PDA

View Full Version : Sicilians pre-Greek colonization



Pages : [1] 2

ihype02
18-05-20, 15:42
From what I have heard is that before the Greek colonization ancient Sicilians were much more Western shifted. My hypothesis was that Sicily is a diverse region with many different (ancient) populations (i.e natives, other Italians, Greeks, Phoenicans) but the Greek component was the greatest but not the absolute majority.

While some members in Anthrogenica tend to propose that the vast majority of their ancestry comes from the Hellenes that may be true but I am not convinced so far.
So what's your opinion about this?

Palermo Trapani
18-05-20, 17:48
From what I have heard is that before the Greek colonization ancient Sicilians were much more Western shifted. My hypothesis was that Sicily is a diverse region with many different (ancient) populations (i.e natives, other Italians, Greeks, Phoenicans) but the Greek component was the greatest but not the absolute majority.
While some members in Anthrogenica tend to propose that the vast majority of their ancestry comes from the Hellenes that may be true but I am not convinced so far.
So what's your opinion about this?

What is the deal at Anthrogenica with Sicily? Is their any region in Europe that doesn't have diversity in ancestry from different ancient populations? I think research sort of confirms this yes? As for the Western shifted before Greek colonization, hmmm questionable, but if what you mean is WHG then yes. The research is clear that Sicily before the Neolithic like all Western Europe was WHG predominate ancestry.

1) Mannino et al 2012, which was a team of Researchers from Max Plank, some from Universities in Spain, and mostly from Italy (Florence and Palermo) document a WHG civilization in Sicily during the Mesolithic.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049802

2) Mathieson et al 2018 document the Sicilian-WHG and the surrounding Culture in Western Sicily that was researched in Mannino et al 2012 was Genetically part of the same WHG cluster that extended all over Western Europe.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

"We report Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic data from southern and western Europe17 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#ref-CR17). Sicilian (I2158) and Croatian (I1875) individuals dating to approximately 12000 and 6100 BC cluster with previously reported WHG (Fig. 1b, d (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#Fig1)), including individuals from Loschbour23 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#ref-CR23) (Luxembourg, 6100 BC), Bichon19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#ref-CR19) (Switzerland, 11700 BC), and Villabruna17 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#ref-CR17) (Italy, 12000 BC). These results demonstrate that, for at least six thousand years, WHG populations23 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#ref-CR23) were widely distributed from the Atlantic seaboard of Europe in the west, to Sicily in the south, and to the Balkan Peninsula in the southeast."

Today in Sicily and Southern Italy, WHG ancestry is still there, although not to the degree of EEF, CHG, etc, as documented by Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) but interestingly in higher amounts than Central and Northern Italy.

https://www.sciencemag.org/collections/coronavirus?intcmp=adv_cov

Now I don't in anyway mean that the higher WHG in Sicily and the South means anything with respect to who is a modern Italian. I am not into that nonsense. Modern Italy is a wonderful country with each region having unique things to offer in terms of geography, music, architecture and food, although I do think the oldest and greatest architecture in modern Italy is in Sicily due to the Greeks and of course Rome. But I have no interest in some of the modern notions that all Southern Italians are "mezzo giorno" (peasants who work the land) or the notion of some in the South that all the Northerners are rude and who want to return to the Kingdom of Naples, both of which are minority opinions today, at least in my experience when I was in Italy last summer (but I only went as far North as Rome, which is technically Central Italy).

So my view is if you plot an admixture change over time in Sicily it would mirror what Antonio/Moots et al 2019 found in Rome (See Supplementary figure 12)

file:///C:/Users/12258/Downloads/NIHMS1551077-supplement-Supplement.pdf

The general trend would be WHG then Neolithic transition to EEF (with WHG), then some Steppe ancestry (confirmed in the recent Fernandes et al 2020 paper) which brought in some Iran Neolithic and or CHG type ancestry as well. What do you know, you go back to Raveane et al 2019 and all that is present today. In the first millennium BC before any Phoenician sea ports on the Western Coast and Greek colonization, the 3 local tribes in Sicily that dominate are the Elymi in Trapani/Palermo, most likely a population from Liguria (Ligures), Sicani in the Center (maybe Iberia and Ligure?) and Center/East Sicels (Italic). Other Italic tribes include Morgante (South Italy) and Ausonians (Campania), etc. So how much did the Pheonicians due to DNA in Sicily, I don't think to much, Greek's, well given the strong Neolithic EEF ancestry already in Sicily did it really due that much? The Bell Beaker Civilization was well established in Sicily like the rest of Italy and the Sicilian Bell Beaker sample is Neolithic EEF predominate ancestry even before Greek colonization (Sicilian Bell Beaker dates to about 2200 BC).


Anyway, my take on it but still what is the story the Anthrogenica folks are trying to tell about Sicily?

ihype02
18-05-20, 18:58
Most Carthaginians were driven out by the Romans. According to Wikipedia:
They failed, and Rome was even more unrelenting in its annihilation of the invaders this time; Roman consul M. Valerian told the Roman Senate in 210 BC that "no Carthaginian remains in Sicily".[36]

torzio
18-05-20, 20:05
Most Carthaginians were driven out by the Romans. According to Wikipedia:
They failed, and Rome was even more unrelenting in its annihilation of the invaders this time; Roman consul M. Valerian told the Roman Senate in 210 BC that "no Carthaginian remains in Sicily".[36]

Carthage lasted from 800Bc to 146BC ...........where they were sent by the Romans in their empire is unknown ..............sicily was removed of carthagians by 160BC

When Carthage began they bought the land in Tunisia from the libyans , their neighbours to the west where the Numidians ( some say pre-berber)

Romans moved every race who lost to them around the empire, and or enslaved them

ihype02
18-05-20, 21:10
Carthage lasted from 800Bc to 146BC ...........where they were sent by the Romans in their empire is unknown ..............sicily was removed of carthagians by 160BC

When Carthage began they bought the land in Tunisia from the libyans , their neighbours to the west where the Numidians ( some say pre-berber)

Romans moved every race who lost to them around the empire, and or enslaved them
Many Greek cities of Sicily were destroyed or abandoned before and during the Roman occupation.

Palermo Trapani
18-05-20, 21:38
Carthage lasted from 800Bc to 146BC ...........where they were sent by the Romans in their empire is unknown ..............sicily was removed of carthagians by 160BC

When Carthage began they bought the land in Tunisia from the libyans , their neighbours to the west where the Numidians ( some say pre-berber)

Romans moved every race who lost to them around the empire, and or enslaved them

When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians in Sicily in circa 240 BC (finally eliminated them), the Mediterranean was slowly becoming Roman and by the time they destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, the Mediterranean would be "Mare Nostrum" Rome's our Sea. The second punic war the Carthaginians went the land route attacking a pro-Roman city in Iberia, most of Iberia was allied with Carthage and advancing into Gaul where the Gauls allied with the Carthaginians and invaded Roman forces in the North. Battles were fought in Iberia, Gual, Southern Italy, Northern Italy, etc. and finally the 3rd Punic War was when Carthage was raised. So it wasn't like Rome and Carthage only fought in Sicily, that was largely in the First Punic War. By the start of the Second Punic War Sicily was effectively Roman, it was not required to pay Tribute and it had to, like other Italian regions, supply Troops to fight in Roman legions.

torzio
18-05-20, 21:50
When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians in Sicily in circa 240 BC (finally eliminated them), the Mediterranean was slowly becoming Roman and by the time they destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, the Mediterranean would be "Mare Nostrum" Rome's our Sea. The second punic war the Carthaginians went the land route attacking a pro-Roman city in Iberia, most of Iberia was allied with Carthage and advancing into Gaul where the Gauls allied with the Carthaginians and invaded Roman forces in the North. Battles were fought in Iberia, Gual, Southern Italy, Northern Italy, etc. and finally the 3rd Punic War was when Carthage was raised. So it wasn't like Rome and Carthage only fought in Sicily, that was largely in the First Punic War. By the start of the Second Punic War Sicily was effectively Roman, it was not required to pay Tribute and it had to, like other Italian regions, supply Troops to fight in Roman legions.

yes , I know

but for Sicily.....all I know is the original people where the sicel tribe (mixed with myceneans ) , the rest where Corinthian Greeks ( Sikani ) or Carthaginians (Elymoi )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels

Palermo Trapani
18-05-20, 22:11
yes , I know

but for Sicily.....all I know is the original people where the sicel tribe (mixed with myceneans ) , the rest where Corinthian Greeks ( Sikani ) or Carthaginians (Elymoi )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels

Are you sure the Elymians were Carthaginian. The Elymians were in Sicily before the Phoenicians got there, which was before the Carthaginians got to Western Sicily around 400 BC. The Elymians founded 3 cities for sure, Segesta, Entella and Erice. Alessandra Caputo whose book " Segesta: The Charm of a story spanning a millennia" is one of the official ones sold at the Segesta (Trapani) Archaeological park writes there are 2 legitimate ancient theories on who the Elymians are 1) from Thucydides stating the Elymians fled from Achaea (Ancient Greece) after the Trojan War or 2) Hellanicus who states the Elymians were Italic, either from Liguria or Puglia. He writes the bloodline of the Sicels left Italy...Two expeditions of Italics went into Sicly: The first was the Elymians pursued by the Oenotrians (of which the Sicels were part of, along with the Morgante who also settled in Sicily, not as large amounts as the Sicels.

This theory of Elymians is borne out as the river in Entella, an Elymian site in Sicily, bears the name of a Ligurian River. Earlier scholars held to the first theory, Elymians were Trojan Greeks, but modern Scholarship according to Caputo favor the Ligurian theory. The language of the Elymians, which has been thoroughly studied by academics in Sicily and broader Italy as well appears to be an Indo-European Language, not a Berber language which would support your Carthaginian theory. The Elymians used the Greek alphabet and combined it with their own language states Caputo.

The Ancient Ligurians were a territory that stretched from modern Liguria in NW Italy through coastal France and Iberia. The recent paper by Fernandes et al 2020 documenting some, Steppe ancestry entering Sicily in the period 2200-2400 BC from Iberia is consistent with the Elymians being a Ligurian type population which is in line with the Linguistic evidence that the Elymian language was in fact an "Indo European" language. The presence of Elymian as an Indo-European Language in Sicily might indicate one being there even before Latin in Lazio. This last statement of mine is purely conjecture on my part not a dogmatic statement of fact.

Consistent with what Alessandra Caputo wrote in her book, this article with several citations in the bottom is pointing to Elymian being an early Indo-European language or related to them, either Italic or Anatolian.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymian_language

Angela
18-05-20, 22:50
We have Sicilian samples pre-Greek colonization. We've discussed them numerous times on other threads. What we need now are samples from Sicily right at the period of Greek colonization.

Of course, we'll have to keep in mind that as with all these studies, the graves of the newly arriving elite will be the ones that survive the most, with attendant resurgence of "locals" later, but it should give us a much better idea.

It may be the new Greek arrivals weren't that different from the locals anyway, given that some ancestry from the East was coming in during the Bronze Age, but even if they were, I am skeptical there was a "wipe out" of the locals. Even in the massively de-populated areas of Central Europe, and with a plague rampant, the steppe people are only 50% of the ancestry of the Bell Beakers. In Italy we can tell from the Parma Beakers that one barely had any steppe ancestry, and one had only a bit. Only in England would I apply that word, and also perhaps in the far northeast and north of Europe with Corded Ware, but that's because those places were inhospitable for the EEF neolithic package even as modified, so population levels were very low there. Plus, we can see that EEF like ancestry rebounded, so were they really annihilated even in those areas, or just absent from the archaeological record because they weren't given decent burials?

I don't understand the emphasis on the WHG in the larger scheme of things. They're a small part of any European's ancestry except to the far northeast and east, not west, unless they mean the Iberians have a bit more WHG than Italians and Greeks. So what? I don't see the significance.

The preoccupations of the people at anthrogenica are a reflection of their world view. They're welcome to them. I'm only interested in debating these things with people who have some objectivity. When you lack it you can make huge errors, i.e. as they all made there with the Etruscans.

From my perspective, the ancestry that arrived from the east either directly or through the Greeks is just mainly the same old, same old. The new arrivals carried Anatolia Neolithic, which had been in Europe for 7,000 years already. It carried more Iran Neo/CHG, but some of that was part of the genesis of the Anatolia Neolithic in the first place, and more had been dribbling in since the Bronze Age. It was just the arrival of some long separated distant cousins. It's not like the Han Chinese suddenly migrated in, for heaven's sake.

Some people want to obfuscate this fact and label these newcomers as "alien", somehow, not people very similar to whose who make up 40-50% of their own ancestry, but now alien "Middle Easterners" who would pollute their blood. Is it the additional Iran Neo which is so objectionable? Yet that makes no sense to me because it was extremely similar to the ancestry which formed 40-50% of the ancestry of the steppe people whom they so want to share ancestry with...

Maybe all the fuss is because of some minor amount of "Levant" Bronze Age ancestry which slipped in. Is antisemitism really still so virulent in some of these people, that and hatred of Middle Eastern refugees, that they'll distort history and population genetics to find it only in people in Europe they can label the "other". Just think what would happen if these kinds of people came into power again, and what a tool genetic testing would be for them.

I find it bizarre but not really surprising.

There was population mixing throughout human history: Neanderthals and Denisovans with each other and with modern humans (and who knows how many other hominids), Levant Neolithic with Anatolia Neolithic, both with Iran Neolithic, Anatolia Neolithic with WHG, EHG with Iran Neo/CHG, steppe people with Middle Neolithic people, etc. all mixtures of far more different people from one another than any incoming Aegean like people with local inhabitants of the Italic peninsula and Sicily. That 's more akin to somebody saying the Danes were a brand new population from the Angles and Saxons, or even the Saxons from the Britons. These are just shades of difference.



Far more important to me than these minor genetic differences are what incoming people brought with them. Did they bring new crops, new innovation, architecture, art, literacy, or rape, rapine, the mass destruction of infrastructure, death and disease?

torzio
18-05-20, 23:26
Are you sure the Elymians were Carthaginian. The Elymians were in Sicily before the Phoenicians got there, which was before the Carthaginians got to Western Sicily around 400 BC. The Elymians founded 3 cities for sure, Segesta, Entella and Erice. Alessandra Caputo whose book " Segesta: The Charm of a story spanning a millennia" is one of the official ones sold at the Segesta (Trapani) Archaeological park writes there are 2 legitimate ancient theories on who the Elymians are 1) from Thucydides stating the Elymians fled from Achaea (Ancient Greece) after the Trojan War or 2) Hellanicus who states the Elymians were Italic, either from Liguria or Puglia. He writes the bloodline of the Sicels left Italy...Two expeditions of Italics went into Sicly: The first was the Elymians pursued by the Oenotrians (of which the Sicels were part of, along with the Morgante who also settled in Sicily, not as large amounts as the Sicels.

This theory of Elymians is borne out as the river in Entella, an Elymian site in Sicily, bears the name of a Ligurian River. Earlier scholars held to the first theory, Elymians were Trojan Greeks, but modern Scholarship according to Caputo favor the Ligurian theory. The language of the Elymians, which has been thoroughly studied by academics in Sicily and broader Italy as well appears to be an Indo-European Language, not a Berber language which would support your Carthaginian theory. The Elymians used the Greek alphabet and combined it with their own language states Caputo.

The Ancient Ligurians were a territory that stretched from modern Liguria in NW Italy through coastal France and Iberia. The recent paper by Fernandes et al 2020 documenting some, Steppe ancestry entering Sicily in the period 2200-2400 BC from Iberia is consistent with the Elymians being a Ligurian type population which is in line with the Linguistic evidence that the Elymian language was in fact an "Indo European" language. The presence of Elymian as an Indo-European Language in Sicily might indicate one being there even before Latin in Lazio. This last statement of mine is purely conjecture on my part not a dogmatic statement of fact.

Consistent with what Alessandra Caputo wrote in her book, this article with several citations in the bottom is pointing to Elymian being an early Indo-European language or related to them, either Italic or Anatolian.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymian_language

There is a terminology of Carthaginians which some use as per Phoenicians ............so, let us say , there was no Carthaginians pre circa 800BC , as there where none.....I will use the term Phoenicians ..................the Phoenicians came circa 1500BC in southern lebanon, scholars state and are unsure if they where under the Hittites then , as Hittites controlled northern lebanon until 1200BC and that area spoke Luwian until 600BC

So, I ask you did the phoenicians settle in Elymian lands .....................you say Trojan ( they spoke a form/branch of luwian ) ................Hittite language did not cover all of Hittite lands, by 1400Bc , luwian was replacing Hittite language in Hittite cities .....................Hittite and Hatti language as some scholars state are the same or similar

as I was reading mycenean trading in Siclily up to 1400BC ....I came across this iron-age on Elymians
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222656660_Elymian_regional_interaction_in_Iron_Age _western_Sicily_A_preliminary_neutron_activation_s tudy_of_incisedimpressed_tablewares

Palermo Trapani
18-05-20, 23:59
That doesn't change the fact that the Elymians were not Phoenicians either. The Hittites were from Anatolia for the record and there territory did stretch down to what is Modern Syria or Lebanon. The Hittite language, if you want to argue the Elymians were Anatolians with some Northern Levant admixture (may be true, so freaking what) would then indicate that the Elymian language is from the oldest known Indo-European language. Is that what you want to argue, I have a strong suspicion that it is not what you want to argue as the Hittites were not Nordic. Regardless, the linguistic evidence points to the Elymans having an Indo-European language. Yes the Pheonicians settled in The Elymian lands around 900 BC or there abouts, the Greeks starting arriving around 750 BC

The Elymians and Sicani from an archaeological record, are not distinguishable based on evidence dating back to 1100 BC, which predates the Pheonicians arrival by 100 years if you date the Pheonicians founding sea ports as early as 1000 BC. Scholarly research on the Sicilian language indicates the Elymian's arrived in Sicily as early as 1200 BC which it a minimum 200 years before the Pheonicians and maybe 300 years earlier (Phoenician arrival 1000BC-900 BC). So if the Anatolian origin of the Elymians is true (Trojans, as Trojan War is dated to 1260 BC to 1180 BC) then a connection to the Hittite civilization might be true and the Elymian language, which is an Indo-European type language would indeed be related to the Ancient Hittite language, which as I already noted above is the oldest extant Indo-European language. As for Trojan origin, that was not me, it is what ancient Scholars saw about the Elymians, some argue Trojans, some Italics (Ligurians or ancient from Puglia).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymians

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/researcharchive/index.php3-c=178.htm


So with respect to my own DNA history, again autosonal, not Haplogroup, I do show some affinity to the ancient Hittites along with the Bell Beaker Sicilian. What that means, well likely that most of my ancestry is Neolithic type Early European Farmer ancestry but I think you probably already know that.



120831208412085

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 00:17
Torzio: I don't dispute Mycenaean's setting up trade with Sicily in 1400 BC in fact they were trading with the Southern Mainland at that time (modern Puglia) and had set up trade with Iberia as well. But Greek colonization in Sicily did not happen till 750 BC but at that same time, Greek's were founding colonies in Puglia, Calabria and Campania, Naples being a city they founded. So why is it that Sicily seems to be the "brunt of your interest"?

With respect to the article you linked regarding Iron Age Elymians, in light of the trade with the Myceneans, it is not surprising that when the Greek colonization took place in 750 BC, the Elymians and Sicani easily adjusted to the Greek civilization as they had been engaging in commerce with the Greeks long before. Pheonicians set up trade centers on the coast yes, but did not colonize maybe due to several reasons, but one would be they for the most part were not interested in colonization but were Sea Peoples for the most part. There territories largely consisted of Coastal towns with sea ports. The Elymian towns of Segesta and Entellina (what is ancient Entellina) are in the area of 20-25 miles inland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

ihype02
19-05-20, 00:26
When I said western I was actually talking about Sardinia. I don't know which time frame exactly where they taken, expect they are from Bronze Age.
https://i.imgur.com/l1MDlZ4.png

From a cultural prespective I find the Greek colonization of Italy to be a, very, good thing. And they surely left a large genetic input in Southern Italians. Now how they treated the locals that's something else. I do believe that this narrative viewing Sicilians as nearly nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks is partly ifluenced by a Greaco-centric view, i.e due to the attractive Greek civilization, so the idea of being some lost ancient Mediterranean Spartan brothers or something like that.

They tend to miminize anything comes from north or anything that isn't Greek or MENA.

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 00:39
When I said western I was actually talking about Sardinia. I don't know which time frame exactly where they taken, expect they are from Bronze Age.
https://i.imgur.com/l1MDlZ4.png

From a cultural prespective I find the Greek colonization of Italy to be a, very, good thing. And they surely left a large genetic input in Southern Italians. Now how they treated the locals that's something else. I do believe that this narrative viewing Sicilians as nearly nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks is partly ifluenced by a Greaco-centric view, i.e due to the attractive Greek civilization, so the idea of being some lost ancient Mediterranean Spartan brothers or something like that.

They tend to miminize anything comes from north or anything that isn't Greek or MENA.

Ok, well that is clearer. From National Geographic DNA test (measures ancestry 500 to 10000 years back), I get 14% West-Med, which they define as Sardinia, Corsica, NW Italy and coastal France into Iberia, but Sardinia being the best example of this ancestry (I think that it is correct). So the link between Bell_Beaker Sicily, ancient Greek, and Roman samples in the plot you posted is representative of my own MTA timeline I plotted above and my NAT Geo DNA test with the 14% West Med. So that graph is totally in line with my own DNA ancestry and "ALL" of my ancestors immigrated from Sicily to the USA between 1890 and 1903 from town in Trapani, Palermo and Agrigento as well (1 Great Grandfather was born there in a mountain town over 5,000 feet high).

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 00:41
Oh and I have no problem with Greek civilization in Sicily, that along with Southern Italy is the place where in my opinion, the greatest 2 ancient civilizations meet on Land and is seen in the architecture, language, food, and people themselves.

Now who these "they are" you are referring to, I have no idea.

ihype02
19-05-20, 01:02
Oh and I have no problem with Greek civilization in Sicily, that along with Southern Italy is the place where in my opinion, the greatest 2 ancient civilizations meet on Land and is seen in the architecture, language, food, and people themselves.

Now who these "they are" you are referring to, I have no idea.
I was talking about Anthrogenica.

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 01:15
I was talking about Anthrogenica.

Ok, well I have not in the beginning, now, or ever shall be, associated with that group.

torzio
19-05-20, 01:58
That doesn't change the fact that the Elymians were not Phoenicians either. The Hittites were from Anatolia for the record and there territory did stretch down to what is Modern Syria or Lebanon. The Hittite language, if you want to argue the Elymians were Anatolians with some Northern Levant admixture (may be true, so freaking what) would then indicate that the Elymian language is from the oldest known Indo-European language. Is that what you want to argue, I have a strong suspicion that it is not what you want to argue as the Hittites were not Nordic. Regardless, the linguistic evidence points to the Elymans having an Indo-European language. Yes the Pheonicians settled in The Elymian lands around 900 BC or there abouts, the Greeks starting arriving around 750 BC

The Elymians and Sicani from an archaeological record, are not distinguishable based on evidence dating back to 1100 BC, which predates the Pheonicians arrival by 100 years if you date the Pheonicians founding sea ports as early as 1000 BC. Scholarly research on the Sicilian language indicates the Elymian's arrived in Sicily as early as 1200 BC which it a minimum 200 years before the Pheonicians and maybe 300 years earlier (Phoenician arrival 1000BC-900 BC). So if the Anatolian origin of the Elymians is true (Trojans, as Trojan War is dated to 1260 BC to 1180 BC) then a connection to the Hittite civilization might be true and the Elymian language, which is an Indo-European type language would indeed be related to the Ancient Hittite language, which as I already noted above is the oldest extant Indo-European language. As for Trojan origin, that was not me, it is what ancient Scholars saw about the Elymians, some argue Trojans, some Italics (Ligurians or ancient from Puglia).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymians

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/researcharchive/index.php3-c=178.htm


So with respect to my own DNA history, again autosonal, not Haplogroup, I do show some affinity to the ancient Hittites along with the Bell Beaker Sicilian. What that means, well likely that most of my ancestry is Neolithic type Early European Farmer ancestry but I think you probably already know that.



120831208412085

Who cares , what the Hittites are, they arrived via the south-caucasus and where related to the Hatti ............the bulk of Anatolia spoke Luwian by Luwian people, ..............clearly the myceaneans who stopped trading in sicily at 1400BC , where clearly trading way before , most likely from middle bronze age , they where in Sicily even before the Phoenicians where around ........
Mycenaeans where even in istria in bronze age....................when you have a fleet , you can go anywhere in the med

I do not know what you are upset about

You need to stop searching your ancestors before early medieval times.......trying to find any before this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack............be it roamn empire times or later barbarian invasion, people where displaced and moved around far too much ...............just save yourself some headaches and only go back to the medieval times

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 03:53
Who cares , what the Hittites are, they arrived via the south-caucasus and where related to the Hatti ............the bulk of Anatolia spoke Luwian by Luwian people, ..............clearly the myceaneans who stopped trading in sicily at 1400BC , where clearly trading way before , most likely from middle bronze age , they where in Sicily even before the Phoenicians where around ........
Mycenaeans where even in istria in bronze age....................when you have a fleet , you can go anywhere in the med

I do not know what you are upset about

You need to stop searching your ancestors before early medieval times.......trying to find any before this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack............be it roamn empire times or later barbarian invasion, people where displaced and moved around far too much ...............just save yourself some headaches and only go back to the medieval times

I am not upset at anyone in particular more the "anthrongenica mentality" that started this thread, and not upset at the poster who started the thread. The entire premise of the thread was based on what is said about Sicily and genetics over at anthrogenica. So it is more I am pissed off at this implicit, some case explicit, that the standard of what is someone from Europe is Nordic Scandanavians or people with significant Steppe ancestry or whatever. You live in Australia, I dealt with these WASP country club "bleepers" growing up as if the standard of what it means to European is WASPISH culture, looks, etc, etc. And for the record, I have no issue with England, USA and it are historically close, fought 2 World Wars together last century, and are close NATO allies. But it is the mentality of a segment of the Country club WASP types here in the USA and the Nordic types over at Anthrogenica that I am more ticked off with. Europe is broad continent, I don't need the affirmation from Nordicist as to what is European. My ancestors are from Europe, specifically, Southern Europe overwhelmingly for the most part, and more so tied to Southern Italy and Sicily.

