise of urban centers in Mesopotamia, which to date remain genetically unsampled.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2021 4:26:25 GMT
Results Sample Corpus and Data Compilation We report genome-wide data from a targeted set of ∼1.24 million ancestry-informative SNPs for 110 individuals from Anatolia, the Northern Levant, and the Southern Caucasian lowlands spanning ∼4,000 years of prehistory. Nine of these individuals date to Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic (“LN/EC”; 6th millennium BCE) and come from three different geographic sectors: the Central/Northern Anatolian Boğazköy-Büyükkaya, the Amuq Valley in Southern Anatolia/Northern Levant (Tell Kurdu), and the Southern Caucasian lowlands (Mentesh Tepe and Polutepe) (Figure 2A). The remaining 101 individuals date from the Late Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze Age (“LC-LBA”; 4th–2nd millennia BCE) and were collected from the following archaeological sites: Alalakh (modern Tell Atchana), Alkhantepe, Arslantepe, Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh), Çamlıbel Tarlası, İkiztepe, and Titriş Höyük (Figure 2A). Figure 2. Overview of Location, Ages, and Data Generation of Analyzed Individuals (A) Geographic location of archaeological sites with respective number of individuals with genetic data. (B) Age of analyzed individuals in years BCE. Age is given as mean of the 2-sigma range of calibrated 14C date (black horizontal lines) or mean of their proposed archaeological range when direct 14C dates not available (colored thick lines). (C) Grouping of individuals (after quality filtering) according to their location, time period and genetic profile. Number of individuals before and after removal of biological relatives is given when applicable. (D) Distribution of SNP coverage across individuals. Only individuals within a certain coverage range (marked with red dotted lines) were included in downstream analyses. See also Tables S1 and S2 and Figure S1. For in-depth population genetic analyses, we excluded a total of 16 individuals that did not meet quality requirements (e.g., SNP coverage, absence of damage patterns, contamination). All the remaining individuals showed damage patterns expected for ancient samples and had low contamination estimates (≤5% for all but one, which has 10%). Overall, we performed genetic analyses on genome-wide data from 94 individuals, and 77 of these were accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dated (Figure 2B; Table S1). We grouped the individuals by archaeological site or area and archaeological period applying a nomenclature scheme that preserves this information (Figure 2C; STAR Methods). We also identified seven cases of 1st or 2nd degree relative pairs (Figure S1; Table S2) and restricted group-based genetic analyses for these groups (f-statistics, qpWave/qpAdm, and DATES) to 89 unrelated (≥3rd degree) individuals (Figure 2C). Figure S1. Pairwise Mismatch Rate for the Three Sites with First- and Second-Degree Related Individuals, Related to Figure 2 Pairwise SNP mismatch rates (pmr; the proportion of mismatching SNPs out of the total number of pairwise-overlapping SNPs) and their associated standard errors were estimated with READ (Monroy Kuhn et al., 2018). The baseline of unrelatedness (≥third degree) in pmr was estimated as the mean of all pairwise comparisons within every site. The relatedness classification cut-offs were estimated by multiplying the baselines by 0.90625 (≥third degree, dashed lines), 0.8125 and 0.625 for second and first degree, respectively (dotted lines). We merged our dataset with genetic data from ca. 800 previously published ancient individuals (Table S3; STAR Methods). Among these, 17 Anatolian individuals from the following archaeological sites overlap with our time transect and were co-analyzed with the Anatolian groups from our study: Tepecik-Çiftlik (Kılınç et al., 2016) (“Tepecik_N”), Barcın (Mathieson et al., 2015) (“Barcın_C”); Gondürle-Höyük (Lazaridis et al., 2017) (“GondürleHöyük_EBA”), Topakhöyük (de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018) (“Topakhöyük_EBA”), and Kaman-Kalehöyük (de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018) (“K.Kalehöyük_MLBA”) (Figure 2A).
|
|