As for looking for ancient ancestors, well I have been on You tube forums where lectures sponsored by the University of California UCTV (recent one had Mathieson on ancient Europe, I think Jonathan Key on Neanderthals) and invariably the discussion in the comments on videos like these, and others like the ones I used as an example from UCTV, always has the Nordicist POS who starts with who are the standard of who is European, and of course they always define themselves as the "standard". So when I as a poor old 2nd/3rd generation American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry can show a genetic continuity between Me in 2020, and thus all my immediate ancestors, back to the two greatest European Civilizations (Ancient Greece and Rome) a side of my Sicilian temper pops up and I "allegorically like to shove in their faces".

So if you want to know why I do what I do, that is why I do what I do. Everybody has their thing, yours appears to be the Y-DNA clade analysis, mine is what I described above.

Angela
19-05-20, 04:01
When I said western I was actually talking about Sardinia. I don't know which time frame exactly where they taken, expect they are from Bronze Age.
https://i.imgur.com/l1MDlZ4.png

From a cultural prespective I find the Greek colonization of Italy to be a, very, good thing. And they surely left a large genetic input in Southern Italians. Now how they treated the locals that's something else. I do believe that this narrative viewing Sicilians as nearly nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks is partly ifluenced by a Greaco-centric view, i.e due to the attractive Greek civilization, so the idea of being some lost ancient Mediterranean Spartan brothers or something like that.

They tend to miminize anything comes from north or anything that isn't Greek or MENA.

What Italian, or at least what Italian knowing anything about Italian archaeology and history would see Sicilians, or Southern Italians, for that matter, as nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks?

If you're speaking of anthrogenica, you must not realize that there are no actual Italians there to my knowledge. Sickeliot, under whatever sock name he's now using there is not Italian. First he was Portuguese Princess and other Iberian sock names, who t-rolled Southern Italians and Sicilians mercilessly from theapricity, forumbiodiversity, even here. When he was attacked for that he suddenly pronounced publicly that he was half Sicilian/half Portuguese from Cape Verde, I think, and he hadn't been t-rolling, he had been "celebrating". What he wasn't so eager for people to know is that he is a known anti-Semite infamous on his college campus, and a known apologist and enthusiast for the "Arab" cause. His politics and his biases totally distort whatever "analysis" he does, which is actually usually a distortion of things I said on 23andme.

In his latest incarnation he announced online that he was half Sicilian/one quarter Polish and one quarter Portuguese. He has sent me links to e-mail accounts, pictures supposedly from his travels in Sicily (which were obviously photo-shopped) and numerous fake accounts to prove he wasn't who I knew him to be. How can anyone take the pronouncements of such an obviously disturbed young man seriously?

Needless to say, like everyone else at anthrogenica he was completely and utterly wrong about the Etruscans, he (and they) was wrong in saying Remedello would be highly steppe admixed, as would be the Italian Beakers, he, and they, and eurogenes ridiculed me when I said Iran Neo started arriving in Italy at least by the early Bronze, and, to cap it off he, and they, said it was ludicrous to believe the ancient Greeks would turn out to be pretty close to modern Sicilians and Southern Italians. In fact, he used to tell me that the Greeks had no influence on Italy, and the similarities were from Italian migration TO Greece. :)

How times have changed, thanks to ancient dna. Of course, some of us had pieced it together before we had the ancient dna.

So, forgive me, but how they see these things is of no interest to me, and should be of no interest to anyone. They have been wrong each and every time.

Perhaps there are a few there who have some Italian American ancestry, and have been fooled by charlatans like thim. That would explain there complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Cramming some facts from Wiki are not enough.

Anyway, anthrogenica is the last place I would look for a take on how "Italians" view all of this, and absolutely NOT as a source for Italian academic perspectives on it. Heck, they didn't even read the ANGLO world scholarship on the Etruscans, much less the Italian one.

Btw, whose PCA is this? It looks odd.

Joey37
19-05-20, 04:09
I was named after my great-grandfather, a first generation Sicilian-American (his parents were from Palazzo Adriano), and am proud of my Sicilian heritage, a drop of olive oil in my otherwise glass of milk DNA, but I do not match many Greco-Roman samples, I'm afraid; the addition of Mediterranean DNA into the 60% majority British Isles DNA merely makes me plot closer to my West German ancestors than to my English or Irish forbears. Most of my samples at MTA are Franks or Celts, and many French people today are descended from Romanized Franks and Celts, so there's that. I frequent Anthrogenica but my area of interest is the haplogroups, and most of the guys there are fellow Americans interested in their roots and not interested in racialist theory, although I can't speak of everyone.

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 04:21
I was named after my great-grandfather, a first generation Sicilian-American (his parents were from Palazzo Adriano), and am proud of my Sicilian heritage, a drop of olive oil in my otherwise glass of milk DNA, but I do not match many Greco-Roman samples, I'm afraid; the addition of Mediterranean DNA into the 60% majority British Isles DNA merely makes me plot closer to my West German ancestors than to my English or Irish forbears. Most of my samples at MTA are Franks or Celts, and many French people today are descended from Romanized Franks and Celts, so there's that. I frequent Anthrogenica but my area of interest is the haplogroups, and most of the guys there are fellow Americans interested in their roots and not interested in racialist theory, although I can't speak of everyone.

Palazzo Adriano is a neat place, it sits about 3,000 feet in the mountains. In the piazza there is a water fountain on on the left side looking directly at the fountain, is the Church of SS Marie Del Lume (Roman/Latin Catholic) and on the right is Church of SS Marie Assunte (Byzantine Catholic). There is a museum right next to the Municipal office that documents the making of the movie Cinema Paradiso. I visited the town last summer and found my Mother's Father (My Grandfather's birth record) and his Father's Wedding document. Her Father's family were all in the Roman Catholic tradition. I had already found my Mother's Mother's Father's birth record through ancestry (he was baptized in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Beautiful town to visit.

Salento
19-05-20, 06:41
Torzio: I don't dispute Mycenaean's setting up trade with Sicily in 1400 BC in fact they were trading with the Southern Mainland at that time (modern Puglia) and had set up trade with Iberia as well. But Greek colonization in Sicily did not happen till 750 BC but at that same time, Greek's were founding colonies in Puglia, Calabria and Campania, Naples being a city they founded. So why is it that Sicily seems to be the "brunt of your interest"?

With respect to the article you linked regarding Iron Age Elymians, in light of the trade with the Myceneans, it is not surprising that when the Greek colonization took place in 750 BC, the Elymians and Sicani easily adjusted to the Greek civilization as they had been engaging in commerce with the Greeks long before. Pheonicians set up trade centers on the coast yes, but did not colonize maybe due to several reasons, but one would be they for the most part were not interested in colonization but were Sea Peoples for the most part. There territories largely consisted of Coastal towns with sea ports. The Elymian towns of Segesta and Entellina (what is ancient Entellina) are in the area of 20-25 miles inland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

... ‘cause you mentioned Puglia and National Geographic, ...and “Grecìa Salentina” is in Salento :)

https://i.imgur.com/IjfGPgY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/m5sHvG3.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pKxFKMN.jpg


MTA’s Ancient Ancestry Map matches NatGeo’s results:

https://i.imgur.com/5krz8St.jpg

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 07:39
Salento: I appreciate the explanation why you put your NAT Geno in but no need to, you can post to me anytime. If I saw something goofy, which I try to avoid, fraternal correction is welcomed. I get the same 2 reference populations you get at NAT Geno and my MTA map is similar to yours. I think the MTA Timeline I posted above confirms that.

Cheers.

Salento
19-05-20, 08:11
Salento: I appreciate the explanation why you put your NAT Geno in but no need to, you can post to me anytime. If I saw something goofy, which I try to avoid, fraternal correction is welcomed. I get the same 2 reference populations you get at NAT Geno and my MTA map is similar to yours. I think the MTA Timeline I posted above confirms that.

Cheers.

... it’s not about you,
a lot of people don't know who we really are, but they like to write a lot ... about us, your Region, mine and others ...

Many of the “experts “ who write endlessly about our Regions and Ancestry, are not motivated by a genuine academic interest or curiosity, each of them has their reasons ... (God bless their heart) ... :)

They think they know a lot about us, but they don't ...

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 16:59
... it’s not about you,
a lot of people don't know who we really are, but they like to write a lot ... about us, your Region, mine and others ...

Many of the “experts “ who write endlessly about our Regions and Ancestry, are not motivated by a genuine academic interest or curiosity, each of them has their reasons ... (God bless their heart) ... :)

They think they know a lot about us, but they don't ...

Thanks and I agree with what you said. Very well stated. I will go even further, I think there has always been the notion by many a different group of peoples to want the ancient Greeks and Romans to look like Nordics and have their genetics and sound like BBC Commentators. Sort of like some of the fundamentalist types I grew up around with that thought Saint Peter and Saint Paul "used the King James Bible" Totally different subject but the mentality was always the same.

But you as I do get closest ancient populations Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome and you as I do get closest modern population Italian and Greek. So if that does not suggest genetic continuity overall with some regional variations in admixture here and there, I don't know what does.

Ailchu
19-05-20, 17:38
From my perspective, the ancestry that arrived from the east either directly or through the Greeks is just mainly the same old, same old. The new arrivals carried Anatolia Neolithic, which had been in Europe for 7,000 years already. It carried more Iran Neo/CHG, but some of that was part of the genesis of the Anatolia Neolithic in the first place, and more had been dribbling in since the Bronze Age. It was just the arrival of some long separated distant cousins. It's not like the Han Chinese suddenly migrated in, for heaven's sake.

Some people want to obfuscate this fact and label these newcomers as "alien", somehow, not people very similar to whose who make up 40-50% of their own ancestry, but now alien "Middle Easterners" who would pollute their blood. Is it the additional Iran Neo which is so objectionable? Yet that makes no sense to me because it was extremely similar to the ancestry which formed 40-50% of the ancestry of the steppe people whom they so want to share ancestry with...

Maybe all the fuss is because of some minor amount of "Levant" Bronze Age ancestry which slipped in. Is antisemitism really still so virulent in some of these people, that and hatred of Middle Eastern refugees, that they'll distort history and population genetics to find it only in people in Europe they can label the "other". Just think what would happen if these kinds of people came into power again, and what a tool genetic testing would be for them.

I find it bizarre but not really surprising.

There was population mixing throughout human history: Neanderthals and Denisovans with each other and with modern humans (and who knows how many other hominids), Levant Neolithic with Anatolia Neolithic, both with Iran Neolithic, Anatolia Neolithic with WHG, EHG with Iran Neo/CHG, steppe people with Middle Neolithic people, etc. all mixtures of far more different people from one another than any incoming Aegean like people with local inhabitants of the Italic peninsula and Sicily. That 's more akin to somebody saying the Danes were a brand new population from the Angles and Saxons, or even the Saxons from the Britons. These are just shades of difference.



Far more important to me than these minor genetic differences are what incoming people brought with them. Did they bring new crops, new innovation, architecture, art, literacy, or rape, rapine, the mass destruction of infrastructure, death and disease?

it's very easy, it is not hatred of refugees its hatred of near east in general. those people, not just at anthrogenica but rather all "eurocentrics", don't want to believe the deep genetic connection that europeans have with modern near eastern people. so to seperate what can't be seperated they have to cut their own flesh and distort population genetics.
even if there were hordes of phoenicians in sicily nothing really new would have been added. they were all distant cousins as you said so well. and all further developed than most of europe. same with carthaginians.

Yetos
19-05-20, 18:45
it's very easy, it is not hatred of refugees its hatred of near east in general. those people, not just at anthrogenica but rather all "eurocentrics", don't want to believe the deep genetic connection that europeans have with modern near eastern people. so to seperate what can't be seperated they have to cut their own flesh and distort population genetics.
even if there were hordes of phoenicians in sicily nothing really new would have been added. they were all distant cousins as you said so well. and all further developed than most of europe. same with carthaginians.


You are mixing and confusing 2 different things,

I think it is obvious that in your mind you created an idea of 'hatred'
and chew it as chewing gum everywhere.

Ailchu
19-05-20, 19:39
You are mixing and confusing 2 different things,

I think it is obvious that in your mind you created an idea of 'hatred'
and chew it as chewing gum everywhere.

can you elaborate on what those 2 different things are? you really believe that people who think any additional near eastern ancestry is pollution or making people less european hate on refugees just because of their culture or religion? i think you don't know what we are dealing with here.

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 20:06
Ailchu: I think I remember you and me discussing migrant and EU policies in another forum. While I am not a moderator (Jovialis and Angela do a good job with that in these Italian related genetics forums), don't you think the migrant issue is a separate issue for most people and should be discussed in the political forum. However, I do recognize there is a segment where the migrant issue and Asia minor ancestry from the Arabia, Levant or Iran Neolithic, etc are interrelated.

I don't want to speak for the OP for this thread (ihype02) or anyone else but at least based on what the OP wrote, the thread seems to me was about Genetics per se independent of modern Political issues in the EU due to migrants and illegal immigration. There are people, me included, who agree with the anti-illegal immigration policies of political parties in my case, the USA, and agree with politicians in Europe who believe the same thing. That does not mean I (they) all hate people from different parts of the world than where one's ancestors happen to be from or are against any and all immigrants. I am the grandson/great grandson of immigrants, but I will say clearly "legal immigrants" who came to the USA through "legal ports of entry" with documentation as to who they are and where they were from. My particular case as with all Italian immigrants during the period 1885 to 1920 as well as Polish, Greeks and SE Europeans and Eastern European Jews during that period were "legal immigrants".

So I am not going to speak for Yetos either but for some people there are 2 different things at play here. One is totally related to using DNA to explain the genetics of modern Greeks and modern Italians are while not static (nothing is 100% static), are in significant continuity with the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. The findings of that fact are now robust to several different studies. That to the chagrin of the anthrogenica type crowd goes against everything they have been saying before we had DNA. The other issue about migrants and immigration, legal vs. illegal, etc is purely a political and economic issue and relates to ensuring culture stability in host countries. I see those as 2 totally different issues, as I think Most people do. If there are antrogenica types that conflate the two together, well that is a different issue, at least to me.

Ailchu
19-05-20, 22:08
i agree with you that the issue about illegal or legal immigrants is not part of this discussion. i was talking about eurocentric folks at anthrogenica not about simple opponents of illegal immigrants. those are indeed 2 different things. i don't see why you and yetos think it was the same.

do you think they would look for recent near eastern ancestry in sicilians just because they don't like illegal migrants? makes no sense, right? i think they just can't admit to themselves that european ancestry is in large parts related to near east and that phenotypic traits that are overlapping between those two regions can be there because of shared ancestry and not just because of recent mixture.likewise a near easterner with european traits must have recent european ancestry or for example ancestry from yamnas. it was the same with darker looking northern europeans. they must have had recent southern European ancestry, romans maybe, it couldn't be because of shared ancestry in the whole population. that one changed, now they need to somehow exclude near east.

Palermo Trapani
19-05-20, 22:46
i agree with you that the issue about illegal or legal immigrants is not part of this discussion. i was talking about eurocentric folks at anthrogenica not about simple opponents of illegal immigrants. those are indeed 2 different things. i don't see why you and yetos think it was different?
why do you think they look for near eastern ancestry in sicilians? i think they just can't admit to themselves that european ancestry is in large parts related to near east and that phenotypic traits that are overlapping between those two regions can be there because of shared ancestry and not just because of recent mixture. it was the same with darker looking northern europeans. they must have had recent southern European ancestry it couldn't be because of shared ancestry in the whole population. that one changed, now they need to somehow exclude near east.

Ok, well my position on antrogenica is well documented in my earlier post. The reason for aversion to Near East is I guess because of the "Stepper" fetish some in that circle have. They all want to believe that they are 100% Steppe and it was only I guess made up of Eastern European Hunter Gather and Ancient North Eurasian type ancestry, etc. Any thing from the Asia Minor Southern Caucus region, Northern Levant or Iran Neolithic type ancestry just doesn't fit their narrative. For the record, I have no need to be affirmed by the "Stepper's", I actually could care less. My issue is that they do not get to define what is European. Europe is comprised of Northern Europeans, NW Europeans (English, Angles, Scotts, Welsh, Irish, etc) and I guess Northern France, SW Europe (Iberia, Southern France) Southern Europe (Italy and Balkans), Central Europe, Eastern Europe, etc. I am very comfortable in my Southern European space, most countries North of the Alps I have no desire to visit, if you want me to totally honest.

I mean does the fact that George Harrison and Paul McCartney have darker hair and brown eyes make them less English?, I think Lennon had brown eyes, hair reddish brown, only Ringo had lighter eyes, sort of Hazel, but hair was darker rather than lighter.

But like I said I respectfully think the immigration issues are tangential to the thread

Cheers, Respectively, PT

ihype02
19-05-20, 23:33
What Italian, or at least what Italian knowing anything about Italian archaeology and history would see Sicilians, or Southern Italians, for that matter, as nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks?
Well I never mentioned it's Italians who say so and I said nearly nothing more than Italian-speaking Greeks which was hyperbolic on my part but the exact claim that is that the vast majority of the ancestry of Siclians and Southern Italians comes from Magna Greacians.

IMO, the ancient Greek ancestry in Italy probably peaks in Calabria given that most cities survived the wars and whole coast was controlled by them compared to around 2/3 in Sicily.

matadworf
20-05-20, 00:56
From what I have heard is that before the Greek colonization ancient Sicilians were much more Western shifted. My hypothesis was that Sicily is a diverse region with many different (ancient) populations (i.e natives, other Italians, Greeks, Phoenicans) but the Greek component was the greatest but not the absolute majority.
While some members in Anthrogenica tend to propose that the vast majority of their ancestry comes from the Hellenes that may be true but I am not convinced so far.
So what's your opinion about this?

I've also wondered what was Greece like before the Neolithic Expansion? Where's the data on this. Was no one living in what is now called Greece prior to the arrival of ENF?

Yetos
20-05-20, 01:06
it's very easy, it is not hatred of refugees its hatred of near east in general. those people, not just at anthrogenica but rather all "eurocentrics", don't want to believe the deep genetic connection that europeans have with modern near eastern people. so to seperate what can't be seperated they have to cut their own flesh and distort population genetics.
even if there were hordes of phoenicians in sicily nothing really new would have been added. they were all distant cousins as you said so well. and all further developed than most of europe. same with carthaginians.

what connection has this
it's very easy, it is not hatred of refugees

with this
its hatred of near east in general.

in fact some European nations are very proud for having ANE or simmilar ancestry to their genetic structure

Palermo Trapani
20-05-20, 01:06
I've also wondered what was Greece like before the Neolithic Expansion? Where's the data on this. Was no one living in what is now called Greece prior to the arrival of ENF?

mataworf: I think what you are asking is a fair "research question" that hopefully the legitimate scholars like Krause, Lazaridis, Reich, Mathieseon, etc to adress. I don't know if there are any Mesolithic Ancient Greek samples out there. Eurogenes K13 ancient has 18 Mesolithic European samples, non from Greece (a few from Italy) and Croatia. Dodecad 12b Ancient has 12 but again none from Ancient Greece. MDLP same thing, no ancient Greek Mesolithic samples. Maybe the moderators and advisors here know of some Mesolithic Greek samples that are being studied but the papers haven't been released yet for review.

bigsnake49
20-05-20, 01:14
We have no Dna from the Mesolithic period from Greece. We also do not have any or very little DNA from classical Greece.

Palermo Trapani
20-05-20, 01:46
We have no Dna from the Mesolithic period from Greece. We also do not have any or very little DNA from classical Greece.

Those are 2 periods with significant differences in time periods. Classical era, we are only talking about 200 or so years, 6th century to 4th century BC, etc. However, we do have samples Pre Classical Greece (Lazaradis et al 2017) analyzing Minoans and Mycenaeans and Post Classical Greece (Stamatoyannopoulouos et al 2017) analyzing the Medieval Peloponneseans. I think the basic conclusion is that Modern Greeks are in genetic continuity with both the Minoans and Mycenaeans and the Medieval Greeks were not replaced by other populations and thus are also in continuity with Greeks from earlier years, although the medieval Greeks are closer to modern Sicilians and mainland Italians (maybe tied to the Roman empire moving East?).

So I guess do you think that the Classical Greeks will show a genetic discontinuity with pre-Classical era and post-Classical era Greeks? My priors on it are probably not.

bigsnake49
20-05-20, 03:12
Those are 2 periods with significant differences in time periods. Classical era, we are only talking about 200 or so years, 6th century to 4th century BC, etc. However, we do have samples Pre Classical Greece (Lazaradis et al 2017) analyzing Minoans and Mycenaeans and Post Classical Greece (Stamatoyannopoulouos et al 2017) analyzing the Medieval Peloponneseans. I think the basic conclusion is that Modern Greeks are in genetic continuity with both the Minoans and Mycenaeans and the Medieval Greeks were not replaced by other populations and thus are also in continuity with Greeks from earlier years, although the medieval Greeks are closer to modern Sicilians and mainland Italians (maybe tied to the Roman empire moving East?).

So I guess do you think that the Classical Greeks will show a genetic discontinuity with pre-Classical era and post-Classical era Greeks? My priors on it are probably not.

I would like DNA from 1200-200 BC to include the collapse of civilization around the 12th century BC to find out what happened to those great civilizations. Was it a pandemic? The sea people? Something else? I would like DNA from the great age of colonization in the 800's and 700BCs. I would like to see if there are differences between the Greek tribes. I would like to see if we could trace each tribe's migration patterns. I would like to see if there is any genetic effect of the Celtic tribes in the Balkan area and particularly in Greece. I would like to see if there are any genetic differences or similarities between all the different Thracian and Illyrian Tribes. I would like to know what happened to all the different people that the Roman emperors, the Byzantine Emperors and the Turkish Sultans moved around through the centuries for whatever reason.

Angela
20-05-20, 03:23
i agree with you that the issue about illegal or legal immigrants is not part of this discussion. i was talking about eurocentric folks at anthrogenica not about simple opponents of illegal immigrants. those are indeed 2 different things. i don't see why you and yetos think it was the same.

do you think they would look for recent near eastern ancestry in sicilians just because they don't like illegal migrants? makes no sense, right? i think they just can't admit to themselves that european ancestry is in large parts related to near east and that phenotypic traits that are overlapping between those two regions can be there because of shared ancestry and not just because of recent mixture.likewise a near easterner with european traits must have recent european ancestry or for example ancestry from yamnas. it was the same with darker looking northern europeans. they must have had recent southern European ancestry, romans maybe, it couldn't be because of shared ancestry in the whole population. that one changed, now they need to somehow exclude near east.

I largely agree with you.

@BigSnake,
Me too.

As for Classical Greeks, my guess would be they're not that different from Mycenaeans, but perhaps with some more "northern" ancestry. I think modern mainland Greeks, except for certain parts of the Peloponnese, have additional "northern" ancestry which arrived after the fall of Rome, in the early Medieval period. That's pure speculation, of course, and I'm not insistent on that interpretation. Time will tell.

Angela
20-05-20, 03:31
I've also wondered what was Greece like before the Neolithic Expansion? Where's the data on this. Was no one living in what is now called Greece prior to the arrival of ENF?

To the best of my recollection there were no large hunter/fisher settlements in Greece. The largest was all the way up by the Iron Gates, where the fishing was extremely good as was the foraging.

There are papers from a few years ago which showed some amount of admixture with the farmers, but I believe it was Mathiesen who said the resulting group didn't have a large genetic impact further into Europe.

It's always been my impression that a lot of the WHG in the mainland Greeks came with migrations later on from more northern areas.

Palermo Trapani
20-05-20, 03:57
I would like DNA from 1200-200 BC to include the collapse of civilization around the 12th century BC to find out what happened to those great civilization. Was it a pandemic? The sea people? Something else? I would like DNA from the great age of colonization in the 800's and 700BCs. I would like to see if there are differences between the Greek tribes. I would like to see if we could trace each tribe's migration patterns. I would like to see if there is any genetic effect of the Celtic tribes in the Balkan area and particularly in Greece. I would like to see if there are any genetic differences or similarities between all the different Thracian and Illyrian Tribes. I would like to know what happened to all the different people that the Roman emperors, the Byzantine Emperors and the Turkish Sultans moved around through the centuries for whatever reason.

Ok, nice theoretical background laid out there. Like I said, a "legitimate research question" that I hope the top notch scholars will address.

Cheers, PT

bicicleur
20-05-20, 08:45
To the best of my recollection there were no large hunter/fisher settlements in Greece. The largest was all the way up by the Iron Gates, where the fishing was extremely good as was the foraging.

There are papers from a few years ago which showed some amount of admixture with the farmers, but I believe it was Mathiesen who said the resulting group didn't have a large genetic impact further into Europe.

It's always been my impression that a lot of the WHG in the mainland Greeks came with migrations later on from more northern areas.

in Sicily there was the Grotta dell'Uzzo

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotta_dell%27Uzzo

don't know whether they were WHG, they might have come from Anatolia as well

MOESAN
20-05-20, 11:32
Well I never mentioned it's Italians who say so and I said nearly nothing more than Italian-speaking Greeks which was hyperbolic on my part but the exact claim that is that the vast majority of the ancestry of Siclians and Southern Italians comes from Magna Greacians.

IMO, the ancient Greek ancestry in Italy probably peaks in Calabria given that most cities survived the wars and whole coast was controlled by them compared to around 2/3 in Sicily.

around the 2010's or even a bit before there has been a paper about diverse zones of autosomes high density of certain type and their respective inputs on other zones (in today pops): even if arbitrary named, this paper showed what it called a genetic "gressian" node and its input elsewhere: Southern Italy was exactly in the same coloured highly "greek" autosome zone as Greece, and the density of this input diminished gradually as you went further North in Italy. No big surprise. Things have not changed too much, except the definition of this node, which today is burst into several more ancient genetic pops. But it confirms the today similarities even if this similarity could have been the result of more complicated events than an unique pure Greek (or helladic pre-Greek) colonisation.

MOESAN
20-05-20, 11:41
Thanks and I agree with what you said. Very well stated. I will go even further, I think there has always been the notion by many a different group of peoples to want the ancient Greeks and Romans to look like Nordics and have their genetics and sound like BBC Commentators. Sort of like some of the fundamentalist types I grew up around with that thought Saint Peter and Saint Paul "used the King James Bible" Totally different subject but the mentality was always the same.

But you as I do get closest ancient populations Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome and you as I do get closest modern population Italian and Greek. So if that does not suggest genetic continuity overall with some regional variations in admixture here and there, I don't know what does.


The stereotypes of 'nordic' blonds left aside, I think the first Italic pre-Roman and Roman people who got southwards from Northern Italy was more central-Europe-like (and bronze Iberian-like too) genetically than later Romans, and surely than Greeks of ancient time, Mycenians or later. Surely not pure BB's-like and with a good chunk of EEF and WHG (already mixed) previous people on their way South.

Yetos
20-05-20, 12:49
I would like DNA from 1200-200 BC to include the collapse of civilization around the 12th century BC to find out what happened to those great civilization. Was it a pandemic? The sea people? Something else? I would like DNA from the great age of colonization in the 800's and 700BCs. I would like to see if there are differences between the Greek tribes. I would like to see if we could trace each tribe's migration patterns. I would like to see if there is any genetic effect of the Celtic tribes in the Balkan area and particularly in Greece. I would like to see if there are any genetic differences or similarities between all the different Thracian and Illyrian Tribes. I would like to know what happened to all the different people that the Roman emperors, the Byzantine Emperors and the Turkish Sultans moved around through the centuries for whatever reason.

the celtic admixture in Greece and generally S Balkans manytimes is also considered as Slavic, or Roman,

bigsnake49
20-05-20, 14:41
the celtic admixture in Greece and generally S Balkans manytimes is also considered as Slavic, or Roman,

Just remember that Celtic mercenaries served on all warring sides in the battle of supremacy over Thrace, Macedonia and the rest of Greece for about 100 years.

Yetos
20-05-20, 15:14
Just remember that Celtic mercenaries served on all warring sides in the battle of supremacy over Thrace, Macedonia and the rest of Greece for about 100 years.

what 100 years, 2 milleniums,

Palermo Trapani
20-05-20, 16:17
in Sicily there was the Grotta dell'Uzzo
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotta_dell%27Uzzo
don't know whether they were WHG, they might have come from Anatolia as well

Grotta dell "Uzzo is in the Natural park in Trapani near San Vito Lopo, which is on the Northern Coastal extremes of Trapani. The ancient sample from Favignana which dates around the same time as the Grotta dell 'Uzzo find is WHG so likely the same, unless EEF type ancestry got to Sicily that early? Maybe it did, not saying that absolutely did not but the two papers I referenced in my post #2 clearly indicate that culture in the Egadi Islands was WHG.

Regio X
20-05-20, 17:13
The stereotypes of 'nordic' blonds left aside, I think the first Italic pre-Roman and Roman people who got southwards from Northern Italy was more central-Europe-like (and bronze Iberian-like too) genetically than later Romans, and surely than Greeks of ancient time, Mycenians or later.I believe I understand what you mean by "Roman people", and it looks very possible, but as a side note, I'd say that, strictly, it just makes sense talking on "Romans" from after the foundation of Rome, right? They must descend also from the kind of people you referred to, but according to the current data it looks like the founders proper were something else already, different even from any modern pop, since the bulk plotted between modern NW. Italians and (non-N.) Spanish (there were also Southern-shifted samples).

https://i.imgur.com/4XSywLa.jpg

So, the current (few) samples from Iron Age and Republican period around that area don't seem Central Euro-like, as you certainly know.


Surely not pure BB's-like and with a good chunk of EEF and WHG (already mixed) previous people on their way South.Interestingly, while these Central Euro groups caused increase of Steppe ancestry in areas to the South, IIRC they would have caused increase of EEF ancestry in areas to the North, such UK, in Iron Age.

Regio X
20-05-20, 17:40
We have Sicilian samples pre-Greek colonization. We've discussed them numerous times on other threads. What we need now are samples from Sicily right at the period of Greek colonization.

Of course, we'll have to keep in mind that as with all these studies, the graves of the newly arriving elite will be the ones that survive the most, with attendant resurgence of "locals" later, but it should give us a much better idea.

It may be the new Greek arrivals weren't that different from the locals anyway, given that some ancestry from the East was coming in during the Bronze Age, but even if they were, I am skeptical there was a "wipe out" of the locals. Even in the massively de-populated areas of Central Europe, and with a plague rampant, the steppe people are only 50% of the ancestry of the Bell Beakers. In Italy we can tell from the Parma Beakers that one barely had any steppe ancestry, and one had only a bit. Only in England would I apply that word, and also perhaps in the far northeast and north of Europe with Corded Ware, but that's because those places were inhospitable for the EEF neolithic package even as modified, so population levels were very low there. Plus, we can see that EEF like ancestry rebounded, so were they really annihilated even in those areas, or just absent from the archaeological record because they weren't given decent burials?

I don't understand the emphasis on the WHG in the larger scheme of things. They're a small part of any European's ancestry except to the far northeast and east, not west, unless they mean the Iberians have a bit more WHG than Italians and Greeks. So what? I don't see the significance.

The preoccupations of the people at anthrogenica are a reflection of their world view. They're welcome to them. I'm only interested in debating these things with people who have some objectivity. When you lack it you can make huge errors, i.e. as they all made there with the Etruscans.

From my perspective, the ancestry that arrived from the east either directly or through the Greeks is just mainly the same old, same old. The new arrivals carried Anatolia Neolithic, which had been in Europe for 7,000 years already. It carried more Iran Neo/CHG, but some of that was part of the genesis of the Anatolia Neolithic in the first place, and more had been dribbling in since the Bronze Age. It was just the arrival of some long separated distant cousins. It's not like the Han Chinese suddenly migrated in, for heaven's sake.

Some people want to obfuscate this fact and label these newcomers as "alien", somehow, not people very similar to whose who make up 40-50% of their own ancestry, but now alien "Middle Easterners" who would pollute their blood. Is it the additional Iran Neo which is so objectionable? Yet that makes no sense to me because it was extremely similar to the ancestry which formed 40-50% of the ancestry of the steppe people whom they so want to share ancestry with...

Maybe all the fuss is because of some minor amount of "Levant" Bronze Age ancestry which slipped in. Is antisemitism really still so virulent in some of these people, that and hatred of Middle Eastern refugees, that they'll distort history and population genetics to find it only in people in Europe they can label the "other". Just think what would happen if these kinds of people came into power again, and what a tool genetic testing would be for them.

I find it bizarre but not really surprising.

There was population mixing throughout human history: Neanderthals and Denisovans with each other and with modern humans (and who knows how many other hominids), Levant Neolithic with Anatolia Neolithic, both with Iran Neolithic, Anatolia Neolithic with WHG, EHG with Iran Neo/CHG, steppe people with Middle Neolithic people, etc. all mixtures of far more different people from one another than any incoming Aegean like people with local inhabitants of the Italic peninsula and Sicily. That 's more akin to somebody saying the Danes were a brand new population from the Angles and Saxons, or even the Saxons from the Britons. These are just shades of difference.



Far more important to me than these minor genetic differences are what incoming people brought with them. Did they bring new crops, new innovation, architecture, art, literacy, or rape, rapine, the mass destruction of infrastructure, death and disease?This is a recent one, and it looks related.

Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/biodeterminism-and-pseudoobjectivity-as-obstacles-for-the-emerging-field-of-archaeogenetics/38193E63328ECEA338D3C4F5B84AC593

Angela
20-05-20, 17:48
This is a recent one, and it looks related.
Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/biodeterminism-and-pseudoobjectivity-as-obstacles-for-the-emerging-field-of-archaeogenetics/38193E63328ECEA338D3C4F5B84AC593

It may be related, but I completely disagree with him.

Angela
20-05-20, 17:57
I believe I understand what you mean by "Roman people", and it looks very possible, but as a side note, I'd say that, strictly, it just makes sense talking on "Romans" from after the foundation of Rome, right? They must descend also from the kind of people you referred to, but according to the current data it looks like the founders proper were something else already, different even from any modern pop, since the bulk plotted between modern NW. Italians and (non-N.) Spanish (there were also Southern-shifted samples).
https://i.imgur.com/4XSywLa.jpg
So, the current (few) samples from Iron Age and Republican period around that area don't seem Central Euro-like, as you certainly know.
Interestingly, while these Central Euro groups caused increase of Steppe ancestry in areas to the South, IIRC they would have caused increase of EEF ancestry in areas to the North, such UK, in Iron Age.

I very much agree. The "Romans" of the Roman Republic, who then conquered Italy were already Southern European like.

I wonder if the majority of the ancestry entering Italy from the northeast may have been a different stream from the Bell Beakers who went to, say, England.

Also, in terms of southeastern ancestry. It was already showing up in Rome in 800 BC.

bigsnake49
20-05-20, 18:28
It may be related, but I completely disagree with him.
Totally Angela! People in these forums and elsewhere get caught up in the purity wars, us vs them, invent all kinds of weird theories to make their ancestors more heroic than what they were. The reality is that we are all a mixture of different people at different eras. Genetics does not point out how different we all are but how similar we are. After all it is a minuscule part of our genome that is differentiates us. Genetics and archaeology can work together to tell us all about the people that populated a place in time.

Duarte
20-05-20, 19:03
This is a recent one, and it looks related.
Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/biodeterminism-and-pseudoobjectivity-as-obstacles-for-the-emerging-field-of-archaeogenetics/38193E63328ECEA338D3C4F5B84AC593

I prefer not to go into the merits of the question presented in the text of the link. I just made a conversion to “editable text”, for those who can be interested in copying it.

Cheers ;)

”Michael Blakey presents a principled attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism , which , as he argues , is seeping into the work of the most highly rated , best - regarded authorities of the international scientific community . Blakey attacks , powerfully , the old and clearly debunked idea of races as a biological thing , and points to the structural socio - economic background for its repeated zombie - like return . The paper will probably spark controversy , because it situates this observation in a broad sociopolitical context of overt and hidden racism and the ideological justification of old and current social inequality and injustice . It fiercely criticizes attempts by leading geneticists , most notably David Reich , to reconsider race science as an attempt to roll back the post - war scientific consensus that human races are socially constructed entities , by falsely claiming to pursue an unideological , objective look at what would be ' biological facts ” . Blakey iden tifies this as part of the larger contradictory , yet interconnected , trends of , on the one hand , claim ing to ignore the existence of the social category of race and denying the effects of racism , while , on the other hand , trying to naturalize social inequalities by referring to different , supposedly genet ically determined qualities of individuals ' , or ' groups ' , which are thinly veiled euphemisms for race . Blakey contextualizes this historically , showing how the invention of modern racism is tightly connected to the emergence of colonialism and capitalism , serving as ideological justifica tion for both systems of exploitation . In a similar manner , the current attempt to explain social differences in educational or economic success and in sociocultural patterns as being grounded in supposed biological differences is a political endeavour , whether or not it is intended by its protagonists , which plays into the hands of those political forces that want to justify and further intensify current levels of inequality ( both nationally and globally ) . This is not a new argument , and Blakey himself has published on these issues before , but in the light of the new importance of genetics in many fields of research , including archaeology , what he has to say is clearly important . I do not want to engage here in detail with all of Blakey's arguments . Instead , given the theme of this journal and my role as a prehistoric archaeologist , I would like to consider Blakey's paper in the wider context of interdisciplinarity between geneticists and archaeologists , a context for which Blakey's more directed attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism is highly relevant . This relevance is , I believe , first of all to be found in Blakey's fundamental critique of biodeterminism as an ideological mindset with severe political connotations , and second in the notion of scientific objectivity in general . Both issues speak to central points of conflict , or misunderstandings , between geneticists and archaeologists in the newly emerging field of archaeogenetics .

We archaeologists have found ourselves facing a veritable rollback of seemingly long - overcome notions of static cultures and a biologization of social identities , something that is clearly con nected to the idea of races ( Müller 2013 ; Heyd 2017 ; Furholt 2018 ; Frieman and Hofmann 2019 ) . And this rollback is connected to the massive impact of ancient - DNA studies on archae ology . The premise that prehistoric communities were closed , internally homogeneous social entities with a shared uniform culture and a shared genetic ancestry , collectively migrating across the Eurasian continent , was invented by fascist ideologues such as Gustaf Kossinna in order to further right - wing , nationalist and racist political goals and to justify territorial claims in”

Jovialis
20-05-20, 20:36
I think what I call, racialist-lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) is worse than what this Michael Blakey is purporting. There are dark parts of the internet where people reject human population genetics, as political propaganda. While promoting espousing racial purity, based on benighted ideas of the past. Usually, they are anti-intellectual nordicist, or afrocentric loons.

Angela
20-05-20, 20:42
I think what I call, racialist-lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) is worse than what this Michael Blakey is purporting. There are dark parts of the internet where people reject human population genetics, as political propaganda. While promoting espousing racial purity, based on benighted ideas of the past. Usually, they are anti-intellectual nordicist, or afrocentric loons.

Well, I didn't know who he was and had to look him up. If ever a face matched up with evil ideology, it was his.

Incredible that he is enjoying a resurgence in Russia.

Regio X
20-05-20, 21:24
I prefer not to go into the merits of the question presented in the text of the link. I just made a conversion to “editable text”, for those who can be interested in copying it.
Cheers ;)
”Michael Blakey presents a principled attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism , which , as he argues , is seeping into the work of the most highly rated , best - regarded authorities of the international scientific community . Blakey attacks , powerfully , the old and clearly debunked idea of races as a biological thing , and points to the structural socio - economic background for its repeated zombie - like return . The paper will probably spark controversy , because it situates this observation in a broad sociopolitical context of overt and hidden racism and the ideological justification of old and current social inequality and injustice . It fiercely criticizes attempts by leading geneticists , most notably David Reich , to reconsider race science as an attempt to roll back the post - war scientific consensus that human races are socially constructed entities , by falsely claiming to pursue an unideological , objective look at what would be ' biological facts ” . Blakey iden tifies this as part of the larger contradictory , yet interconnected , trends of , on the one hand , claim ing to ignore the existence of the social category of race and denying the effects of racism , while , on the other hand , trying to naturalize social inequalities by referring to different , supposedly genet ically determined qualities of individuals ' , or ' groups ' , which are thinly veiled euphemisms for race . Blakey contextualizes this historically , showing how the invention of modern racism is tightly connected to the emergence of colonialism and capitalism , serving as ideological justifica tion for both systems of exploitation . In a similar manner , the current attempt to explain social differences in educational or economic success and in sociocultural patterns as being grounded in supposed biological differences is a political endeavour , whether or not it is intended by its protagonists , which plays into the hands of those political forces that want to justify and further intensify current levels of inequality ( both nationally and globally ) . This is not a new argument , and Blakey himself has published on these issues before , but in the light of the new importance of genetics in many fields of research , including archaeology , what he has to say is clearly important . I do not want to engage here in detail with all of Blakey's arguments . Instead , given the theme of this journal and my role as a prehistoric archaeologist , I would like to consider Blakey's paper in the wider context of interdisciplinarity between geneticists and archaeologists , a context for which Blakey's more directed attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism is highly relevant . This relevance is , I believe , first of all to be found in Blakey's fundamental critique of biodeterminism as an ideological mindset with severe political connotations , and second in the notion of scientific objectivity in general . Both issues speak to central points of conflict , or misunderstandings , between geneticists and archaeologists in the newly emerging field of archaeogenetics .

We archaeologists have found ourselves facing a veritable rollback of seemingly long - overcome notions of static cultures and a biologization of social identities , something that is clearly con nected to the idea of races ( Müller 2013 ; Heyd 2017 ; Furholt 2018 ; Frieman and Hofmann 2019 ) . And this rollback is connected to the massive impact of ancient - DNA studies on archae ology . The premise that prehistoric communities were closed , internally homogeneous social entities with a shared uniform culture and a shared genetic ancestry , collectively migrating across the Eurasian continent , was invented by fascist ideologues such as Gustaf Kossinna in order to further right - wing , nationalist and racist political goals and to justify territorial claims in”Thanks, Duarte. I could read it now. It was shared elsewhere, and I "forwarded" after reading just a little part of it, "hurried". Guilty! I thought they criticized the way genetics is being used in certain "environments", and wouldn't have imagined it reached Reich (who didn't attempt what they say), the very field of populational genetics and even capitalism. Nah. You know what I think about it. Reading it all, particularly I found it, say, "pamphleteer". Now I understand Angela.
It may be a good idea reading texts before sharing them. Lol
Sorry all. Probably better to return to the topic.

MOESAN
20-05-20, 22:30
It may be related, but I completely disagree with him.

This paper seems to me carrying a good charge of prejudice or biased interpretations, what is funny when speaking of "pseudo-objectivity". Every attempt to study demic moves along history is only a tentative to rehabilitate old racism?

Regio X
20-05-20, 22:56
This paper seems to me carrying a good charge of prejudice or biased interpretations, what is funny when speaking of "pseudo-objectivity". Every attempt to study demic moves along history is only a tentative to rehabilitate old racism?Perfect! I agree!

Palermo Trapani
21-05-20, 01:53
I think what I call, racialist-lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) is worse than what this Michael Blakey is purporting. There are dark parts of the internet where people reject human population genetics, as political propaganda. While promoting espousing racial purity, based on benighted ideas of the past. Usually, they are anti-intellectual nordicist, or afrocentric loons.

In my experience, the two groups you cited, while obviously different on the DNA spectrum or in terms of their ideology, analytical skills, scholarship etc, 100% in agreement, that is they both engage in pseudo-science.

MOESAN
23-05-20, 11:55
I very much agree. The "Romans" of the Roman Republic, who then conquered Italy were already Southern European like.

I wonder if the majority of the ancestry entering Italy from the northeast may have been a different stream from the Bell Beakers who went to, say, England.

Also, in terms of southeastern ancestry. It was already showing up in Rome in 800 BC.


to you @angela and @Reggio

Agree, this post of mine was very bad, imprecise and hastly written.
True, "Romans" began with the foundation of Rome, and were surely no more the first Italics, if these ones were still homogenous when reaching N-Italy, what is still to prove.
Yes the Republic Romans were southern shifted, in the modern sense (they were no more neither the first Anatolians "babies", but they tended to be between today N-Italians and Iberians as you said.
There has been, I think, a big enough gap between some northern Italian BB's (not the >Sicilian one, very southern quasi "autochtonous") and Italics. Yet, the IA Romans were a bit more Steppes and Iran shifted compared to today Spanyards. And distinct from the S. Italians, ancient and modern, and from Mycenians. I wonder how were the first Italics entering Italy? Like proto-Villanovians?
&: this PCA seems a bit weird concerning distances, compared to a lot of others. But PCA's are PCA's...

Leopoldo Leone
23-05-20, 13:36
Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).

Angela
23-05-20, 13:38
to you @angela and @Reggio

Agree, this post of mine was very bad, imprecise and hastly written.
True, "Romans" began with the foundation of Rome, and were surely no more the first Italics, if these ones were still homogenous when reaching N-Italy, what is still to prove.
Yes the Republic Romans were southern shifted, in the modern sense (they were no more neither the first Anatolians "babies", but they tended to be between today N-Italians and Iberians as you said.
There has been, I think, a big enough gap between some northern Italian BB's (not the >Sicilian one, very southern quasi "autochtonous") and Italics. Yet, the IA Romans were a bit more Steppes and Iran shifted compared to today Spanyards. And distinct from the S. Italians, ancient and modern, and from Mycenians. I wonder how were the first Italics entering Italy? Like proto-Villanovians?
&: this PCA seems a bit weird concerning distances, compared to a lot of others. But PCA's are PCA's...

We do have one proto-Villanovan sample, and he isn't all that far from some of us (according to one analysis I'm at a distance of 6.2 to him, but others are closer), but one sample really isn't enough.

Plus, we're talking about Iron Age. There was quite a span of time since the Italics first entered Italy.

So, another one which is still to be determined. :)

Angela
23-05-20, 14:14
Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).

Completely agree. If anyone needed further proof, just look at how abysmally wrong they were about the Etruscans. That's what happens when you completely ignore the archaeology and focus only on the myths of ancient authors because it supports your agenda.

Academics are human, like everyone else, and must have their own biases, but they also have a livelihood to maintain. They can't stray too far from objectivity for very selfish motives. Of course, they're not all equally competent.

Still, much better than some "enthusiast" sitting in his mom's basement obsessing about these things, or worse yet being paid by some shady racist organization.

ihype02
23-05-20, 17:23
Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).

Cretans are shifted 20% towards Levant compared to Myceanans and Minoans in both academic and non academic PCAs it's even more for some other islands.
On the other hand I have never seen historical data to support it so I don't why is it that way. You can find people in many different ethnicities who claim pureness nothing special about Jews in that case. IMO some Jews tend to propose that they are of Hellenic ancestry plus lots of Levant (I don't believe it though).

Tbh I find even 70% a very high estimate for the Greek impact in Sicily.
For Apulia it's not even arguable:
https://attachment.tapatalk-cdn.com/9828/201807/10758330_c10009b105391c113065cef7a16732ae.jpg?Expi res=1591112321&Signature=NklRsqHfRVS1BdtEBby0HgTJ3QQN-vnbeAxuwKI8w0XR12g2hQbXR5BZZIbbhtOXiLVzqU0KHYZ7MWu a1UzYdkRd6SAKLk94m~52HOk5EPohN8mmCsGXEFXrBksPnD6aA D4XM4~i3og3hYCqZ0C46ATNvj0r~o43mFUlg6Cv~LI5OcZ2q71 VasLNU2DifBhmiTBXbeXIIzfZmpnA2DGSizUUkSlO82hXZwH~5 zBrS88HSH1Y4j3pmUYqDPQrl9C1KXL-Cvl0hcmQg~HwM59IPEi-5ItafRwjU-TVXFAYl-jPPbu1pHPt0oMs7TwSTB-s1kQDfYR7kgsmE3KIcUL6SA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJS72YROXJYGYDADA

torzio
23-05-20, 19:14
Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).

the first know "greeks" into Italy where the Myceneans , then later the bulk where corinthian Greeks ...................apart from sicliy and north italy, the rest of italy was inhabited by tribes that came out of 2 groups, the Etruscans and Umbri and I am talking bronze age and earlier

ihype02
23-05-20, 19:24
the first know "greeks" into Italy where the Myceneans , then later the bulk where corinthian Greeks ...................apart from sicliy and north italy, the rest of italy was inhabited by tribes that came out of 2 groups, the Etruscans and Umbri and I am talking bronze age and earlier
There is no strong evidence of a Greek colonization in Italy prior to the Archaic age, some cultural similarites in pottery cannot always be attributed to colonization.
The first colony colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily were from Euboea where they founded Cumae (Campania) and Naxos (Sicily).

torzio
23-05-20, 19:41
There is no strong evidence of a Greek colonization in Italy prior to the Archaic age, some cultural similarites in pottery cannot always be attributed to colonization.
The first colony colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily were from Euboea where they founded Cumae (Campania) and Naxos (Sicily).

Every race that had access to the med. sea had a navy for trading etc .............the myceneans did not just got east from their homeland to trade and war...........
there are greek settlements in France, Corsica and Spain, why not other places ?

Euboea is in the northern Aegean area .........as I said , in bold above

Yes and corinthian greeks discovered/created or began very many towns in Albania and Montenegro ................plus Ancona in Italy was a corinthian/spartan mixture town set up for trading

bigsnake49
23-05-20, 21:29
There was a lot of trade in the Med during the Bronze Age. The trade was disrupted after 1200BC but we have no idea why. Famine, plague, war?

BTW, they can localize the pottery or weaponry whether it is local or as a result of trade by using isotope ratios.

Palermo Trapani
23-05-20, 22:11
As for when Sicily was colonized by Greeks, the documented date in the research literature is 8th century BC, which is the same time in Southern Italian mainland. As for Pheonicians, they started building Sea ports in the era 1000BC-900 BC in the coastal areas of NW Sicily (modern Trapani and Palermo provinces), again, that is what the scholarly consensus documents. As for Trading between different areas of the Med. world and Sicily in particular before 1,000 BC (Bronze Age in Europe dates from 3,2000 BC to about 700/600 BC), yes it is plausible it occurred and likely it did occur. This map shows the spread of Bronze materials showing its movement from the East (Anatolia, Southern Caucusus region, Ancient Iran) to the Levant and Europe. How that impacted populations is a good question and we do have some 24 Ancient Sicilians and DNA from them. Dodecad 12B has the coordinates for 23 of the non Bell Beaker ancient Sicilians and the 1 Bell Beaker ancient Sicilian. I just took the 24 ancient Sicilians and put them in the target and ran closest distances. I ran it up to 30, but that would be too much to post here so I dropped it to "top 10 closest for each". The Bell Beaker Sicilian looks very Neolithic EEF type, very close to ancient Greeks but also to Neolithic Central Europe (Hungary). Overall, the Ancient Sicilians look very much like Neolithic European Populations from various regions. Sicily I-8561 looks like an Iron Age Roman. Ancient Sicilians I-7774, 4064, 4063, 4062, 3122, and 3071 look very close to various Roman samples from Antonio et al 2020. Ancient Sicilian I-4383 is closer to Ancient Levant.

So my take on what we know based on the ancient data we have from Sicily before the Pheonicians built ports on West Coast (1,000-900BC), Greek Colonization (800-750BC) and Roman Province (circa 260 BC) is that the ancestry already in Sicily doesn't look too different than what is there today. Furthermore, the ancestry that was in Sicily is what was also in Ancient Lazio before Roman Republic and in fact the ancestry that was in the Roman Republic was also there. In addition, R473 is one of the 3 Estruscan samples and Ancient Sicilian I-8561 is only 5.4 distance away which indicates "Etruscan like" ancestry was also in Sicily back then. So what happens during the period from 1,000 BC to Roman Imperial Age (1,000 year period), I don't know but my hypothesis is by the early 1st Century AD, Sicily is not much different than it was before 1,000 BC, only slight movements here our there, but still in genetic continuity. I am not going to post it here but I get close distances to many of those same ancient Roman and Greek sample that these ancient Sicilians get, maybe not the same exact ones, but ones from the same time periods.

https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/09/30/bronze-age-interactions-the-tin-trade/




Distance to:
I8561_Sicily_EBA_Isnello


5.40012963
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia


5.58181870
IronAgeCatalan_I12640


5.60164262
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia


6.20312018
France_BA_PIR3037AB


6.31986550
I1297_Malak_Preslavets


7.12013343
MX299_Switzerland_LN


7.33978883
I2215_Malak_Preslavets


7.36342312
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977


7.38828126
R851_Iron_Age_Ardea


7.44951005
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima





Distance to:
I7807_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


1.66952089
I4089_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.19903110
I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.97108298
I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.99597297
I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.93265649
I1109_Malak_Preslavets


5.32412434
I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


5.37071690
I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic


5.49314118
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


5.57661187
ANI159_ANI181_Varna


5.81320910
I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic





Distance to:
I7805_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


7.30767405
I3879_Malak_Preslavets


9.21722301
I9128_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_C rete


10.21845879
I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo


10.59093008
I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


10.69100089
I2426_Balkans_Chalcolithic


10.74459399
I0025_LBK1992_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE


11.08821446
I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE


11.09567483
I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


11.10822668
I0560_QLB18A_Baalberge_MN_Quedlinburg_IX_Germany_3 640-3510_calBCE


11.29180676
SX30_Switzerland_LN





Distance to:
I7800_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


5.17469806
I2111_Trypillia


6.93037517
HispanoRomanMaghrebiCordobaCaliphate_I7497


8.64827150
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge


9.30288127
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge


9.32493968
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge


9.34563534
I3578_SE_Iberia_c.5-8CE


9.49149619
LateRomanIberiaGranada_I3581


9.50241022
I16163_Sardinia_IA_Anghelu_Ruju


9.63873954
I3582_SE_Iberia_c.5-8CE


9.68907632
I3579_SE_Iberia_c.5-8CE





Distance to:
I7796_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


6.38157504
I0071_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete


6.40158574
I9006_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Agia_Kyriaki_Salamis


6.64335006
I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete


7.13919463
I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic


7.39129894
Kumtepe006_Anatolian


7.54225430
I8208_NE_Iberia_Hel_Empuries2


8.47769426
I0070_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete


8.57864208
I2318_Peloponnese_Neolithic


8.63081688
I0073_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete


9.56215980
I0679_Krepost_Neolithic





Distance to:
I7774_d_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


3.02145660
I0056_HAL14_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5052_calBCE


3.96720304
I4168_Balkans_Neolithic


4.55449229
I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


4.71360796
I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


4.92106696
I5205_LBK_Austria


5.25256128
ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic


5.48245383
I1109_Malak_Preslavets


5.77051124
I5208_LBK_Austria


5.78651017
R19_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado


5.78877362
R17_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado





Distance to:
I4383_Sicily_EBA_lowcov_Vallone_Inferno


9.27571561
I1679_AG037C_early_PPNC_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan


9.32486461
I1707_AG83_5_Late_MPPNB


9.33427555
I1727_AG_83_3082_Early_MPPNB


9.45480830
I0644_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant


9.48284240
I1414_AG84/1_Early_MPPNB_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan


9.65359519
I1710_AG83_6_Middle_MPPNB


10.16158944
I1178_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant


10.93192572
I1182_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant


10.99811347
I0867_Motz1_Late_PPNB_Motza_Israel


11.02119322
I1169_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant





Distance to:
I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


2.38574936
NE1_Hungary_5230BC


2.82593347
I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


2.83151903
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


3.05437391
I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.56512272
I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


3.62405850
I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.66387773
I2427_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.74030747
I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.77031829
ZMOJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic


4.16468486
I5068_LBK_Austria





Distance to:
I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


2.78845836
SX29_Switzerland_LN


4.26324993
I2425_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.98568952
I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


5.04007936
I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic


5.32981238
I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


5.51390968
ANI160_Varna_Outlier


6.09534248
I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo


6.13104396
I1109_Malak_Preslavets


6.19706382
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


6.42070090
I1295_Malak_Preslavets





Distance to:
I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


1.92942997
I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE


1.99060292
SX33_Switzerland_LN


2.84371236
I0100_HAL4_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5032-4946_calBCE


3.00153294
I5207_LBK_Austria


3.25829710
I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


3.41218405
I4168_Balkans_Neolithic


3.43778999
I5206_LBK_Austria


3.96964734
I0025_LBK1992_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE


4.00296140
I1131_Balkans_Neolithic


4.03311294
R2_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza





Distance to:
I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


2.19961360
SX30_Switzerland_LN


2.79646205
I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.65861996
R4_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza


4.03759830
I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


4.21939569
I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE


4.75331463
I5207_LBK_Austria


5.11871078
R16_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado


5.35984142
SX33_Switzerland_LN


5.81406054
I0100_HAL4_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5032-4946_calBCE


6.04588290
ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic





Distance to:
I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


1.74505014
ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic


2.40339343
R19_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado


2.50836600
I4168_Balkans_Neolithic


2.58663875
I5206_LBK_Austria


2.72444490
R10_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza


2.76085132
R2_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza


2.79910700
I0100_HAL4_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5032-4946_calBCE


2.97882527
I1131_Balkans_Neolithic


3.12147401
R8_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza


3.12800256
I5208_LBK_Austria





Distance to:
I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


2.59638210
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


3.10774838
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.41202286
I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.45666024
I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.46754957
I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.56512272
I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.92601579
I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


4.07361019
I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.35386036
NE1_Hungary_5230BC


4.51811908
I1109_Malak_Preslavets





Distance to:
I3876_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.19796379
I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


5.53040686
I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


5.72220237
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


5.89556613
I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


5.93046373
ANI159_ANI181_Varna


6.14047229
I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


6.25874588
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


6.42632088
I9033_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Peristeria_Tryfilia_Pel oponnese


6.43125182
I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic


6.81532098
I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic





Distance to:
I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


2.82593347
I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.69119222
I2427_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.19796379
I3876_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.42179828
I0026_LBK2155_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE


4.42179828
I0054_UWS4_LBK_EN_Unterwiederstedt_Germany_5209-5070_calBCE


4.55848659
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.68846457
NE1_Hungary_5230BC


4.80381099
I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.80741095
ZMOJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic


4.81193308
I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic





Distance to:
I3124_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


4.74948418
I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


4.93095325
I1295_Malak_Preslavets


5.24644642
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge


5.51750850
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic


6.29726131
I2110_Trypillia


6.56469344
I16163_Sardinia_IA_Anghelu_Ruju


6.77674701
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge


7.60484056
I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


7.73796485
I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


7.76561009
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia





Distance to:
I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


2.96270147
I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


4.16385639
I1295_Malak_Preslavets


4.28827471
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.51478682
I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.74948418
I3124_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


4.98568952
I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


5.32412434
I7807_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


5.88328990
I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


5.96274266
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic


6.17085894
ANI160_Varna_Outlier





Distance to:
I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


1.48576580
SX30_Switzerland_LN


2.79646205
I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


3.89434205
R4_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza


4.77526963
SX21_Switzerland_LN


4.89766271
R104_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi


4.91419373
I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo


5.64912383
I1298_Balkans_Neolithic


5.74703402
SX29_Switzerland_LN


5.99037561
R16_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado


6.30038094
I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna





Distance to:
I11443_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.40296929
Collegno94


3.85862670
R1224_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria


4.02052235
France_IA_NOR2B6


4.41479331
Collegno47


4.48606732
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120


4.62529999
R1221_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria


4.93207867
Collegno102


4.93511905
R108_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi


4.98007028
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72


5.28465704
I3866_NE_Iberia_c.6-8CE_ES





Distance to:
I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


2.37804542
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


2.96270147
I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.69582197
I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.92601579
I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


3.97108298
I7807_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana


4.38094739
I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.47598034
I4089_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.80716132
I1109_Malak_Preslavets


4.90296849
ANI159_ANI181_Varna


5.15879831
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita





Distance to:
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


2.08074506
I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic


2.46432547
NE1_Hungary_5230BC


2.54560405
I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


2.59638210
I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


2.78095307
I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic


2.83151903
I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


3.33490630
I1109_Malak_Preslavets


3.99248043
I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.08718730
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.09997561
I0022_LBK1976_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE





Distance to:
I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


3.76706783
ZHAJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic


3.99248043
I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.02550618
ZMOJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic


4.07361019
I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


4.12688745
I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.38588646
NE1_Hungary_5230BC


4.43064329
I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II


4.69982978
I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic


4.77678762
I1109_Malak_Preslavets


4.83144906
ZKO_Boncuklu_Aceramic





Distance to:
I10371_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


3.24140402
I5068_LBK_Austria


3.37772113
I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3.61868761
I3948_Balkans_Neolithic


4.16461283
I3433_Balkans_Neolithic


4.55655572
Anatolia_N_Bar8_Barcin


4.61166998
I0698_Balkans_Neolithic


4.70006383
I2521_Balkans_Neolithic


4.84339757
I5069_LBK_Austria


4.88729987
I0785_Balkans_Chalcolithic


5.12469511
R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza





Distance to:
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily


5.09041256
I9129_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_C rete


7.54527667
Kumtepe006_Anatolian


8.19122701
I3498_Balkans_Neolithic


8.48055423
I0174_BAM25_Starcevo_EN_Alsónyék-Bátaszék_Mérnöki_telep_Hungary_5710-5530_calBCE


8.59672030
I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic


9.11530032
Anatolia_N_Bar8_Barcin


9.18082785
I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete


9.36654686
I9005_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete


9.45330630
I2519_Balkans_Chalcolithic


9.63348846
I3708_Peloponnese_Neolithic

Yetos
23-05-20, 22:19
There is no strong evidence of a Greek colonization in Italy prior to the Archaic age, some cultural similarites in pottery cannot always be attributed to colonization.
The first colony colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily were from Euboea where they founded Cumae (Campania) and Naxos (Sicily).

first estimation of Greek colonisation is prior to 750 BC
Pithicousae (Ischia island)

but from Paschou et Al 2014 we know that Sicily had major the same genetic stuff of S Greece,
mainly Anatolian Neolithic farmers,

it is called the maritime conguest of Europe

the Cappadokian mark is the key to understand the population geneticks before Greek and Phoenician colonisation,
and it dates backs milleniums before Greeks or Phoenician colonise the island,

this Farmers were from the stock of Anatolian neolithic.

Palermo Trapani
23-05-20, 22:39
Yetos: I agree with you, the People in Sicily before any Pheonician trade/port centers were founded, again circa 1000-900BC or Greek Colonization from circa 800-750BC, were in terms of ancestry, predominate Early European Farmer (EEF) from ancient Anatolia, with I guess some WHG/CHG/Iran Neolithic type ancestry as secondary sources. Not that any one calculator is definitive, but In post 71 above, I took the ancient Sicilian Samples and put them in the Dodecad K12B target and wanted to see which ancient populations those 24 Ancient Sicilian samples are closest to. I think Neolithic EEF ancestry is clearly the major source, which for most on this board and forum is not surprising or anything new, but it doesn't hurt to re-state it. It doesn't mean these ancient Sicilians were Greeks, just means they both shared significant ancestry as you say from the Ancient Anatolians.

torzio
24-05-20, 00:12
first estimation of Greek colonisation is prior to 750 BC
Pithicousae (Ischia island)

but from Paschou et Al 2014 we know that Sicily had major the same genetic stuff of S Greece,
mainly Anatolian Neolithic farmers,

it is called the maritime conguest of Europe

the Cappadokian mark is the key to understand the population geneticks before Greek and Phoenician colonisation,
and it dates backs milleniums before Greeks or Phoenician colonise the island,

this Farmers were from the stock of Anatolian neolithic.


Cappodician mark ?....what is that?

Cappodicia is in eastern Asia Minor ( anatolia ), they are a mix of proto-cimmerian steppe people with IIRC the hatti people

the black sea was smaller in size, and drinkable for humans

real expert
24-05-20, 00:28
What is the deal at Anthrogenica with Sicily?
Anyway, my take on it but still what is the story the Anthrogenica folks are trying to tell about Sicily?


Well, a guy who was very obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connections was banned. I wonder why???? On Anthrogenica it seems, that people right and left are getting banned including one moderator and people who wrote tons of comments for years there. It appears that debating there is like walking on eggshells. What's the point of a forum about genetics when people can't express what they think and debate studies without being so strongly under moderation? A compliment to the moderators from Eupedia who show lots of patience by allowing debates and discourse without heavy moderation and PC.
To me debunking, refuting nonsense, or misconceptions and educating are better than just to ban people with fringe and crazy theories. Of course this only applies to people that are not about trolling for the sake of trolling. Freedom of speech is a great achievement.

bigsnake49
24-05-20, 01:17
Cappodician mark ?....what is that?

Cappodicia is in eastern Asia Minor ( anatolia ), they are a mix of proto-cimmerian steppe people with IIRC the hatti people

the black sea was smaller in size, and drinkable for humans

Both Yetos and you are misspelling Cappadocia :grin:.

bigsnake49
24-05-20, 01:34
Duplicate, sorry!

Palermo Trapani
24-05-20, 01:47
Well, a guy who was very obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connections was banned. I wonder why???? On Anthrogenica it seems, that people right and left are getting banned including one moderator and people who wrote tons of comments for years there. It appears that debating there is like walking on eggshells. What's the point of a forum about genetics when people can't express what they think and debate studies without being so strongly under moderation? A compliment to the moderators from Eupedia who show lots of patience by allowing debates and discourse without heavy moderation and PC.
To me debunking, refuting nonsense, or misconceptions and educating are better than just to ban people with fringe and crazy theories. Of course this only applies to people that are not about trolling for the sake of trolling. Freedom of speech is a great achievement.

Real expert: A guy was obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connection was banned. Well that statement in and off itself is BS that this guy made. Again, how the hell does Sicily cluster with other Southern Italian regions and modern Greeks, etc. Why is East Med treated differently for Sicily than other Southern European countries or any Country. How is that Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2 document Anatolian Neolithic ancestry ranging from 56% in SItaly1 to 72% in NItaly4. I don't have the supplements in front of me but SItaly1 I think were samples from Basilicata and maybe another Southern Region, one of the SItaly samples was a macro sample with all regions South of Rome included but it is clear Sicily1 and Sicily2 are "Sicily". So is it not accurate to say 56% (SItaly1) <= Sicily (Sicily1 and Sicily2) <= 72% (NItaly4) with respect to Anatolian Neolithic ancestry. What about the CHG and Iran Neolithic ancestry documented in that Study, as well as Antonio et al 2019. Is there some Levant type ancestry in Sicily from ancient the Levant, yes. Northern Levant Lebanon/Syria borders Anatolia. Still for this obsessed guy to make such claims he is either an ignorant as& or a troll, or both as those are many times observational equivalents.

The problem that I have seen is that many people go to these calculators and just lump all East-Med or Near East admixture and assume it is 100% the same under the term "MENA" and go on Youtube forums or blogs and spout BS. In 2020, it is clear that the CHG, Iran Neolithic, Levant-Neolithic, Anatolian Neolithic (EEF), all came from some earlier West-Eurasian cluster (45-50K years ago), as did other groups (WHG, EHG), and some have this hypothesized Basal Eurasian admixture as well, but by Neolithic period, all these groups were distinct populations and should be modeled as such. Some of these calculators seem to not do that to well.

But when you say Debate, expressing opinions under the guise of freedom of speech that are not substantiated by legitimate research is not a debate, that is Bull Crap. Now, I am not one for banning anyone either but that is not my say. However, calling someone's BS is an entirely different manner.

Duarte
24-05-20, 18:26
The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean

https://i.imgur.com/sR7Ejki.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JUaDz72.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wwpbQIv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/enPRj7s.jpg
Source:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2020_Fernandes_NatEcolEvol_WestMediterranean_Suppl ement.pdf

Angela
24-05-20, 18:34
The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean

https://i.imgur.com/sR7Ejki.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JUaDz72.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wwpbQIv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/enPRj7s.jpg
Source:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2020_Fernandes_NatEcolEvol_WestMediterranean_Suppl ement.pdf

Is there any particular point you're trying to illustrate, Duarte? There's a mountain of information presented there. :)

Duarte
24-05-20, 18:44
Is there any particular point you're trying to illustrate, Duarte? There's a mountain of information presented there. :)

No, Angela. I posted it as an illustration. If it is not useful, I delete it ;)

Angela
24-05-20, 19:12
No, Angela. I posted it as an illustration. If it is not useful, I delete it ;)

It's indeed useful; I appreciate you doing it. :)

It's just, as I said, there's a mountain of information there and I thought maybe you wanted to focus our attention on particular aspects to better understand the issues.

Duarte
24-05-20, 19:23
It's indeed useful; I appreciate you doing it. :)

It's just, as I said, there's a mountain of information there and I thought maybe you wanted to focus our attention on particular aspects to better understand the issues.

Thank you Angela.
As you said, there are a lot of information. I think some aspects of the bars graphs analyzed the timeline are very intersting. The comparative analyze can broken some taboos. As I am not an expert, I prefer abdicate this work to not say nonsense. Thank once again ;)

torzio
24-05-20, 19:25
Well, a guy who was very obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connections was banned. I wonder why???? On Anthrogenica it seems, that people right and left are getting banned including one moderator and people who wrote tons of comments for years there. It appears that debating there is like walking on eggshells. What's the point of a forum about genetics when people can't express what they think and debate studies without being so strongly under moderation? A compliment to the moderators from Eupedia who show lots of patience by allowing debates and discourse without heavy moderation and PC.
To me debunking, refuting nonsense, or misconceptions and educating are better than just to ban people with fringe and crazy theories. Of course this only applies to people that are not about trolling for the sake of trolling. Freedom of speech is a great achievement.


the banning is due to insistence with people trying to say that modern nationalistic borders and the populace in these nations existed from today to ancient times without change.

I told people many times, there is barely 1% chance that you can find your line prior to medieval times ...........due to the fact of the roman empire moving people about and the later barbarian invasions ..............do not waste your time

People forget, nationality only began after 1750AD

torzio
24-05-20, 19:26
The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean

https://i.imgur.com/sR7Ejki.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JUaDz72.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wwpbQIv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/enPRj7s.jpg
Source:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2020_Fernandes_NatEcolEvol_WestMediterranean_Suppl ement.pdf



thank you ...I never seen this Feb. 2020 paper

Palermo Trapani
24-05-20, 19:28
No, Angela. I posted it as an illustration. If it is not useful, I delete it ;)

Good Afternoon Duarte and Angela: I am glad Duarte posted this. My quick take is the Reich team (Lazaradis was on the paper as well) findings (Fernandes et al 2020) on Iran Neolithic dating back prior to 1,500 BC supports and confirms the findings that Raveane et al 2019 documented in Figure 2 (which I have posted below), that is significant Iran Neolithic ancestry in Sicily as well as other regions. Thus, the Raveane et al 2019 study which clearly documents not only Iran Neolithic, but also CHG ancestry in not only Sicily, but other regions, is a paper that "Correctly modeled" ancient source ancestry for Sicily as well as other Italian regions. Antonio et al 2019 documented the same thing in their paper. So if any paper going forward does not have these distinct populations properly modeled and measured when analyzing Italian DNA from various regions it is in my opinion, to put it as nice as possible on Sunday, "poor scholarship."

1210012101

Palermo Trapani
24-05-20, 19:46
the banning is due to insistence with people trying to say that modern nationalistic borders and the populace in these nations existed from today to ancient times without change.

I told people many times, there is barely 1% chance that you can find your line prior to medieval times ...........due to the fact of the roman empire moving people about and the later barbarian invasions ..............do not waste your time

People forget, nationality only began after 1750AD

Torzio: I agree with you about trying to trace your direct lineage via Haplogroup analyis. No disagreement there. Also, not disagreement that modern nations today existed going back to Antiquity and beyond without change is also correct. However, I think the research is pretty clear that all the ancient population groups were present in Italy by the 1st Millennium BC, if not earlier, and that documenting a strong and significant genetic affinity and continuity with those ancient Romans, ancient Italians, my case also ancient Greeks and Thracians, does mean something.

More specifically, to me it refutes the notion I had to listen to growing up in the 1970's when BBC's I Claudius came on and the WASP elite in the USA would have you believe the ancient Romans were "English" and the Nordicist would have you believe they looked like the Marvel Comic Book character "Thor" {and I am a big fan the 70's Marvel and DC comic characters for the record, more Batman in DC and Spidey in Marvel].

So on the issue of examining ancient DNA prior to Medieval times, I think it is a worthwhile exercise for scholars in the Genetics field and for non-Genetics scholar enthusiast who love History, archaeology and have a strong tie to their ancestral homeland. I will say this, and I have said it here among friends and co-workers where I live, I felt a stronger connection and more at home in Sicily and Rome when I visited last summer than I do in some parts of the USA. That ticked off some people when I said that but it is honestly how I feel.

bigsnake49
24-05-20, 19:53
the banning is due to insistence with people trying to say that modern nationalistic borders and the populace in these nations existed from today to ancient times without change.

I told people many times, there is barely 1% chance that you can find your line prior to medieval times ...........due to the fact of the roman empire moving people about and the later barbarian invasions ..............do not waste your time

People forget, nationality only began after 1750AD

Not just roman emperors, byzantine emperors and then Ottoman sultans did the same thing due to depopulation or due to local insurrections. For example in the area of Eastern Thrace where my ancestors came from there were Turkish speaking villages (islamized locals or moved there from elsewhere in the Ottoman empire), Greek speaking villages, Bulgarian speaking villages and 1 or 2 Serbian speaking villages. After the exchange of populations in 1922, Turkish speaking villagers and merchants from all over the Balkans were transferred to the same area. It would be interesting to trace all those populations and find out where they came from originally, where they ended up and their genetics. But the people that were originally involved in all those exchanges have and are dying off and people are intermarrying from people from different parts of the country or from different counties (in Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavia). It's very hard to find 4 grandparents from the same area anymore. Genetics become complicated when your ancestors have been moved a few times.

torzio
24-05-20, 19:55
Torzio: I agree with you about trying to trace your direct lineage via Haplogroup analyis. No disagreement there. Also, not disagreement that modern nations today existed going back to Antiquity and beyond without change is also correct. However, I think the research is pretty clear that all the ancient population groups were present in Italy by the 1st Millennium BC, if not earlier, and that documenting a strong and significant genetic affinity and continuity with those ancient Romans, ancient Italians, my case also ancient Greeks and Thracians, does mean something.

More specifically, to me it refutes the notion I had to listen to growing up in the 1970's when BBC's I Claudius came on and the WASP elite in the USA would have you believe the ancient Romans were "English" and the Nordicist would have you believe they looked like the Marvel Comic Book character "Thor" {and I am a big fan the 70's Marvel and DC comic characters for the record, more Batman in DC and Spidey in Marvel].

So on the issue of examining ancient DNA prior to Medieval times, I think it is a worthwhile exercise for scholars in the Genetics field and for non-Genetics scholar enthusiast who love History, archaeology and have a strong tie to their ancestral homeland. I will say this, and I have said it here among friends and co-workers where I live, I felt a stronger connection and more at home in Sicily and Rome when I visited last summer than I do in some parts of the USA. That ticked off some people when I said that but it is honestly how I feel.


of course it is worthwhile to look at ancients in today's modern national borders, but do not think they came from there ..............ancient traded and set up colonies or outposts since the bronze age, people under Roman rule where moved and displaced to other parts of the empire etc .....there is no clear fact on who is who...........

you do not even know if you are a norman that settled in Sicily after the norman invasion or a phoenician that settled in sicily .............

Angela
24-05-20, 20:22
of course it is worthwhile to look at ancients in today's modern national borders, but do not think they came from there ..............ancient traded and set up colonies or outposts since the bronze age, people under Roman rule where moved and displaced to other parts of the empire etc .....there is no clear fact on who is who...........

you do not even know if you are a norman that settled in Sicily after the norman invasion or a phoenician that settled in sicily .............

I was about to delete this for utter stupidity, but have decided to leave it as an object lesson.

OF COURSE HE"S NOT EITHER.

Didn't you just say no one in Europe is completely descended from any one ancient group?

A modern Sicilian may or may not have some Phoenician or Norman ancestry, but you're sure as hell not going to find that out by comparing them to MODERN POPULATIONS IN WEST EURASIA.

The Reich Lab and LAZARIDIS have not in any way, shape or form, given up on using ancient reference samples to analyze people. This is the second time I've corrected you. Do it again, and your post will not see the light of day.

I am not going to go down the rabbit hole with you as so many did when you couldn't understand the difference between a language and a script.

And how could you be unaware of that paper when we've been discussing it here since March of 2019????
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38120-The-Arrival-of-Steppe-Iranian-Related-Ancestry-in-Islands-of-West-Mediterranean?highlight=Mediterranean+Islands

I have no idea why anthrogenica is banning people; probably because they are going against the "orthodoxy" there. They banned people who insisted Etruscans didn't necessarily descend from a first millennium BC migration from the Near East too.

I told you years ago that you can identify as you wish: you're not Italian despite hundreds of years of ancestry in the borders of Italy. You're a Central European, a Swiss or Austrian at least. What a pity for you they don't want the areas from which you come.

Change your ethnic designation back to Alpine European if you wish. You have my personal permission.

Palermo Trapani
24-05-20, 20:40
of course it is worthwhile to look at ancients in today's modern national borders, but do not think they came from there ..............ancient traded and set up colonies or outposts since the bronze age, people under Roman rule where moved and displaced to other parts of the empire etc .....there is no clear fact on who is who...........

you do not even know if you are a norman that settled in Sicily after the norman invasion or a phoenician that settled in sicily .............

It is not important that I know if I am a Norman or not or if I am am a Phoenician or not. For the record, I don't think I am strongly genetically connected to either based on every running genetic distances on the ancient populations that are in Dodecad 12b, MDLP ancients and Eurogenes K13 ancients along with MTA. And not that it would be a bad thing if I was strongly connected to either, but the matter of the fact based on all the analyses that I have done is that I am not.

I am still trying to understand when you say a Norman that settled in Sicily in 12th century or Phoenician that settled in the 9th century BC. So one person settles there and his Y-DNA Haplogroup passes down to me (and Again, my Y-DNA Haplogroup does not indicate either Norman or Phoenician origin), but over the time period, successive generations marry people from that locale, but the time you get down to Me, the autosonal Dna is going to be what it is regardless of the Y-DNA Haplogroup is. I am not going to post my genetic distances (Dodecad, Eurogenes) but my closest distances are everything from Sicily to Rome, even some Central Italian region and modern Greece. That is what it is. MTA ancient DNA analysis is in line with and what Nat Geno, which measures DNA sourced 500 years ago back to 10,000 BC.


My Y-DNA is I-M223, I Haplogroups are about 7-8% in Sicily on average, about 15% in the Western Half. I don't know anything about me being I-M223 other than that is what National Geographic told me when I got my report earlier this year. My research interest has been more on establishing genetic affinity with the regions where My ancestors came from and doing family research to trace back where all my Paternal and Maternal ancestors came from. I have been able with birth, marriage and death records, trace back on several family histories to the late 1700's, and on all back to early 1800's. So as I have noted before, we have different primary research issues.

Again, you have a focus on Y-DNA lineage. I think you yourself told me that with respect to all T Y-DNA Haplogroups, the only person living today that has the Basal T is from Armenia and your line may have started somewhere in ancient Anatolia nearby, etc. However, you on your on account define yourself as Nord-Italian. There are areas of West Africa(Cameroon) that have high levels of R1b, likely due to some early back migration from I guess Iberia. Yet, autosonal DNA and where modern Cameroon West Africans cluster, none of them, or any other modern West African,, with Y-DNA R1b clusters with Europeans with R1b.

torzio
24-05-20, 21:30
It is not important that I know if I am a Norman or not or if I am am a Phoenician or not. For the record, I don't think I am strongly genetically connected to either based on every running genetic distances on the ancient populations that are in Dodecad 12b, MDLP ancients and Eurogenes K13 ancients along with MTA. And not that it would be a bad thing if I was strongly connected to either, but the matter of the fact based on all the analyses that I have done is that I am not.
I am still trying to understand when you say a Norman that settled in Sicily in 12th century or Phoenician that settled in the 9th century BC. So one person settles there and his Y-DNA Haplogroup passes down to me (and Again, my Y-DNA Haplogroup does not indicate either Norman or Phoenician origin), but over the time period, successive generations marry people from that locale, but the time you get down to Me, the autosonal Dna is going to be what it is regardless of the Y-DNA Haplogroup is. I am not going to post my genetic distances (Dodecad, Eurogenes) but my closest distances are everything from Sicily to Rome, even some Central Italian region and modern Greece. That is what it is. MTA ancient DNA analysis is in line with and what Nat Geno, which measures DNA sourced 500 years ago back to 10,000 BC.
My Y-DNA is I-M223, I Haplogroups are about 7-8% in Sicily on average, about 15% in the Western Half. I don't know anything about me being I-M223 other than that is what National Geographic told me when I got my report earlier this year. My research interest has been more on establishing genetic affinity with the regions where My ancestors came from and doing family research to trace back where all my Paternal and Maternal ancestors came from. I have been able with birth, marriage and death records, trace back on several family histories to the late 1700's, and on all back to early 1800's. So as I have noted before, we have different primary research issues.
Again, you have a focus on Y-DNA lineage. I think you yourself told me that with respect to all T Y-DNA Haplogroups, the only person living today that has the Basal T is from Armenia and your line may have started somewhere in ancient Anatolia nearby, etc. However, you on your on account define yourself as Nord-Italian. There are areas of West Africa(Cameroon) that have high levels of R1b, likely due to some early back migration from I guess Iberia. Yet, autosonal DNA and where modern Cameroon West Africans cluster, none of them, or any other modern West African,, with Y-DNA R1b clusters with Europeans with R1b.
Thats correct, you never know who you are before the medieval times....you could be original Sicel people
I told you that T came from south central asia and it split off from halpogroup LT...i do not have an issue with this
Basal T are 3 only from Bhutan, Germany and Armenia.....i cannot see any link here

Palermo Trapani
24-05-20, 21:50
Thats correct, you never know who you are vefore the medieval times....you could be original Sicel people
I told you that T came from south central asia and it split off from halpogroup LT...i do not have an issue with this
Basal T are 3 only from Bhutan, Germany and Armenia.....i cannir see any link here

Torzio: I have tried to be civil and respectful in my posts with you. I did not say you can never determine and know who you were before the Middle ages. That is not what I said. If one shows significant genetic affinity and continuity with ancient populations, then you are indeed related to those peoples. Nobody is an original 1 population. I have Neanderthal admixture, like you surely do, and like all "eurasians" that doesn't mean I am a "Neanderthal" How can you say today you are from "one source population". You are not, nor I am I, but you can estimate who you are genetically similar to based on what your relation to ancient European samples. And I don't have an issue that I am Y-DNA Haplogroup I, and although basal I is more common North of the Alps and likely originated there, I do not share close genetic affinity with modern Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc or even Central European Austrians, Germans, etc. I share close genetic affinity with modern Italians, Sicily-South-Central first and foremost, and modern Greeks next, and ancient Romans and Greeks as well. Thus, it is correct to say that I my personal genetic DNA shows a continuity with ancient times down to today. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand, unless there are some "political reasons" or other reasons you have a hard time with this.

MOESAN
24-05-20, 22:14
We do have one proto-Villanovan sample, and he isn't all that far from some of us (according to one analysis I'm at a distance of 6.2 to him, but others are closer), but one sample really isn't enough.

Plus, we're talking about Iron Age. There was quite a span of time since the Italics first entered Italy.

So, another one which is still to be determined. :)


I agree proto-Villanovian (the one!) was not very far from others, it was just a question. BTW I dont know if there is a consensus about the first appearence of Italics in Italy, and in which precise cultural profile(s), because Ligurians tribes or some close tribes have plaid their role maybe before Italics. I have just observed that this proto-Villanovian seemed far from no region of today Italy, with something like a level autosomes sharing with all regions without clear preference, what would be interesting for a proto-Roman origin. OK it's based on amateur's analysis of distances but?
I think that even before to assimilate some EEF in N-Italy, Italics had spent some time near or in Croatia, where they could have already picked some more EEF not too far from the Iberia Neolithicers genetically. Some phonetic traits of Italic could point towards something ancient 'balkans', even Greek. But we lack well identified Italics of several periods to say anything (before writings, linguistic identification is more game than science, even toponymy uneasy to exploit).

Angela
24-05-20, 22:19
I agree proto-Villanovian (the one!) was not very far from others, it was just a question. BTW I dont know if there is a consensus about the first appearence of Italics in Italy, and in which precise cultural profile(s), because Ligurians tribes or some close tribes have plaid their role maybe before Italics. I have just observed that this proto-Villanovian seemed far from no region of today Italy, with something like a level autosomes sharing with all regions without clear preference, what would be interesting for a proto-Roman origin. OK it's based on amateur's analysis of distances but?
I think that even before to assimilate some EEF in N-Italy, Italics had spent some time near or in Croatia, where they could have already picked some more EEF not too far from the Iberia Neolithicers genetically. Some phonetic traits of Italic could point towards something ancient 'balkans', even Greek. But we lack well identified Italics of several periods to say anything (before writings, linguistic identification is more game than science, even toponymy uneasy to exploit).

I'm in complete agreement.

ihype02
24-05-20, 22:34
Completely agree. If anyone needed further proof, just look at how abysmally wrong they were about the Etruscans. That's what happens when you completely ignore the archaeology and focus only on the myths of ancient authors because it supports your agenda.

Academics are human, like everyone else, and must have their own biases, but they also have a livelihood to maintain. They can't stray too far from objectivity for very selfish motives. Of course, they're not all equally competent.

Still, much better than some "enthusiast" sitting in his mom's basement obsessing about these things, or worse yet being paid by some shady racist organization.

About Etruscans, there was never actual historical evidence that indicates their Anatolian origin. The work of Herodotus was based on hypothesis and not actual recorded data, it is highly unlikely that he could've known anything about proto-Etruscans, centuries before he was born. So that's a difference.

torzio
24-05-20, 22:38
Torzio: I have tried to be civil and respectful in my posts with you. I did not say you can never determine and know who you were before the Middle ages. That is not what I said. If one shows significant genetic affinity and continuity with ancient populations, then you are indeed related to those peoples. Nobody is an original 1 population. I have Neanderthal admixture, like you surely do, and like all "eurasians" that doesn't mean I am a "Neanderthal" How can you say today you are from "one source population". You are not, nor I am I, but you can estimate who you are genetically similar to based on what your relation to ancient European samples. And I don't have an issue that I am Y-DNA Haplogroup I, and although basal I is more common North of the Alps and likely originated there, I do not share close genetic affinity with modern Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc or even Central European Austrians, Germans, etc. I share close genetic affinity with modern Italians, Sicily-South-Central first and foremost, and modern Greeks next, and ancient Romans and Greeks as well. Thus, it is correct to say that I my personal genetic DNA shows a continuity with ancient times down to today. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand, unless there are some "political reasons" or other reasons you have a hard time with this.


I do not know what you are upset with.............I never discuss or question anybody theory or knowledge of who they are or where they came from, that is their business , I only give options to check or not ...............you must see this in reading/discussing what Salento and I are, same ydna down to same snp, yet we differ in admixture , I doubt we will get better than this

Palermo Trapani
24-05-20, 23:00
I do not know what you are upset with.............I never discuss or question anybody theory or knowledge of who they are or where they came from, that is their business , I only give options to check or not ...............you must see this in reading/discussing what Salento and I are, same ydna down to same snp, yet we differ in admixture , I doubt we will get better than this

I am not upset, I just again disagree with your continual assertions that it makes no sense to look at ancient DNA samples and then compare them to yourself to analyze how much genetic affinity you have with as many ancient samples as are publicly available to analyze. You keep coming back with it makes no sense to do any analysis past 1750. I disagree 100% with that approach.

As for the Y-DNA T affinity between you and Salento, which I have read and followed best I can. I think what it shows is that Y-DNA Haplogroups are only a partial explanation, and relative to understanding source populations that make up a particular countries ethnic origins, it is the least important part of the story, in my view. Again, I am Y-DNA I-M223, that is interesting to me and it is a "part of my particular story" as it is for others. Sicily has more Y-DNA I than both Emilia, Umbria, and Marches, slightly less than Tuscany (8%) to Sicily (7.5%). Y-DNA T is about 4% in Sicily. [You can see Maciamo's article to confirm all this].

Nevertheless, I don't think using Y-DNA Haplogroups as the end all of determining ancient ancestry and how is in genetic continuity with who is the best approach. So again, what you are indicating that you and Salento have same Y-DNA T but differ in admixture should tell you that Y-DNA is not the most important determinant. I have seen enough of Salento's post here that show he clusters with his ancestral region of Puglia and close to other Southern Italian regions and he too shows a significant affinity and continuity with the same ancient populations that I do.

So what does that tell you?

Angela
24-05-20, 23:32
About Etruscans, there was never actual historical evidence that indicates their Anatolian origin. The work of Herodotus was based on hypothesis and not actual recorded data, it is highly unlikely that he could've known anything about proto-Etruscans, centuries before he was born. So that's a difference.

Ihype, my point was precisely that all the archaeology showed that any kind of migration or invasion or whatever in the first millennium BC from the Near East to Tuscany was highly unlikely. The closest ancient mtDna (ancient mtDna was all we had for the Etruscans) was to people in Germany.

Despite all that, the anthrogenica and eurogenes types insisted that the Herodotus story was correct; also ignoring the ancient authors who insisted they were autochthonous. Anyone who showed up at those sites to debate it was either banned or ignored.

It wasn't logical.

The only explanation, imo, was that it suited their narrative and their prejudices.

This wasn't the only such occurrence. It was and is part of a pattern which unfortunately dominates discussion in most hobbyist sites.

bigsnake49
25-05-20, 00:24
So what does that tell you?

What it tells me is that male invaders can come in but their overall genetic contributions gets diluted over time.

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 04:55
What it tells me is that male invaders can come in but their overall genetic contributions gets diluted over time.

I think that is a very plausible explanation. So a Y-DNA Haplogroup that may have entered thousands of years ago in and off it self can't totally explain closest genetic affinity I think you and I are in agreement it seems. Otherwise, I would plot near modern European populations North of the Alps, maybe as far as Scandanavia given my Y-DNA Haplogroup (I-M223). Far as I know, I may have a surviving lineage from some WHG, although I like most modern Italians are not going to have predominate WHG type ancestry based on what Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) documented. I don't know if there are any good calculators that model WHG, EHG, CHG, EEF, Iran Neolithic, etc that are out there. The only one I am aware of is the Eurogenes Hunter vs. Farmer calculator but I don't know who the Moderators and Advisors view it here so I have never posted anything from it. Do you know of any good calculators for European Farmer vs. Hunter Gather? What is your view of the Eurogenes Hunter Gather vs. European Farmer calculator?

One thing I personally have an issue with it is that it uses Baltic Hunter Gather, which I would think is more EHG related, to proxy for all Hunter Gather ancestries in Europe. Well the number I get on that one is too high for me for Baltic Hunter Gather, I would think mine would be WHG/CHG related, which while related to EHG way back, was a distinct lineage by the Ice Age, best I can tell from what I have read over the years.

Salento
25-05-20, 14:29
As for the Y-DNA T affinity between you and Salento, which I have read and followed best I can. I think what it shows is that Y-DNA Haplogroups are only a partial explanation, and relative to understanding source populations that make up a particular countries ethnic origins, it is the least important part of the story, in my view. Again, I am Y-DNA I-M223, that is interesting to me and it is a "part of my particular story" as it is for others. Sicily has more Y-DNA I than both Emilia, Umbria, and Marches, slightly less than Tuscany (8%) to Sicily (7.5%). Y-DNA T is about 4% in Sicily. [You can see Maciamo's article to confirm all this].

Nevertheless, I don't think using Y-DNA Haplogroups as the end all of determining ancient ancestry and how is in genetic continuity with who is the best approach. So again, what you are indicating that you and Salento have same Y-DNA T but differ in admixture should tell you that Y-DNA is not the most important determinant. I have seen enough of Salento's post here that show he clusters with his ancestral region of Puglia and close to other Southern Italian regions and he too shows a significant affinity and continuity with the same ancient populations that I do.

So what does that tell you?

What it tells me is that male invaders can come in but their overall genetic contributions gets diluted over time.

... I got mentioned, ... I say: inside Torzio and I y Final chr., the same Grandpà is alive and well.

... if the line continues, y and mt are Immortals, autosomal is partial and changes every generation.

who’s Diluted? ... and who’s the Invader?

but guess what, ... the Y and the mt didn’t get Diluted, did they!

... It means that the FINAL y and mt are Extremely Important !

... It means that a part of All my Grandpas and Grandmas are still in me, UNCHANGED.

Salento
25-05-20, 14:52
... many of us proudly display our Autosomal Ancestry, but the Location of our Very Ancient Tribes / Clans lies within the y chr. and the mtDNA.

Duarte
25-05-20, 16:33
I think that is a very plausible explanation. So a Y-DNA Haplogroup that may have entered thousands of years ago in and off it self can't totally explain closest genetic affinity I think you and I are in agreement it seems. Otherwise, I would plot near modern European populations North of the Alps, maybe as far as Scandanavia given my Y-DNA Haplogroup (I-M223). Far as I know, I may have a surviving lineage from some WHG, although I like most modern Italians are not going to have predominate WHG type ancestry based on what Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) documented. I don't know if there are any good calculators that model WHG, EHG, CHG, EEF, Iran Neolithic, etc that are out there. The only one I am aware of is the Eurogenes Hunter vs. Farmer calculator but I don't know who the Moderators and Advisors view it here so I have never posted anything from it. Do you know of any good calculators for European Farmer vs. Hunter Gather? What is your view of the Eurogenes Hunter Gather vs. European Farmer calculator?

One thing I personally have an issue with it is that it uses Baltic Hunter Gather, which I would think is more EHG related, to proxy for all Hunter Gather ancestries in Europe. Well the number I get on that one is too high for me for Baltic Hunter Gather, I would think mine would be WHG/CHG related, which while related to EHG way back, was a distinct lineage by the Ice Age, best I can tell from what I have read over the years.

Hi Trapani.
In the link below you can see FTDNA's tool "European Ancient Origins". In this link you can see images posted by me, Jovialis and Salento. As said Angela, Iberians are huge in WHG and poor in Yamma. At least I have EEF and Iberomaurisian (Moroccan) ancestry to soften my facial traits, lol, lol.
Cheers.


Reloading images (links broken in previous posts).

Regio X
25-05-20, 17:48
Hi Trapani.
In the link below you can see FTDNA's tool "European Ancient Origins". In this link you can see images posted by me, Jovialis and Salento. As said Angela, Iberians are huge in WHG and poor in Yamma. At least I have EEF and Iberomaurisian (Moroccan) ancestry to soften my facial traits, lol, lol.
Cheers.Duarte, it must be some misunderstanding. Angela didn't suggest Iberians are poor in Steppe ancestry. I guess she suggested they're not too different from Tuscans in this regard, and also that they have some "extra-WHG" comparatively, while Italians have some "extra-CHG/Iran" in comparison, which in turn is part of Steppe component, but it's not "the" Steppe component. As for ancient origins, truth be said, I'm affraid it's not a great tool, as I commented in that very thread. The Metal component must be associated by FTDNA with Iran/CHG-like ancestry, reason why Western Europeans score low Metal in there, while SE Europeans score high. I believe the EHG must be "hidden" in WHG component.

I myself get a relatively high % of Metal (16%), comparable even to Jovialis', and low WHG (28%), while my uncle gets only 10% of Metal and 37% of WHG. It seems my parents' DNAs combined in such way that I became pretty CHG/Iran-rich in relation to other North Italians. :) Sile gets the same Metal % as myself, true, but IIRC I generally score more CHG/Iran than him, and more than most of people with N. Italian ancestry I've seen. I also tend to have less WHG, and "normal" Steppe.

Angela
25-05-20, 18:02
Duarte, it must be some misunderstanding. Angela didn't suggest Iberians are poor in Steppe ancestry. I guess she suggested they're not too different from Tuscans in this regard, and also that they have some "extra-WHG" comparatively, while Italians have some "extra-CHG/Iran" in comparison, which in turn is part of Steppe component, but it's not "the" Steppe component. As for ancient origins, truth be said, I'm affraid it's not a great tool, as I commented in that very thread. The Metal component must be associated by FTDNA with Iran/CHG-like ancestry, reason why Western Europeans score low Metal and SE Europeans score high. I believe the EHG must be "hidden" in WHG component.

I myself get a relatively high % of Metal (16%), comparable even to to Jovialis', and low WHG (28%), while my uncle gets only 10% of Metal and 37% of WHG. It seems my parents' DNAs combined in such way that I became pretty CHG/Iran-rich in relation to other North Italians. :) Sile gets the same Metal % as myself, true, but IIRC I generally score more CHG/Iran than him, and more than most of people with N. Italian ancestry I've seen. I also tend to have less WHG, and "normal" Steppe.

Thank-you for clearing it up, Stuvane.

That is indeed what I meant. It's a question of relative percentages. Indeed the Iberians have steppe, but it's at Southern European levels, which are lower than those of Northern Europe.

As to WHG, I looked in my files to see if I had an admixture chart handy to show the relative frequency of WHG for Iberians versus Northern Italians and Tuscans but I couldn't quickly find it. From memory, Northern Spain definitely does have more than Tuscany. It may be comparable for Northern Italy or a bit higher. I would need the admixture analysis in front of me to be sure.

Certainly, there is more CHG/Iran Neo in even Northern Italy than in Spain, but most of that, imo, is Iran Neo like ancestry which entered from the southeast.

It is the combination which accounts for the slightly more "northern" placement.

Duarte
25-05-20, 18:22
Duarte, it must be some misunderstanding. Angela didn't suggest Iberians are poor in Steppe ancestry. I guess she suggested they're not too different from Tuscans in this regard, and also that they have some "extra-WHG" comparatively, while Italians have some "extra-CHG/Iran" in comparison, which in turn is part of Steppe component, but it's not "the" Steppe component. As for ancient origins, truth be said, I'm affraid it's not a great tool, as I commented in that very thread. The Metal component must be associated by FTDNA with Iran/CHG-like ancestry, reason why Western Europeans score low Metal in there, while SE Europeans score high. I believe the EHG must be "hidden" in WHG component.

I myself get a relatively high % of Metal (16%), comparable even to Jovialis', and low WHG (28%), while my uncle gets only 10% of Metal and 37% of WHG. It seems my parents' DNAs combined in such way that I became pretty CHG/Iran-rich in relation to other North Italians. :) Sile gets the same Metal % as myself, true, but IIRC I generally score more CHG/Iran than him, and more than most of people with N. Italian ancestry I've seen. I also tend to have less WHG, and "normal" Steppe.

Hi Regio,

I do not believe that the modern Iberians have a high steppe component. See the graphics below. Look at the Iberian Visigoth, which I would call medieval Iberian, with its low percentage of steppe and a bit more of WHG + EHG, not to mention the Ibero-Mauritian component (light blue). These medieval people are very close to modern Iberians.

https://i.imgur.com/37UfqIN.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/UTVDgA4.jpg

Regio X
25-05-20, 18:46
Hi Regio,

I do not believe that the modern Iberians have a high steppe component. See the graphics below. Look at the Iberian Visigoth, which I would call medieval Iberian, with its low percentage of steppe and a bit more of WHG + EHG, not to mention the Ibero-Mauritian component (light blue). These medieval people are very close to modern Iberians.

https://i.imgur.com/37UfqIN.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/UTVDgA4.jpgI didn't say it's high. It's neither high nor poor. It also depends on how you define these terms, and the context. If you're just saying that Steppe ancestry encompass a minor part of Iberian ancestry, ok, but it'd be true for many other areas in Europe. Point is that Iberians are not poor in Steppe ancestry compared to other Southern Europeans. That's the reading. I thought this was the context, given the following comment: "As said Angela, Iberians are huge in WHG and poor in Yamma." You said Iberians are huge in WHG, yet, Steppe component is actually higher than WHG in Iberians, according to the very Charts you posted above.

The Visigoth is not that relevant for the discussion, after all, I was discussing modern Iberians in general.

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 18:47
... many of us proudly display our Autosomal Ancestry, but the Location of our Very Ancient Tribes / Clans lies within the y chr. and the mtDNA.

Salento: I did not mean any disrespect in my post. The thread starting going off track with me at least with the notion that it is worthless to use ancient DNA and try to see where your autosonal DNA fits relative to the ancients. Obviously, in the threads above, one poster did not think that is worth doing. I disagreed with him 100%.

Then the "You don't know if you are a Norman or Phoenician" comment sort of well, I didn't care for it. Sometimes I get (Not from you), there is this "mezzo giorno" attitude that is implied by some here. I also think, again my opinion, that the fact that my genetic (From Sicily, as say opposed to Tyrol or Valle di Aosta for example) distances on all these calculators relative to the ancient Roman samples "pisses some people off", again not you and not the overwhelming majority of individuals here who identify as Americans of Italian ancestry or ethnic Italians living somewhere outside of Italy or Italian themselves. All of mine are posted in the Ancient Roman forum so no need for me to repeat them here.

With respect to the Y-DNA research approach or Autosomal, etc. I don't think it is either or, I think it is an "and" approach. However, my personal interests have first been the autosomal more than the Y-DNA per se or mtdna approach when doing my own research. I did't know what my Y was until January of this year when I got my National Geographic report. I have spent most of my time over the last I don't know how many years doing my own personal research and using Ancestry doing research on family history and have now all kinds of documents from the 1800's that has allowed my to trace back, so My Mothers father was a Francesco (born in Palermo Province), his Father was a Cologero, his was a Carmelo and then Giovanni, that gets me back to 1792 when Giovanni was born. Unknown to me, and My Mother as well, one of her family lineages on her Mother's side gets back to Calabria somewhere in the early 1800's. I pretty much have all the family history back to about 1800 on 7 of my 8 Great Grandparents.


As for the Y-DNA Haplogroup and as I said, I didn't know anything about my own Y-DNA until I got my GENO report (as I noted before) and found I was I-M223. I have not done much research on my own till this day. I have gone back and read some of the research papers and based on Fu et al 2016 paper, Basal I was present in Southern Italy before the Ice Age. There are a bunch of samples from your region (Puglia) that were studied in the Fu et al 2016 paper and there was basal I, and I1 in Southern Italy dating back to about 27,000 BC in Puglia, your neck of the woods.

So lets say I wanted to be a smart " " and got into a debate with a hypothetical poster that says you don't know if you are a "Norman or Phoenician" and I say well buddy, Haplogroup I was in Italy before the R1b and a hole bunch others. Does that mean I am more "Italian" than anyone else based on being tied to basal Y-DNA I. I also think it is pretty much established that Basal I is likely the only Haplogroup that is original in Europe. Does that mean I am more European than someone that doesn't have a Haplogroup tied to Basal I.

Of course the answers to all the above questions is No. Modern Italians came to be pretty much in the Bronze Age, based on what I can tell, regardless of the Y-DNA Haplogroups. Sorry you were mentioned and I did not plan to get anybody dragged into this but the thread but the "you don't know if your a Norman or Phoenician" comment was Bull S in opinion.


12102



https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature17993/MediaObjects/41586_2016_BFnature17993_MOESM350_ESM.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 18:51
... I got mentioned, ... I say: inside Torzio and I y Final chr., the same Grandpà is alive and well.

... if the line continues, y and mt are Immortals, autosomal is partial and changes every generation.

who’s Diluted? ... and who’s the Invader?

but guess what, ... the Y and the mt didn’t get Diluted, did they!

... It means that the FINAL y and mt are Extremely Important !

... It means that a part of All my Grandpas and Grandmas are still in me, UNCHANGED.

Salento: Your Italian. Which was the point I was trying to make in earlier post. You cluster with both modern Italians in your region and other surrounding regions and ancient Romans from nearby Lazio. That was what I was getting at regardless of what Y-DNA Haplogroup you have (T) or I have (I) or anyone else, J2, R1b, G, etc, etc.

Duarte
25-05-20, 18:59
I didn't say it's high. It's neither high nor poor. It also depends on how you define these terms, and the context. If you're just saying that Steppe ancestry encompass a minor part of Iberian ancestry, ok, but it'd be true for many other areas in Europe. Point is that Iberians are not poor in Steppe ancestry compared to other Southern Europeans. That's the reading. I thought this was the context, given the following comment: "As said Angela, [b]Iberians are huge in WHG[b] and poor in Yamma." You said Iberians are huge in WHG, yet, Steppe component is actually higher than WHG in Iberians, according to the very Charts you posted above.

The Visigoth is not that relevant for the discussion, after all, I was discussing modern Iberians in general.

The Visigoths, when arrived in Iberia, had little, genetically, of Germanics. They were more a mixed of Germans, Alans and Celts and, in Iberia, they mixed a lot with the local Celtiberians also co-opting a little bit of Berber ancestry. This samples of paper are not Germans, but mixed medieval Iberians.

Angela
25-05-20, 19:14
Well, to introduce a little more confusion. :)

This is from Haak et al. Now, from what I recall, this was NOT done with an ADMIXTURE program but with one of the newer statistical tools, although I don't remember which one. Perhaps it was qdm, but I'd have to go back to the paper to check.

According to this, many Spaniards don't actually have any "additional" WHG, and the same is true for Tuscans. Their steppe is about the same as that of Northern Italians?

I haven't seen that elsewhere, but perhaps because, as I said, this is not an Admixture based chart.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5JmDoHWM1ao/WG-JWyN6TTI/AAAAAAAAFKk/ETXf3bVu23Yx3wQMIvltjH70mdb91DE5QCLcB/s1132/Haak_et_al_Fig_3.png

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 19:19
Hi Trapani.
In the link below you can see FTDNA's tool "European Ancient Origins". In this link you can see images posted by me, Jovialis and Salento. As said Angela, Iberians are huge in WHG and poor in Yamma. At least I have EEF and Iberomaurisian (Moroccan) ancestry to soften my facial traits, lol, lol.
Cheers.

Duarte: I can't find the Ftdna link and I don't have any DNA Kit over there (yet). From what I got in your post, they have their own calculator that breaks down WHG, EEF, Iran Neo/CHG, EHG, etc, which is really neat if they in fact do. The only one I have ever run my DNA Kit on is the Eurogenes HG vs. Farmer, but I don't know exactly what that calculator means by Mediterranean Farmer vs. Anatolian Farmer, etc, as I see those as closely, closely related. Anatolian Farmers moved into modern Greece (med) and spread directly into Italy and up Balkans. Does that sound correct. All I know is I get like 65% combined Anatolian Farmer and Mediterranean Farmer DNA, which I interpret as Neolithic EEF type ancestry. maybe I am wrong and if I am would appreciate your thoughts or thoughts from Mods/Advisors (Jovialis and Angela). I get like 16% Baltic Hunter Gather, which I think is proxying with respect to me, more WHG, as no way I am 16% EHG type ancestry for if that were true, I would
be plotting with the Northern Italian samples in Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) that document more EHG type ancestry vs Central and Southern/Sicily. However, all Italian samples as the study notes have high levels of EEF-Neolithic type ancestry 56% SItaly1 to 72% NItaly4. So I guess if that Eurogenes HG vs. Farmer is relatively accurate, I am plotting with respect to EEF type ancestry right smack in the middle of the range documented by Raveane et al 2019. Does Eurogenes Calculator give you similar components as the Ftdna?


12103

Regio X
25-05-20, 19:25
Well, to introduce a little more confusion. :)

This is from Haak et al. Now, from what I recall, this was NOT done with an ADMIXTURE program but with one of the newer statistical tools, although I don't remember which one. Perhaps it was qdm, but I'd have to go back to the paper to check.

According to this, many Spaniards don't actually have any "additional" WHG, and the same is true for Tuscans. Their steppe is about the same as that of Northern Italians?

I haven't seen that elsewhere, but perhaps because, as I said, this is not an Admixture based chart.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5JmDoHWM1ao/WG-JWyN6TTI/AAAAAAAAFKk/ETXf3bVu23Yx3wQMIvltjH70mdb91DE5QCLcB/s1132/Haak_et_al_Fig_3.pngIt breaks up ancestry in just three parts: LBK, Loschbour and Yamnaya. I wonder if the SW tries to fit all DNA in these categorizations or if it ignores the part that doesn't fit well in them.

Curiously, here Bergamo have more Loschbour than both Spanish and Spanish_North, however, Spanish_North has more Yamnaya than Bergamo.

Duarte
25-05-20, 19:47
Duarte: I can't find the Ftdna link and I don't have any DNA Kit over there (yet). From what I got in your post, they have their own calculator that breaks down WHG, EEF, Iran Neo/CHG, EHG, etc, which is really neat if they in fact do. The only one I have ever run my DNA Kit on is the Eurogenes HG vs. Farmer, but I don't know exactly what that calculator means by Mediterranean Farmer vs. Anatolian Farmer, etc, as I see those as closely, closely related. Anatolian Farmers moved into modern Greece (med) and spread directly into Italy and up Balkans. Does that sound correct. All I know is I get like 65% combined Anatolian Farmer and Mediterranean Farmer DNA, which I interpret as Neolithic EEF type ancestry. maybe I am wrong and if I am would appreciate your thoughts or thoughts from Mods/Advisors (Jovialis and Angela). I get like 16% Baltic Hunter Gather, which I think is proxying with respect to me, more WHG, as no way I am 16% EHG type ancestry for if that were true, I would
be plotting with the Northern Italian samples in Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) that document more EHG type ancestry vs Central and Southern/Sicily. However, all Italian samples as the study notes have high levels of EEF-Neolithic type ancestry 56% SItaly1 to 72% NItaly4. So I guess if that Eurogenes HG vs. Farmer is relatively accurate, I am plotting with respect to EEF type ancestry right smack in the middle of the range documented by Raveane et al 2019. Does Eurogenes Calculator give you similar components as the Ftdna?


12103

Well, Trapani.

They are very different algorithms, but both have in common the fact that they have not been updated for quite a long time.
I agree with @Regio X that FTDNA's "My Ancient European Origins" may not be a good calculator. But I believe that Eurogenes "HG v F" is also not.
If you use this correspondence, the results will be similar but, the fact is that the nameclatures become very weird.

WHG = Baltic Hunter Gatherer.
EEF = Mediterranean Farmer + Middle Eastern Herder + East African Pastoralist.
Metal Age invader = Anatolian Farmer (??????).
Others = Non European.

Cheers.

Salento
25-05-20, 19:56
Salento: Your Italian. Which was the point I was trying to make in earlier post. You cluster with both modern Italians in your region and other surrounding regions and ancient Romans from nearby Lazio. That was what I was getting at regardless of what Y-DNA Haplogroup you have (T) or I have (I) or anyone else, J2, R1b, G, etc, etc.

... I was mainly responding to the post after yours, ... I didn’t take the “diluted” comments very Kindly, ... lol

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 19:59
Duarte: Thanks for the response. Yes, I can see Ftdna the way they are combining populations is not in line with where the recent extant research is. So I can already just by looking at the population definitions see what Regio X is saying and I agree. The Eurogenes HG vs. F also seems to use populations as proxies for other ones that can be measured distinctively which is what Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) was able to do. It would be nice if someone would come up with a calculator to captures the distinct variables that Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2 did.

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 20:02
... I was mainly responding to the post after yours, ... I didn’t take the “diluted” comments very Kindly, ... lol

Ok thanks for the clarification. I agree, nor should you take it kindly. It seems you and I both were being potentially viewed through the "mezzo giorno" lens and with all its political connotations.

Regio X
25-05-20, 20:07
Well, to introduce a little more confusion. :)

This is from Haak et al. Now, from what I recall, this was NOT done with an ADMIXTURE program but with one of the newer statistical tools, although I don't remember which one. Perhaps it was qdm, but I'd have to go back to the paper to check.

According to this, many Spaniards don't actually have any "additional" WHG, and the same is true for Tuscans. Their steppe is about the same as that of Northern Italians?

I haven't seen that elsewhere, but perhaps because, as I said, this is not an Admixture based chart.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5JmDoHWM1ao/WG-JWyN6TTI/AAAAAAAAFKk/ETXf3bVu23Yx3wQMIvltjH70mdb91DE5QCLcB/s1132/Haak_et_al_Fig_3.pngOut of curiosity, I checked the results for Iberians and North Italians also using LBK, Loschbour and Yamnaya, but under the perspective of G25.

The targets come from here: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25modern-scaled-averages.htm
The source Loschbour comes from here: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-scaled.htm
(http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-scaled.htm)And the LBK and Yamnaya sources come from here: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-averages-scaled.htm

(http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-averages-scaled.htm)Interestingly, Tuscany gets also 0% of Loschbour in here (and also more Yamnaya than Lombardy), however, no Iberian pop gets 0% of Loschbour.


https://i.imgur.com/8uiVxbJ.jpg

Duarte
25-05-20, 20:31
Out of curiosity, I checked the results for Iberians and North Italians also using LBK, Loschbour and Yamnaya, but under the perspective of G25.

The targets come from here: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25modern-scaled-averages.htm
The source Loschbour comes from here: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-scaled.htm
(http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-scaled.htm)And the LBK and Yamnaya sources come from here: http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-averages-scaled.htm

(http://g25vahaduo.genetics.ovh/G25ancient-averages-scaled.htm)Interestingly, Tuscany gets also 0% of Loschbour in here (and also more Yamnaya than Lombardy), however, no Iberian pop gets 0% of Loschbour.


https://i.imgur.com/8uiVxbJ.jpg

Iberians are below average in Yamna and above average in WHG.

Angela
25-05-20, 20:42
It breaks up ancestry in just three parts: LBK, Loschbour and Yamnaya. I wonder if the SW tries to fit all DNA in these categorizations or if it ignores the part that doesn't fit well in them.

Curiously, here Bergamo have more Loschbour than both Spanish and Spanish_North, however, Spanish_North has more Yamnaya than Bergamo.

From memory, Lazaridis said that Spanish_North is the Spanish Basque, but I may be wrong.

Anyway, Raveane has their own charts.

If they're correct, it seems to very much depend on the specific area, whereas I was generalizing.

https://i.imgur.com/I0KvEf7.png


https://i.imgur.com/OTbCA4N.png

Anyone have their list handy for the specific areas in "Western" Europe and Italy which correspond to the numbers?

Salento
25-05-20, 20:45
Ok thanks for the clarification. I agree, nor should you take it kindly. It seems you and I both were being potentially viewed through the "mezzo giorno" lens and with all its political connotations.

.... they need better political lenses, ... in 1943 / ‘44 the Capital of Italy was in Puglia / Salento (Brindisi) ... can’t get more Italian than that ... :)

Regio X
25-05-20, 20:46
From memory, Lazaridis said that Spanish_North is the Spanish Basque, but I may be wrong.

Anyway, Raveane has their own charts.

If they're correct, it seems to very much depend on the specific area, whereas I was generalizing.

https://i.imgur.com/I0KvEf7.png


https://i.imgur.com/OTbCA4N.png

Anyone have their list handy for the specific areas in "Western" Europe and Italy which correspond to the numbers?Interesting. Thanks.
I guess Spanish_North is not Basque, because Basque is also listed in that Chart. As in Haak et al., Basque scores higher Loschbour and lower Yamnaya in that model based on G25.

@Duarte
It's just a specific model comparing Iberians and North Italians, based on the same few components used by Haak et al. Nothing more.

Stuvanè
25-05-20, 20:50
Ditto for me. Loschbour "encripted" :)

https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/100097367_673812550078130_8195462526129930240_n.pn g?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=8Iq1WqWhApMAX_OBBxt&_nc_ht=scontent-mxp1-1.xx&oh=601fb562506f425ca3271b15230d3a33&oe=5EF2FE0E

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 20:51
.... they need better political lenses, ... in 1943 / ‘44 the Capital of Italy was in Salento (Brindisi) ... can’t get more Italian than that ... :)

Well said! Brindisi is a city I would like to Visit. On another note, have you ever been to that area and cave in Puglia where that ancient Neanderthal Altamura Man is located? I keep hoping they are going to report his sequenced DNA and I periodically look for any new research papers on him that I can find.

Angela
25-05-20, 20:51
Interesting. Thanks.
I guess Spanish_North is not Basque, because Basque is also listed in that Chart. As in Haak et al., Basque scores higher Loschbour and lower Yamnaya in that model based on G25.

As I said, my recollection is that Lazaridis said Basque means French Basque, and North Spain means Pais Vasco.

However, I can't find it in my files, so take it fwiw.

Regio X
25-05-20, 20:54
As I said, my recollection is that Lazaridis said Basque means French Basque, and North Spain means Pais Vasco.Ops. Sorry. I missed that part. Indeed, in G25 French Basque score slightly more Yamnaya than Spanish Basque, slightly less LBK and virtually the same Loschbour.

Angela
25-05-20, 20:59
Interesting. Thanks.
I guess Spanish_North is not Basque, because Basque is also listed in that Chart. As in Haak et al., Basque scores higher Loschbour and lower Yamnaya in that model based on G25.

@Duarte
It's just a specific model comparing Iberians and North Italians, based on the same few components used by Haak et al. Nothing more.

How many more do you need? Basically, absent a bit of Siberian like in north eastern Europe and North African like in Southern Europe, all Europeans are still a mixture of those three components.

If you want to see how it looks with those kinds of minority admixtures, Raveane has done it, and has included Anatolian Bronze Age as well.

See upthread.

Salento
25-05-20, 21:00
Well said! Brindisi is a city I would like to Visit. On another note, have you ever been to that area and cave in Puglia where that ancient Neanderthal Altamura Man is located? I keep hoping they are going to report his sequenced DNA and I periodically look for any new research papers on him that I can find.
... not yet, ... I think that Neanderthal is a paesano of Jovialis, :thinking: lol (... really) :grin:

Skeleton Found in Italy Cave Yields Oldest Neanderthal DNA

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/skeleton-found-italy-cave-yields-oldest-neanderthal-dna-n339661

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24893-Do-modern-Europeans-partly-descend-from-Neanderthal?p=563134&viewfull=1#post563134

Altamura Man

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/27/18/338F8A0300000578-0-image-a-2_1461779277660.jpg

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_15/972506/150410-neanderthal-altamura-man_8ca4b4fc3838f2679ea30d7e30cd47be.fit-760w.jpg

Regio X
25-05-20, 21:31
How many more do you need? Basically, absent a bit of Siberian like in north eastern Europe and North African like in Southern Europe, all Europeans are still a mixture of those three components.

If you want to see how it looks with those kinds of minority admixtures, Raveane has done it, and has included Anatolian Bronze Age as well.

See upthread.I'll explain it. It started when my fellow Duarte thought you've said that Iberians are poor in Yamnaya ancestry. At the end, he pointed out that Iberians are below average, supporting the first statement, I believe. Ok. No problem. I just answered that that was just a comparison between two groups (Iberians and North Italians), using three components only, so in my opinion it doesn't evidence Iberians are "poor" in Yamnaya-like ancestry, or Steppe.
And I said above "three components only" because I wonder where some other components would fit in this model. An example woud be our extra-CHG. Is it considered "LBK-like" in this model specifically? Or "Yamnaya-like"?

The CHG from Georgia is way older even than Loschbour. Still, when I add it, it seems to affect some North Italian pops (slightly reducing distance, naturally), and "eat" more of Yamnaya than LBK. My bet is that I myself would score some CHG in this model (I don't have my coordinates).

https://i.imgur.com/P3Y6Ymy.jpg

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 21:31
Salento: Ok, as for who is the "vicino cugino", I will stay out of that one.!!

Salento
25-05-20, 21:53
Salento: Ok, as for who is the "vicino cugino", I will stay out of that one.!!

It’s really cool that a Neanderthal so old was found in Altamura, ... if there was one, there were definitely others all around Puglia and Southern Italy for thousands of years ... I think.

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 22:07
It’s really cool that a Neanderthal so old was found in Altamura, ... if there was one, there were definitely others all around Puglia and Southern Italy for thousands of years ... I think.

I agree 100%. My next trip to Italy, I am considering putting that area on my to do list just to hopefully see it if that is possible. Although I would think you would only be able to see it from a distance, at least I hope, and the site is protected by the Polizia or some other law enforcement agency.

Angela
25-05-20, 22:10
Ok thanks for the clarification. I agree, nor should you take it kindly. It seems you and I both were being potentially viewed through the "mezzo giorno" lens and with all its political connotations.

In this discussion who, pray tell, is looking at Southern Italians through "the "mezzo giorno" lens and with all its political connotations."

We don't need new members coming here and sowing dissension between posters. It's a collegial, respectful, group here now by and large, and we don't need these kinds of innuendos being tossed around.

If you or anyone else things there is t-rolling going on, please inform. Whoever it is will be dealt with if I find that is indeed what's going on.

Angela
25-05-20, 22:21
I'll explain it. It started when my fellow Duarte thought you've said that Iberians are poor in Yamnaya ancestry. At the end, he pointed out that Iberians are below average, supporting the first statement, I believe. Ok. No problem. I just answered that that was just a comparison between two groups (Iberians and North Italians), using three components only, so in my opinion it doesn't evidence Iberians are "poor" in Yamnaya-like ancestry, or Steppe.
And I said above "three components only" because I wonder where some other components would fit in this model. An example woud be our extra-CHG. Is it considered "LBK-like" in this model specifically? Or "Yamnaya-like"?

The CHG from Georgia is way older even than Loschbour. Still, when I add it, it seems to affect some North Italian pops (slightly reducing distance, naturally), and "eat" more of Yamnaya than LBK. My bet is that I myself would score some CHG in this model (I don't have my coordinates).

https://i.imgur.com/P3Y6Ymy.jpg

I'd hardly choose G25 over academic analyses, but I'll leave that aside. (For one thing, I think those steppe numbers are inflated which they are in anything Eurogenes produces.)

In general terms, and going by the analyses we've posted here, Iberians have, on average, a bit more WHG, and North Italians/Tuscans a bit more steppe. However, there are regional differences. Could we agree on that?

It's not much of a difference imo, but it's there.

Again, does anyone have a list of what the bar numbers in Raveane represent in terms of specific areas in Spain and Italy? Just direct me to the section of the paper or Supplement. Thanks in advance.

Palermo Trapani
25-05-20, 22:25
In this discussion who, pray tell, is looking at Southern Italians through "the "mezzo giorno" lens and with all its political connotations.

We don't need new members coming here and sowing dissension between posters. It's a collegial, respectful, group here now by and large, and we don't need these kinds of innuendos being tossed around.

Angela: I am not trying to sow dissension with anyone. For me personally, the "You don't know if your a Norman or Phoenician" comment by a certain poster, who I have always tried to be cordial with, was to me a swipe at Southern Italy in general and Sicily in particular or perhaps more to the point "me directly" with perhaps political connotations. I could be wrong maybe there are no political connotations but what the heck is the point in saying that? Perhaps there was another way to interpret it then Ok. Not that it hurt my feelings mine you, my ancestors arrived in the USA through one of the Southern USA ports of entry and then we settled in areas not where you find the majority of Americans of Italian ancestry, although we did well like everyone else did.

So lets say I put up with more nonsense that say Italian immigrant communities who settled lets say in Philly, Boston or NYC, not that they did not put up with issues, but those areas were largely insulated given the large ethnic neighborhoods in those cities. Perhaps and overreaction on my part to it but it does have some political connotations. Lets say it was not You, not Stuvane, not Regio X.

It was not directed at everyone whose ancestors are from North of Rome, nor I am I one of these Diaspora Italians who thinks Italian Re-unification in the 19th century was a bad thing. There were problems yes, but the French ruling from afar did nothing for the regions South of Rome so long-term re-unification was a plus for the South.

So I apologize to anyone who took it as a broad brush statement, it was not, it has a specific poster in mind.

Angela
25-05-20, 22:25
... not yet, ... I think that Neanderthal is a paesano of Jovialis, :thinking: lol (... really) :grin:

Skeleton Found in Italy Cave Yields Oldest Neanderthal DNA

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/skeleton-found-italy-cave-yields-oldest-neanderthal-dna-n339661

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24893-Do-modern-Europeans-partly-descend-from-Neanderthal?p=563134&viewfull=1#post563134

Altamura Man

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/27/18/338F8A0300000578-0-image-a-2_1461779277660.jpg

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_15/972506/150410-neanderthal-altamura-man_8ca4b4fc3838f2679ea30d7e30cd47be.fit-760w.jpg

Now, now...Jovialis is much better looking. :)

Duarte
25-05-20, 22:53
I'd hardly choose G25 over academic analyses, but I'll leave that aside. (For one thing, I think those steppe numbers are inflated which they are in anything Eurogenes produces.)

In general terms, and going by the analyses we've posted here, Iberians have, on average, a bit more WHG, and North Italians/Tuscans a bit more steppe. However, there are regional differences. Could we agree on that?

It's not much of a difference imo, but it's there.

Again, does anyone have a list of what the bar numbers in Raveane represent in terms of specific areas in Spain and Italy? Just direct me to the section of the paper or Supplement. Thanks in advance.

Try these academic papers Angela. I believe you will find in them the information you are looking for.

Cheers :)

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/08/30/5.9.eaaw3492.DC1

Angela
25-05-20, 23:44
^^Indeed, that's where the admixture charts in my post #121 come from. :)

Regio X
26-05-20, 03:56
deleted by the poster

Regio X
26-05-20, 05:16
https://i.imgur.com/P3Y6Ymy.jpgIf I add Taforalt from Morocco, it gets a bit better for Iberians (lower distance). Not that much for Basques though.

https://i.imgur.com/2Qjv1g8.jpg


I'd hardly choose G25 over academic analyses, but I'll leave that aside. (For one thing, I think those steppe numbers are inflated which they are in anything Eurogenes produces.)

In general terms, and going by the analyses we've posted here, Iberians have, on average, a bit more WHG, and North Italians/Tuscans a bit more steppe. However, there are regional differences. Could we agree on that?

It's not much of a difference imo, but it's there.

Again, does anyone have a list of what the bar numbers in Raveane represent in terms of specific areas in Spain and Italy? Just direct me to the section of the paper or Supplement. Thanks in advance.I don't think we disagree in anything here. :) That comment of Duarte was made over the G25 results I posted, then I answered based on the same tool.
I also agree that we should take G25 with a "graint of sault", as you usually say.
As for Haak et al., no problem. The part that strikes me in that Chart is the absence of Louschbour in Spanish. Plus, if the study is from March 2015, it predates the "discovery" of CHG. ANE is a common element to EHG (~75%), Iran Neo (~50%) and CHG, and the addition of Satsurblia affected Yamnaya at G25. (It's actually funny how Nordicists make little of Iran Neo, given this relative similarity with EHG. Anyway, that's another story.)

Concerning Raveane, my impression is that all N. Italian clusters are related to more than one region. See the Excel file (sheets Cluster Composition CMD and HDD):
https://advances.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/218478/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/aaw3492_Data_file_S1.xlsx

Regio X
26-05-20, 19:04
@Duarte @Angela
Check this out. An even better example on what I was talking about and on the point I was trying to make with that comment. I think it'll become even clearer.

Here I try to more or less reproduce Raveane models posted by Angela, also using Anatolia Bronze Age (as Raveane), and using other sources from roughly the same pre-BA periods in each context. The exception is Remedello (from Bronze Age), but the related samples were mostly Farmers anyway, with some extra-WHG compared to Ötzi. And Iberia Chalcholithic naturally must have some extra-WHG in relation to Remedello. Additionally, I try to use two different contexts - Iberians' and N. Italians' - to better distinction of the impact of Yamnaya related ancestry.
Notice how Steppe related ancestry drops and becomes a bit more realistic, and how Iberians get even closer to N. Italians in this kind of ancestry (La Rioja - rich in EEF - getting the lowest Yamnaya and Valle d'Aosta getting the highest in this model). Some of the distances also dropped.

Not perfect in front of Raveane, of course. For example, here (in Raveane), apparently some N. Italians don't get ABA, while in this G25 model all N. Italian regions get it.

Feel free to improve it the way you want.

I chose:
Anatolia Early Bronze Age (pre-Steppe/pre-Hittite). I used Ovaoren because it seems to have less Anatolian Barcin than the others from similar period (I tested it against CHG and Iran Neo only);
Iberia North Chalcolithic for Iberians rather than Central Chalco (to better distinguish extra-WHG);
Remedello Bronze Age for North Italians (also with some extra-WHG compared to Ötzi from Chalcolitic);
Morocco Early Neolithic for Iberians;
Yamnaya Samara as "Steppe" source.

Btw, where is Emilia in G25?

@Stuvanè
Do you have your G25 coordinates?


Iberians
https://i.imgur.com/izczcwZ.jpg


North Italians
https://i.imgur.com/BdpdKh4.jpg

Angela
26-05-20, 19:33
@Duarte @Angela
Check this out. An even better example on what I was talking about and on the point I was trying to make with that comment. I think it'll become even clearer.

Here I try to more or less reproduce Raveane models posted by Angela, also using Anatolia Bronze Age (as Raveane), and using other sources from roughly the same pre-BA periods in each context. The exception is Remedello (from Bronze Age), but the related samples were mostly Farmers anyway, with some extra-WHG compared to Ötzi. And Iberia Chalcholithic naturally must have some extra-WHG in relation to Remedello. Additionally, I try to use two different contexts - Iberians' and N. Italians' - to better distinction of the impact of Yamnaya related ancestry.
Notice how Steppe related ancestry drops and becomes a bit more realistic, and how Iberians get even closer to N. Italians in this kind of ancestry (La Rioja - rich in EEF - getting the lowest Yamnaya and Valle d'Aosta getting the highest in this model). Some of the distances also dropped.

Not perfect in front of Raveane, of course. For example, here (in Raveane), apparently some N. Italians don't get ABA, while in this G25 model all N. Italian regions get it.

Feel free to improve it the way you want.

I chose:
Anatolia Early Bronze Age (pre-Steppe/pre-Hittite). I used Ovaoren because it seems to have less Anatolian Barcin than the others from similar period (I tested it against CHG and Iran Neo only);
Iberia North Chalcolithic for Iberians rather than Central Chalco (to better distinguish extra-WHG);
Remedello Bronze Age for North Italians (also with some extra-WHG compared to Ötzi from Chalcolitic);
Morocco Early Neolithic for Iberians;
Yamnaya Samara as "Steppe" source.

Btw, where is Emilia in G25?

@Stuvanè
Do you have your G25 coordinates?


Iberians
https://i.imgur.com/izczcwZ.jpg


North Italians
https://i.imgur.com/BdpdKh4.jpg

Eurogenes chose not to provide the data for Emilia.

I appreciate the effort Regio, but I'm not sure about some of this. Does the Remedello reference sample include the sample which is about half steppe? If the Spanish Copper Age sample is mostly still EEF with some WHG, then we should only be using the similar Remedello samples, right?

Also, aren't the late Bronze Age Anatolian samples more proximate for what went into Europe in the Bronze/Iron Ages? This analysis also reverses all other studies I've seen in giving Tuscans less "steppe" than the more northern Italian regions, which I'll admit never made all that much real world sense, however.

I suppose if a WHG sample were used, it would just tell us "additional" WHG on top of what is in the Copper Age Iberians and the Remedello Italians.

Do you have that breakdown, btw, but not for the steppe admixture Remedello sample?

Regio X
26-05-20, 20:29
Eurogenes chose not to provide the data for Emilia.

I appreciate the effort Regio, but I'm not sure about some of this. Does the Remedello reference sample include the sample which is about half steppe? If the Spanish Copper Age sample is mostly still EEF with some WHG, then we should only be using the similar Remedello samples, right?

Also, aren't the late Bronze Age Anatolian samples more proximate for what went into Europe in the Bronze/Iron Ages? This analysis also reverses all other studies I've seen in giving Tuscans less "steppe" than the more northern Italian regions, which I'll admit never made all that much real world sense, however.

I suppose if a WHG sample were used, it would just tell us "additional" WHG on top of what is in the Copper Age Iberians and the Remedello Italians.

Do you have that breakdown, btw, but not for the steppe admixture Remedello sample?Ops. Sorry, Angela. I didn't realize that a Remedello had Steppe ancestry, and at the end chose Remedello average. You're right. I changed it from Remedello average to RISE489 then, which I believe has no Steppe ancestry (am I right?). Indeed, it causes a relevant increase of Yamnaya related ancestry in N. Italians.
As for Anatolia, I chose Early BA average to avoid Steppe ancestry (I guess one MLBA sample would have a bit of it, no?), but ok. In the fashion of Remedello, I chose the individual from Midle Late BA Anatolia (instead Early Bronze Age) supposedly most distant from Yamnaya.

Notice that Loschbour doesn't make a great difference, since WHG should be hidden in Iberian Chalco and Italian Bronze Age already.


Iberians
https://i.imgur.com/XoeL2vH.jpg


N. Italians
https://i.imgur.com/jIC92pF.jpg

ihype02
26-05-20, 23:58
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0
In Sicily, steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BC, in part from Iberia; Iranian-related ancestry arrived by the mid-second millennium BC, contemporary to its previously documented spread to the Aegean; and there was large-scale population replacement after the Bronze Age. In Sardinia, nearly all ancestry derived from the island’s early farmers until the first millennium BC, with the exception of an outlier from the third millennium BC, who had primarily North African ancestry and who—along with an approximately contemporary Iberian—documents widespread Africa-to-Europe gene flow in the Chalcolithic. Major immigration into Sardinia began in the first millennium BC and, at present, no more than 56–62% of Sardinian ancestry is from its first farmers. This value is lower than previous estimates, highlighting that Sardinia, similar to every other region in Europe, has been a stage for major movement and mixtures of people.


So what do you think?

Angela
27-05-20, 00:36
Ops. Sorry, Angela. I didn't realize that a Remedello had Steppe ancestry, and at the end chose Remedello average. You're right. I changed it from Remedello average to RISE489 then, which I believe has no Steppe ancestry (am I right?). Indeed, it causes a relevant increase of Yamnaya related ancestry in N. Italians.
As for Anatolia, I chose Early BA average to avoid Steppe ancestry (I guess one MLBA sample would have a bit of it, no?), but ok. In the fashion of Remedello, I chose the individual from Midle Late BA Anatolia (instead Early Bronze Age) supposedly most distant from Yamnaya.

Notice that Loschbour doesn't make a great difference, since WHG should be hidden in Iberian Chalco and Italian Bronze Age already.


Iberians
https://i.imgur.com/XoeL2vH.jpg


N. Italians
https://i.imgur.com/jIC92pF.jpg

I agree that adding WHG isn't necessary. I was more asking about what an analysis of the two EEF heavy samples, i.e. Iberia Chalcolithic and Remedello, would show as to the percentages of WHG and/or any steppe that shows up.

Maybe our Iberian members have some suggestions for variations.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but given this is G25 I'm withholding final judgment. :)

ihype02
27-05-20, 19:49
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0
In Sicily, steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BC, in part from Iberia; Iranian-related ancestry arrived by the mid-second millennium BC, contemporary to its previously documented spread to the Aegean; and there was large-scale population replacement after the Bronze Age. In Sardinia, nearly all ancestry derived from the island’s early farmers until the first millennium BC, with the exception of an outlier from the third millennium BC, who had primarily North African ancestry and who—along with an approximately contemporary Iberian—documents widespread Africa-to-Europe gene flow in the Chalcolithic. Major immigration into Sardinia began in the first millennium BC and, at present, no more than 56–62% of Sardinian ancestry is from its first farmers. This value is lower than previous estimates, highlighting that Sardinia, similar to every other region in Europe, has been a stage for major movement and mixtures of people.


So what do you think?

I don't believe it though. Modern Sicilians are closer to Bell Beaker Sicily than Cretans are to Minoans, I wonder why no one mentions a large scale replacement there?
As for Southern Italy, South Apulia had only 2 cities compared to numerous native settlements, how could they contribute more than 15%?
https://i.imgur.com/2xPE1Cb.png
I find 50% more than enough for Sicilians in terms of ancient Greek impact overall, Calabria might have more.

Angela
27-05-20, 22:26
I don't believe it though. Modern Sicilians are closer to Bell Beaker Sicily than Cretans are to Minoans, I wonder why no one mentions a large scale replacement there?
As for Southern Italy, South Apulia had only 2 cities compared to numerous native settlements, how could they contribute more than 15%?
https://i.imgur.com/2xPE1Cb.png
I find 50% more than enough for Sicilians in terms of ancient Greek impact overall, Calabria might have more.

I don't either, and I especially don't believe it for Sardinia. I said so at great length on the thread about Sardinia. So much so that one of the authors came on here to argue his case. I still wasn't convinced.

ihype02
29-05-20, 03:13
2 Greek colonies in Southern Apulia (Messapia) were peanuts compared to Natives:

Messapia was relatively urbanized and more densely populated compared to the rest of Iapygia. It possessed 26–28 walled settlements, while the remainder of Iapygia had 30–35 more dispersed walled settlements. The Messapian population has been estimated at 120.000 to 145.000 persons before the Roman conquest.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEYntema2008[httpsbooksgooglecombooksidzwqwCQAAQBAJpgPA383_383]-24)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Map_of_Ancient_Italy%2C_Southern_Part.jpg/400px-Map_of_Ancient_Italy%2C_Southern_Part.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ancient_Italy,_Southern_Part.jpg)

Map of Ancient Italy, Southern Part by William R. Shepherd, 1911.


The main Messapic cities included:


Alytia (Alezio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alezio))
Brundisium/Brentesion (Brindisi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brindisi))
Cavallino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavallino)
Hodrum/Idruntum (Otranto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otranto))
Hyria/Orria (Oria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oria,_Italy))
Kaìlia (Ceglie Messapica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceglie_Messapica))
Manduria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manduria)
Mesania (Mesagne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesagne))
Neriton (Nardò (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nard%C3%B2))
Rudiae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudiae) (outside Lecce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecce))
Mios/Myron (Muro Leccese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muro_Leccese))
Thuria Sallentina (Roca Vecchia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roca_Vecchia))
Uzentum (Ugento (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugento))

Angela
29-05-20, 03:28
The only way we'll know for sure is when we have ancient dna.

Salento
29-05-20, 04:02
... either-way, at some point the Greek expansion was stopped:

Many Greek Colonists were Killed by the Messapi:

In 473 BC, the Messapi inflicted a decisive defeat, “the greatest slaughter of Greeks ever known ....” Herodotus

“Nel 473 a.C. i Messapi infliggono ai Tarantini, alleati con Reggio, una decisiva sconfitta, “la più grande strage di Greci fra quante se ne conoscano” dirà Erodoto, ...”


http://www.archeologico.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DISPENSA-SALENTO.pdf

Palermo Trapani
17-06-20, 14:49
Jovialis/Bicicleur/Angela: This new paper might deserve a new thread when the final version comes out or if you all think that is the case now, then perhaps that is the best way to go. However, it it is related to Sicily-Pre Greek Colonization.

Bicicleur: You mentioned the Grotto Del Uzzo site in post #43. The van der Loosdrecht paper has 18 (19 in study as OrienteC Sicilian HG is used in data analysis) new samples from that site. The paper looks at the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic in Sicily. The 2 oldest HG from Grotto Del Uzzo cluster with the HG from Favignana, Sicily. Nine of the samples are grouped together as Sicilian Late Mesolithic HG.

The 3rd group is Sicilian Early Neolithic (N=7) from the period 5460_5220 BC and these samples these individuals show "substantially Near-Eastern-related ancestry and fall close to early farmers from the Balkans (Croatia, Greece), Hungary, and Anatolia, but not Iberia (Fig. 1C). So I don't think that is a surprise to most of the folks here but it does confirm that Sicily was already EEF type predominate ancestry, with some Local WG admixture, well before the Greek colonization in Sicily starting around 800-750BC. Supplemental Table S-7 provides Mtdna Haplogroups, U dominates (13 of 17). Y-DNA for 4 males I, I2a2, H, and C1a2. I2a2 is in my area code so personally very interesting on that level.

Note: I did a search to see if this paper had already been linked in a forum and I did not find it. If I missed it, I apologize.

van de Loosdrecht et al 2020 (pre-print version). Supplements are available for download.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.986158v1.full

Catalano et al 2020: This paper (Reich is on it) provides evidence that the Favignana Sicilian HG shows affinity with Paleolithic individuals from Messina, Sicily (Is there a published paper on that?). The conclusion of the study is that the Sicilian HG were connected genetically not only with HG from other parts of Europe (consistent with Mathieson et al 2018) but more specifically genetically and culturally with HG from the peninsula.

"In conclusion, the DNA study of Oriente C is particularly relevant to improve the knowledge about the peopling of the Central Mediterranean by Anatomically Modern Humans after the LGM. The
data support the hypothesis that hunter-gatherer groups arrived in Sicily from the Italian peninsula, confirming results derived from anatomical studies on human fossil remains of Grotta di San Teodoro and
from material productions (lithic and figurative) whose characteristics fall within the Late Epigravettian physiognomy of Southern Italy, albeit with some peculiar features, especially in lithic productions, which
reveal a regional identity."


https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/1-s2.0-S1040618220300264-main.pdf


Table for van de Loosdrecht et al 2020 with Sample dates.

12209

Ygorcs
17-06-20, 18:43
i agree with you that the issue about illegal or legal immigrants is not part of this discussion. i was talking about eurocentric folks at anthrogenica not about simple opponents of illegal immigrants. those are indeed 2 different things. i don't see why you and yetos think it was the same.

do you think they would look for recent near eastern ancestry in sicilians just because they don't like illegal migrants? makes no sense, right? i think they just can't admit to themselves that european ancestry is in large parts related to near east and that phenotypic traits that are overlapping between those two regions can be there because of shared ancestry and not just because of recent mixture.likewise a near easterner with european traits must have recent european ancestry or for example ancestry from yamnas. it was the same with darker looking northern europeans. they must have had recent southern European ancestry, romans maybe, it couldn't be because of shared ancestry in the whole population. that one changed, now they need to somehow exclude near east.

I absolutely agree with you, Ailchu. It's IMHO a bit naive to think this is really about the "steppe" or even about "ancient Indo-Europeans". Those are just keywords that are in fact indicators of "true Europeanness"(which, given the unquestionably close relationship with Near Easterners, means trying to split hairs to find something that really sets them apart from their distant cousins) used by eurocentric people who aren't actually interested in the fine details and complexities of genetic history, but are just looking for a scientific reasoning for their a priori prejudices and biases. If Indo-Europeans and steppe people were in fact assumed by modern science to have come from outside Europe and clearly non-European areas, they would be twisting everything they could to try to prove they have the least relationship with those people and are in fact "pre-Indo-European". The real problem deep down is - God forbid! - that they could be much closer to Near Easterners (which they often generically label "Arabs") than they're willing to admit so far.

Ygorcs
17-06-20, 19:16
I think it's clear that Sicily was indeed pushed northward (as all of Europe) due to the steppe introgression as well as eastward and particularly northeastward toward the East Mediterranean and the Anatolia/Caucasus in particular.

Both the genetic ancestry models and the PCA plots indicate that strongly, and a significant change (though nothing "revolutionary" in genetic makeup) really seems to have happened between the LBA and the modern era, the main changes being a minor but still remarkable increase in Natufian-related, Yamnaya-related and Iran_N-related admixtures.

The clear decrease of WHG percentage from the average in MN to LBA samples also seems to indicate a relevant change after the LBA, a change generally bringing Sicily closer to the Aegean genetics and concomitantly also closer to Central/North Europe (i.e. higher steppe ancestry). Even before the LBA, Maykop-related (which already includes Iran_N, Anatolia_N and even some EHG, but still more ~40-50% CHG) had already become a significant presence in the genetic makeup of Sicily at least since the Bell Beaker period (the Beaker_Sicily sample), so it's no novelty postdating the Carthaginians and Greeks in Sicily.

Now we can discuss what population movements (I really doubt it was just one major admixture event and nothing else) caused that change and how that relates (or not) to cultural, archaeological and linguistic changes in the island, but it did happen. IMO it's clear that Sicilians aren't just very Ancient Greek (Mycenaean + Minoan)-shifted Bronze Age Sicilians (for if they were they would plot differently in the PCA chart and have less Natufian-related and Maykop-related admixtures), so other relevant populations must also have contributed to the genetics of modern Sicilians after the LBA (considering the main components involved, we could consider early Italics, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks not just from Greece but also from Anatolian and Cyprus, Italians from the mainland, Normans, North Africans during the Roman Era as well as during the Muslim rule, Byzantines from Anatolia and Levant, etc.).That doesn't make Sicilians any more or less European, of couse, not just due to historical and cultural fators, but also because the bulk of their ancestry, at least in terms of really ancient and more distinctive admixtures (e.g. Anatolia_N, Iran_N, WHG, Steppe_EMBA, etc.) is still overwhelmingly formed by the same main components that shape the European genetics elsewhere.


See the PCA chart (I don't know why but apparently I can't post any pictures in my posts here yet): https://imgur.com/a/pbpPKao

Ygorcs
17-06-20, 19:25
LINK - If you prefer to see pictures of these tables: https://imgur.com/a/1zqnWSg



Target
Distance

Anatolia_Barcin_N


EHG_Karelia


Iran_Neo


MAR_EN


Maykop


Natufian


WHG


Yamnaya_RUS



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.03016186

92,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


7,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.03005867

89,2


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


10,8


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.03054454

91,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


8,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.02933668

85,8


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


14,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.03482724

88,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


12,0


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.03204897

77,6


0,0


0,0


1,6


2,4


0,0


9,2


9,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.03682332

76,8


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


9,0


14,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.04110646

89,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


3,4


0,0


7,0


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03634092

67,4


6,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


12,4


13,6



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.03899473

81,4


0,0


0,0


1,2


1,2


0,0


7,6


8,6



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03095006

49,4


0,0


0,0


0,4


0,0


0,0


8,6


41,6



Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
0.05027567

72,0


0,0


0,0


0,2


22,6


0,0


5,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.02619634

76,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


15,2


0,0


8,0


0,2



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.03939586

83,4


0,0


0,0


1,0


9,4


0,0


6,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.02363986

81,0


0,0


0,0


1,8


1,8


0,0


5,8


9,6



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.04711925

81,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


11,6


0,0


7,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.03185393

73,8


0,0


0,0


1,0


11,0


0,0


6,0


8,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H
0.02219327

52,8


0,0


1,8


0,0


15,6


7,4


0,8


21,6



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H
0.03396469

48,4


0,0


2,6


0,0


10,6


12,8


0,6


25,0



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H
0.02012140

44,6


0,0


4,8


0,0


19,8


10,8


4,0


16,0



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H
0.02622899

48,6


0,0


5,8


0,0


8,0


8,6


5,6


23,4



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H
0.02486791

47,4


0,0


6,0


2,4


14,4


9,4


3,6


16,8



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H
0.02924797

50,0


0,0


4,2


2,2


8,8


8,6


4,4


21,8




************************************************** ***



Target
Distance

Anatolia_Barcin_N


EHG_Karelia


GEO_CHG


Iran_Neo


MAR_EN


Natufian


WHG


Yamnaya_RUS



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.03016186

92,6


0


0


0


0


0


7,4


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.03005867

89,2


0


0


0


0


0


10,8


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.03054454

91,6


0


0


0


0


0


8,4


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.02933668

85,8


0


0


0


0


0


14,2


0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.03482724

88


0


0


0


0


0


12


0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.03187045

78,4


0


0


1,8


1,4


0


9,4


9



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.03682332

76,8


0


0


0


0


0


9


14,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.04120160

91


0


0,6


0


0


0


6,4


2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03634053

67,4


6,4


0


0


0


0


12,4


13,8



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.03901785

82


0


0


0


1,2


0


7,4


9,4



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03095006

49,4


0


0


0


0,4


0


8,6


41,6



Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
0.05084224

80


0


13,4


0,6


0,2


0


4,2


1,6



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.02476793

81,8


0


4,4


4,6


0


0


7,6


1,6



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.03981940

87,2


0


1,8


1,8


0,8


0


5,2


3,2



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.03282856

77,8


0


5,4


0


1


0,4


5


10,4



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.02364671

81,6


0


0,6


0,6


1,8


0


5,8


9,6



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.04686058

86


0


1,2


0


0


0


4,6


8,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H
0.02305468

57,8


0


7


3,8


0


8,2


0


23,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H
0.03479737

52,8


0


1,2


6,2


0


12,6


0


27,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H
0.02260920

51,4


0


7,8


8,2


0


11,4


3


18,2



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H
0.02683218

52


0


1,2


8,4


0


8,4


5


25



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H
0.02621562

52


0


5


9


1,8


10,6


3


18,6



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H
0.02984338

53,4


0


1,2


6,8


2


9


3,6


24

Palermo Trapani
17-06-20, 20:25
Here is the Source and admixture Table from the pre-print full text version of VandeLoosdrecht et al 2020 with the samples from Grotta del Uzzo. Iran Neolithic was there even before Bronze Age as some early Natufian-Levant. But the dominate source was Anatolian Neolithic. All of these samples in VandeLoosdrecht et al 2020 pre-date the ones analyzed in Fernandes et al 2020 (Figure 1). So this new paper confirms arrival of Iran Neolithic into Sicily just as Fernandes et al 2020 found, but it documents the arrival even earlier. So to refer back to Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2 which looks at Modern Italians, in Sicily the WHG/Anatolian Neolithic/Iran Neolithic ancestry was there by Early Neolithic period along with some Natufian-Levant (3 individuals) . The Steppe ancestry got there around 2,200 BC based on Fernandes et al 2020. So the only ancestry I haven't seen documented in Sicily in either of these studies is the Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG) (i.e. Maykop) and when it arrived, which I think should be closely related with the Iran Neolithic. I do see in Ygorcs Post #155 Maykop (CHG) showing up in the Sicilian_Bell Beaker so maybe that is when it arrived in Sicily and other Bronze Age Sicilians. What Calculator is that if you don't mind me asking. It would be nice if researchers would be able to analyze the other 2 Sicilian_Bell Beakers or find more samples.

12214



1221112212

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 12:26
We already know about 1600 BC there were migrations from the land of Hidali/Hitali in the Zagros region where ancient Elymais lived to the Levant region of the eastern Mediterranean (Phoenicia) and then from there to Sicily and some other parts of Southern Europe. These people were Indo-Europeans.

http://uupload.ir/files/r6m7_lebanon.jpg

Angela
19-06-20, 13:18
We already know about 1600 BC there were migrations from the land of Hidali/Hitali in the Zagros region where ancient Elymais lived to the Levant region of the eastern Mediterranean (Phoenicia) and then from there to Sicily and some other parts of Southern Europe. These people were Indo-Europeans.
http://uupload.ir/files/r6m7_lebanon.jpg

We know nothing of the sort. This is a serious site for discussion of genetics. Post your fantasies elsewhere.They don't belong here.

Angela
19-06-20, 13:21
I think it's clear that Sicily was indeed pushed northward (as all of Europe) due to the steppe introgression as well as eastward and particularly northeastward toward the East Mediterranean and the Anatolia/Caucasus in particular.

Both the genetic ancestry models and the PCA plots indicate that strongly, and a significant change (though nothing "revolutionary" in genetic makeup) really seems to have happened between the LBA and the modern era, the main changes being a minor but still remarkable increase in Natufian-related, Yamnaya-related and Iran_N-related admixtures.

The clear decrease of WHG percentage from the average in MN to LBA samples also seems to indicate a relevant change after the LBA, a change generally bringing Sicily closer to the Aegean genetics and concomitantly also closer to Central/North Europe (i.e. higher steppe ancestry). Even before the LBA, Maykop-related (which already includes Iran_N, Anatolia_N and even some EHG, but still more ~40-50% CHG) had already become a significant presence in the genetic makeup of Sicily at least since the Bell Beaker period (the Beaker_Sicily sample), so it's no novelty postdating the Carthaginians and Greeks in Sicily.

Now we can discuss what population movements (I really doubt it was just one major admixture event and nothing else) caused that change and how that relates (or not) to cultural, archaeological and linguistic changes in the island, but it did happen. IMO it's clear that Sicilians aren't just very Ancient Greek (Mycenaean + Minoan)-shifted Bronze Age Sicilians (for if they were they would plot differently in the PCA chart and have less Natufian-related and Maykop-related admixtures), so other relevant populations must also have contributed to the genetics of modern Sicilians after the LBA (considering the main components involved, we could consider early Italics, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks not just from Greece but also from Anatolian and Cyprus, Italians from the mainland, Normans, North Africans during the Roman Era as well as during the Muslim rule, Byzantines from Anatolia and Levant, etc.).That doesn't make Sicilians any more or less European, of couse, not just due to historical and cultural fators, but also because the bulk of their ancestry, at least in terms of really ancient and more distinctive admixtures (e.g. Anatolia_N, Iran_N, WHG, Steppe_EMBA, etc.) is still overwhelmingly formed by the same main components that shape the European genetics elsewhere.


See the PCA chart (I don't know why but apparently I can't post any pictures in my posts here yet): https://imgur.com/a/pbpPKao

It doesn't matter how many academic papers are posted here; the usual suspects prefer the amateur models which "prove" their preconceived notions.

If I had the time I'd go back and pull up all the models which "proved" that Etruscans were first millennium BC Anatolians. :)

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 14:36
We know nothing of the sort. This is a serious site for discussion of genetics. Post your fantasies elsewhere.They don't belong here.
Whether you like it or not, the arrival of Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily about 1500 BC is a serious discussion of genetics, I think you actually should post your eurocentric fantasies elsewhere.

Jovialis
19-06-20, 14:58
Whether you like it or not, the arrival of Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily about 1500 BC is a serious discussion of genetics, I think you actually should post your eurocentric fantasies elsewhere.

Iran-like ancestry has been in the central Mediterranean since the neolithic. It just didn't arrive how you stridently, and ignorantly proposed.

FYI: Modern Iranians, are different from the prehistoric and early people who lived in what is today Iran. There has been more than marginal admixture with Natufian, and Sub-Saharan African ancestry throughout the middle east. Though Middle Eastern Jewish populations seem to have less to none of the SSA. They probably didn't mix with, or less so with, the medieval African slaves, like the rest of the Middle East did. Though the chart doesn't show it, I am sure Iranian-Jews have better preserved their pre-medieval ancestry, than the modern Iranian population at large.

https://i.imgur.com/1rxIzq0.jpg

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 15:49
Iran-like ancestry has been in the central Mediterranean since the neolithic. It just didn't arrive how you stridently, and ignorantly proposed.

FYI: Modern Iranians, are different from the prehistoric and early people who lived in what is today Iran. There has been more than marginal admixture with Natufian, and Sub-Saharan African ancestry throughout the middle east. Though Middle Eastern Jewish populations seem to have less to none of the SSA. They probably didn't mix with, or less so with, the medieval African slaves, like the rest of the Middle East did. Though the chart doesn't show it, I am sure Iranian-Jews have better preserved their pre-medieval ancestry, than the modern Iranian population at large.

https://i.imgur.com/1rxIzq0.jpg

It absolutely doesn't matter who modern Iranians are, please read the genetic studies, according to Fernandes et al. (The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean) "Iranian-related ancestry began to be introduced in the Phoenician period (1550 - 300 BC)", it also says "it is not only consistent with the historical evidence and our finding of this ancestry type but is also supported by previously published mitochondrial DNA which has documented haplotypes in ancient Phoenician colonies in modern Sardinians.", so it came from the West Asia, not Europe.

DuPidh
19-06-20, 16:11
Iran-like ancestry has been in the central Mediterranean since the neolithic. It just didn't arrive how you stridently, and ignorantly proposed.

FYI: Modern Iranians, are different from the prehistoric and early people who lived in what is today Iran. There has been more than marginal admixture with Natufian, and Sub-Saharan African ancestry throughout the middle east. Though Middle Eastern Jewish populations seem to have less to none of the SSA. They probably didn't mix with, or less so with, the medieval African slaves, like the rest of the Middle East did. Though the chart doesn't show it, I am sure Iranian-Jews have better preserved their pre-medieval ancestry, than the modern Iranian population at large.

https://i.imgur.com/1rxIzq0.jpg
present day Iranains have 20% Indian ancestry. Also some low percentages of Arabic ancestry

ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 16:17
present day Iranains have 20% Indian ancestry. Also some low percentages of Arabic ancestry

Is that really true? I would imagine Caucasian ancestry has made a bigger impact in the most densely populated parts of the country. Obviously modern Iranians aren't perfect representations of the earliest Iranians due to Anatolia_N ancestry. I believe Iran_N ancestry actually peaks in Pakistan.

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 16:27
Shahmiri:

Phoenician settlements in Sicily were not there until 1000-900 BC, at the earliest, perhaps not as late as 800 BC or Northwest coast. Greek Colonization between 800-750 BC on East Coast and would move all the way to NW Sicily as far as Seilinute and Segesta in Trapani. I don't see any statement in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper talking about Pheonician period being 1550 to 300 BC. If there is such a statement, please refer me to it.

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 17:00
Shahmiri:

Phoenician settlements in Sicily were not there until 1000-900 BC, at the earliest, perhaps not as late as 800 BC or Northwest coast. Greek Colonization between 800-750 BC on East Coast and would move all the way to NW Sicily as far as Seilinute and Segesta in Trapani. I don't see any statement in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper talking about Pheonician period being 1550 to 300 BC. If there is such a statement, please refer me to it.

As you read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians_and_wine "Phoenicia was a civilization centered in current day Lebanon. Between 1550 BC and 300 BC, the Phoenicians developed a maritime trading culture that expanded their influence from the Levant to North Africa, the Greek Isles, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula."

But about Sicily, we read in Fernandes et al 2020 paper: "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry was present during the Middle Bronze Age, showing that this ancestry which was widespread in the Aegean around this time (in association with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures), also reached further west."

And this map:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/03/21/584714/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

As you see it also came from the West Asia, I don't know why you believe Iranian-related ancestry should come from another land!

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 17:30
It is important to note that when the paper says Iranian ancestry was widespread in the Aegean and relates it to the Mycenaean culture and then it says this culture reached further west, we should look for a common culture which seems to be nothing other than an original Indo-European culture.

Angela
19-06-20, 17:47
Whether you like it or not, the arrival of Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily about 1500 BC is a serious discussion of genetics, I think you actually should post your eurocentric fantasies elsewhere.

Of course Iranian related ancestry arrived in Sicily, and other parts of Southern Italy. No one disputes that, and I have absolutely no problem with it, which you'd know if you'd been here for a while and weren't just judging the posters here by the Nordicist Italian whack jobs of anthrofora. However, your timing is off because some arrived before that and some after that. Clearly you don't keep up with the research. Use your time to educate yourself by reading the papers linked by Jovialis, Palermo and others.

It's the rest of what you posted that's complete nonsense. No one knows precisely who the Elymians were, or where they came from. Did you people learn nothing from the Herodotus/Etruscans debacle?

Furthermore, to claim they were INDO-EUROPEANS who went from the Zagros to the LEVANT and then to Sicily is beyond insane..

If you keep up posting absolute crap like this, you're out of here.

This is not going to become the new home for the looney hobbyists. Clear?

Angela
19-06-20, 18:01
As you read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians_and_wine "Phoenicia was a civilization centered in current day Lebanon. Between 1550 BC and 300 BC, the Phoenicians developed a maritime trading culture that expanded their influence from the Levant to North Africa, the Greek Isles, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula."

But about Sicily, we read in Fernandes et al 2020 paper: "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry was present during the Middle Bronze Age, showing that this ancestry which was widespread in the Aegean around this time (in association with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures), also reached further west."

And this map:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/03/21/584714/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

As you see it also came from the West Asia, I don't know why you believe Iranian-related ancestry should come from another land!

DID YOU EVER HEAR ABOUT CHECKING DATES????

They didn't reach Italy in 1500 BC. so your point is absurd.

Plus, Iranian related ancestry went by way of ANATOLIA. That's why Anatolian Bronze Age migration is an important factor in the population genetics of southeastern Europe.

Angela
19-06-20, 18:10
It absolutely doesn't matter who modern Iranians are, please read the genetic studies, according to Fernandes et al. (The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean) "Iranian-related ancestry began to be introduced in the Phoenician period (1550 - 300 BC)", it also says "it is not only consistent with the historical evidence and our finding of this ancestry type but is also supported by previously published mitochondrial DNA which has documented haplotypes in ancient Phoenician colonies in modern Sardinians.", so it came from the West Asia, not Europe.

Obviously, the Iranian related ancestry discussed in the papers is based on ANCIENT samples from the Iranian Neolithic for example, or it's based on Anatolian Chalcolithic or Anatolian Bronze Age samples. Who says any different?

All Jovialis was CLEARLY saying is that modern Iranians have changed since then, which is obvious. It's not MODERN Iranian related genetics that is showing up in Southeast Europe.

Try reading more carefully before shooting off a post.

Jovialis
19-06-20, 18:11
Obviously, the Iranian related ancestry discussed in the papers is based on ANCIENT samples from the Iranian Neolithic for example, or it's based on Anatolian Chalcolithic or Anatolian Bronze Age samples. Who says any different?

All Jovialis was CLEARLY saying is that modern Iranians have changed since then, which is obvious. It's not MODERN Iranian related genetics that is showing up in Southeast Europe.

Try reading more carefully before shooting off a post.

Indeed! I would upvote, but I'm currrently out of juice.

Angela
19-06-20, 18:19
LINK - If you prefer to see pictures of these tables: https://imgur.com/a/1zqnWSg



Target
Distance

Anatolia_Barcin_N


EHG_Karelia


Iran_Neo


MAR_EN


Maykop


Natufian


WHG


Yamnaya_RUS



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.03016186

92,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


7,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.03005867

89,2


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


10,8


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.03054454

91,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


8,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.02933668

85,8


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


14,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.03482724

88,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


12,0


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.03204897

77,6


0,0


0,0


1,6


2,4


0,0


9,2


9,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.03682332

76,8


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


9,0


14,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.04110646

89,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


3,4


0,0


7,0


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03634092

67,4


6,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


12,4


13,6



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.03899473

81,4


0,0


0,0


1,2


1,2


0,0


7,6


8,6



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03095006

49,4


0,0


0,0


0,4


0,0


0,0


8,6


41,6



Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
0.05027567

72,0


0,0


0,0


0,2


22,6


0,0


5,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.02619634

76,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


15,2


0,0


8,0


0,2



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.03939586

83,4


0,0


0,0


1,0


9,4


0,0


6,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.02363986

81,0


0,0


0,0


1,8


1,8


0,0


5,8


9,6



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.04711925

81,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


11,6


0,0


7,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.03185393

73,8


0,0


0,0


1,0


11,0


0,0


6,0


8,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H
0.02219327

52,8


0,0


1,8


0,0


15,6


7,4


0,8


21,6



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H
0.03396469

48,4


0,0


2,6


0,0


10,6


12,8


0,6


25,0



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H
0.02012140

44,6


0,0


4,8


0,0


19,8


10,8


4,0


16,0



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H
0.02622899

48,6


0,0


5,8


0,0


8,0


8,6


5,6


23,4



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H
0.02486791

47,4


0,0


6,0


2,4


14,4


9,4


3,6


16,8



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H
0.02924797

50,0


0,0


4,2


2,2


8,8


8,6


4,4


21,8




************************************************** ***



Target
Distance

Anatolia_Barcin_N


EHG_Karelia


GEO_CHG


Iran_Neo


MAR_EN


Natufian


WHG


Yamnaya_RUS



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.03016186

92,6


0


0


0


0


0


7,4


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.03005867

89,2


0


0


0


0


0


10,8


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.03054454

91,6


0


0


0


0


0


8,4


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.02933668

85,8


0


0


0


0


0


14,2


0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.03482724

88


0


0


0


0


0


12


0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.03187045

78,4


0


0


1,8


1,4


0


9,4


9



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.03682332

76,8


0


0


0


0


0


9


14,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.04120160

91


0


0,6


0


0


0


6,4


2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03634053

67,4


6,4


0


0


0


0


12,4


13,8



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.03901785

82


0


0


0


1,2


0


7,4


9,4



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03095006

49,4


0


0


0


0,4


0


8,6


41,6



Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
0.05084224

80


0


13,4


0,6


0,2


0


4,2


1,6



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.02476793

81,8


0


4,4


4,6


0


0


7,6


1,6



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.03981940

87,2


0


1,8


1,8


0,8


0


5,2


3,2



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.03282856

77,8


0


5,4


0


1


0,4


5


10,4



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.02364671

81,6


0


0,6


0,6


1,8


0


5,8


9,6



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.04686058

86


0


1,2


0


0


0


4,6


8,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H
0.02305468

57,8


0


7


3,8


0


8,2


0


23,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H
0.03479737

52,8


0


1,2


6,2


0


12,6


0


27,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H
0.02260920

51,4


0


7,8


8,2


0


11,4


3


18,2



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H
0.02683218

52


0


1,2


8,4


0


8,4


5


25



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H
0.02621562

52


0


5


9


1,8


10,6


3


18,6



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H
0.02984338

53,4


0


1,2


6,8


2


9


3,6


24





What if instead of Natufian you had a pre-Islamic era (with out Medieval era SSA) North African sample? Also, of course, there are no Greek colonization era samples.

Have you done it for Calabria?

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 18:47
Shahmiri

I know where Iran is. My point is that the Phoenician period you cited (1550 to 300) was not used in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper. In addition 2 points. First, with respect to Sicily it would be 1000-900 BC at the earliest that the Phoenicians set up trade routes/cities. Three principal Pheonician cities in Sicily are all in NW Sicily, Solunto, Mozia and Palermo. Second, the period you cited actually overlaps with the Carthaginians who while the successors of the earlier Phoenician colonies in Tunis would likely include some local Berbers in addition to the descendants of the original founders from the Levant (i.e. Phoenicians).

Furthermore, as was mentioned before, Iran-Neolithic ancestry entered Sicily and likely other parts of the Italian Mainland well before the arrival of Steppe ancestry that Fernandes et al 2020 documented in the period circa 2500-2000 BC. As I noted in post 152 and 156, a working paper (pre-print is available) by VanDeLooschret et al 2020 documents the arrival of Iran-Neolithic ancestry into Sicily 3,500 years before the period of the samples in Fernandes et al 2020, which is when Steppe type ancestry arrived in Sicily.

So my post clearly indicating that Iran-Neolithic ancestry was into Sicily well before the "Steppe Herders" who are the favorite ancient group for some people on these genetics forums and youtube video comment sections out there. So I am not sure what you are suggesting I am arguing against. Most of the people here of Italian ancestry have read the Antonio et al 2019 paper on Ancient Romans, which documents Iran-Neolithic ancestry in Lazio, the Raveane et al 2019 paper (which is cited in this thread), documenting Iran-Neolithic in all Italian Southern Regions (Sicily included), the Fernandes et al 2020 paper documents it and this new pre-print working paper that I referenced in post #152 and #156 by VandeLooschret et al 2020 (which has Krause and Haak on it) documents it as far back as circa 6,700 BC.

Respectfully, I am not sure what you are trying to argue or say.

DuPidh
19-06-20, 18:59
Is that really true? I would imagine Caucasian ancestry has made a bigger impact in the most densely populated parts of the country. Obviously modern Iranians aren't perfect representations of the earliest Iranians due to Anatolia_N ancestry. I believe Iran_N ancestry actually peaks in Pakistan.

Many Kurds have posted their DNA tests on you tube. As you know Kurds are an Iranic people stock and they report on average from 10 to 12% South Asian ancestry which is India, Pakistan. So my guess is Iran should have higher percentage of south Asian ancestry due to its proximity and trade and cultural exchanges. Its not hard to see in Iranian phenotype south Asian ancestry

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 19:03
Obviously, the Iranian related ancestry discussed in the papers is based on ANCIENT samples from the Iranian Neolithic for example, or it's based on Anatolian Chalcolithic or Anatolian Bronze Age samples. Who says any different?

All Jovialis was CLEARLY saying is that modern Iranians have changed since then, which is obvious. It's not MODERN Iranian related genetics that is showing up in Southeast Europe.

Try reading more carefully before shooting off a post.

Iran is a just a land in the West Asia where different people in different period lived there, it is certainly possible that people who live too far from Iran have more Iranian-related ancestry than modern Iranians, because there were several migrations from and to Iran in the last thousands years.
As I said It absolutely doesn't matter who modern Iranians are and what their culture and language is, because we are talking about the people who lived in this land some thousands years ago, you can assume that 4,000 years ago all people who lived in this land migrated to another land and other people came there.
Whether through Anatolia or Levant, less than 4,000 years ago some people from Iran migrated to the Aegean and other parts of Europe, look at Lazaridis et al, Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, which clearly mentions this thing, so we already talk about this Iranian-related people that I believe they were Indo-Europeans, what is its problem?

DuPidh
19-06-20, 19:03
It doesn't matter how many academic papers are posted here; the usual suspects prefer the amateur models which "prove" their preconceived notions.

If I had the time I'd go back and pull up all the models which "proved" that Etruscans were first millennium BC Anatolians. :)

so Etruscans are an Iberian like people genetically speaking, right?

ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 19:16
Many Kurds have posted their DNA tests on you tube. As you know Kurds are an Iranic people stock and they report on average from 10 to 12% South Asian ancestry which is India, Pakistan. So my guess is Iran should have higher percentage of south Asian ancestry due to its proximity and trade and cultural exchanges. Its not hard to see in Iranian phenotype south Asian ancestry

I believe you. Interesting. Is it just a general South Asian component or particularly AASI or Iran_N related?

Jovialis
19-06-20, 19:23
so Etruscans are an Iberian like people genetically speaking, right?

Not quite.

Etruscans do plot between modern-Iberians, and Northern Italians, as do 2 of the 4 Latin samples. However, if you look at the chart below, Iberians and Etruscans were quite different during the Iron Age, in terms of admixture rates. There was a resurgence of WHG during the cooper age in central Italy, which probably had help plot them closer to Iberia. Fwiw, R1 (to the far left of the admixture block), the Proto-Villanovan, shows very little WHG.

https://i.imgur.com/I6ZWkwE.png

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 19:27
Shahmiri

I know where Iran is. My point is that the Phoenician period you cited (1550 to 300) was not used in the Fernandes et al 2020 paper. In addition 2 points. First, with respect to Sicily it would be 1000-900 BC at the earliest that the Phoenicians set up trade routes/cities. Three principal Pheonician cities in Sicily are all in NW Sicily, Solunto, Mozia and Palermo. Second, the period you cited actually overlaps with the Carthaginians who while the successors of the earlier Phoenician colonies in Tunis would likely include some local Berbers in addition to the descendants of the original founders from the Levant (i.e. Phoenicians).

Furthermore, as was mentioned before, Iran-Neolithic ancestry entered Sicily and likely other parts of the Italian Mainland well before the arrival of Steppe ancestry that Fernandes et al 2020 documented in the period circa 2500-2000 BC. As I noted in post 152 and 156, a working paper (pre-print is available) by VanDeLooschret et al 2020 documents the arrival of Iran-Neolithic ancestry into Sicily 3,500 years before the period of the samples in Fernandes et al 2020, which is when Steppe type ancestry arrived in Sicily.

So my post clearly indicating that Iran-Neolithic ancestry was into Sicily well before the "Steppe Herders" who are the favorite ancient group for some people on these genetics forums and youtube video comment sections out there. So I am not sure what you are suggesting I am arguing against. Most of the people here of Italian ancestry have read the Antonio et al 2019 paper on Ancient Romans, which documents Iran-Neolithic ancestry in Lazio, the Raveane et al 2019 paper (which is cited in this thread), documenting Iran-Neolithic in all Italian Southern Regions (Sicily included), the Fernandes et al 2020 paper documents it and this new pre-print working paper that I referenced in post #152 and #156 by VandeLooschret et al 2020 (which has Krause and Haak on it) documents it as far back as circa 6,700 BC.

Respectfully, I am not sure what you are trying to argue or say.

There is no rule which says there could be just one migration from a land to another land. As I said we read in Fernandes et al 2020 paper: "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry was present during the Middle Bronze Age, showing that this ancestry which was widespread in the Aegean around this time (in association with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures), also reached further west." And we read in Lazaridis et al (Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans), "Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran." So this Iranian-related people were those who lived in Iran at the time of Minoans and Mycenaeans, not those ones who lived in Iran 9,000 years ago. As you know Mycenaeans were an Indo-European people, so those Iranian-related people could be Indo-European too.

ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 19:30
Jovialis, that's a really cool visualization btw.

Jovialis
19-06-20, 19:42
There is no rule which says there could be just one migration from a land to another land. As I said we read in Fernandes et al 2020 paper: "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry was present during the Middle Bronze Age, showing that this ancestry which was widespread in the Aegean around this time (in association with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures), also reached further west." And we read in Lazaridis et al (Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans), "Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran." So this Iranian-related people were those who lived in Iran at the time of Minoans and Mycenaeans, not those ones who lived in Iran 9,000 years ago. As you know Mycenaeans were an Indo-European people, so those Iranian-related people could be Indo-European too.

What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. Now drop it.

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 19:44
Shahmiri: No the Mycenaean's were not Indo-European people. Your statement is inconsistent with what the authors found. Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar having three-quarters of their ancestry from the First Neolithic Farmers of Western Anatolia. Are you saying the Neolithic Farmers are "Steppe-Herder" people. As for Indo-European, I usually think of that as a Linguistic term. From what I gathered, and I am not one who has spent tons of time researching the Yamnaya Culture, the Steppe Herder peoples are largely related to Eastern European Hunter Gathers from Russia/Ukraine and maybe some from ancient Siberia. As that culture spread South, some Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG) admixture was added and the peoples of the Caucuses adapted Indo-European languages and as the Steppe Herder people moved West the Indo-European Language spread but the Ancient Greeks in Lazaridis were clearly Early European Farmer Neolithic predominant genetically with some additional Caucus and Iran ancestry, as you noted. However, what you did not note was Mycenaean's differed from the Minoans with respect to some additional Eastern European Hunter Gather (EHG) type ancestry

"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6–8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

So sorry, I don't agree that the Mycenaeans were "Indo-European" ancestry wise. The paper you are citing clearly refutes that. The Greek Language is an Indo European Language. That and only that I agree with.

ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 19:45
What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are radically different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. LIVE WITH IT!

I'm pretty sure the southern steppe ancestry is from CHG not even Iran_N to begin with. CHG is just related to Iran_N. There's too much ANE, ENA and AASI in Iran_N for it to exist in most Europeans.

ihype02
19-06-20, 19:51
Now we can discuss what population movements (I really doubt it was just one major admixture event and nothing else) caused that change and how that relates (or not) to cultural, archaeological and linguistic changes in the island, but it did happen. IMO it's clear that Sicilians aren't just very Ancient Greek (Mycenaean + Minoan)-shifted Bronze Age Sicilians (for if they were they would plot differently in the PCA chart and have less Natufian-related and Maykop-related admixtures), so other relevant populations must also have contributed to the genetics of modern Sicilians after the LBA (considering the main components involved, we could consider early Italics, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks not just from Greece but also from Anatolian and Cyprus, Italians from the mainland, Normans, North Africans during the Roman Era as well as during the Muslim rule, Byzantines from Anatolia and Levant, etc.).That doesn't make Sicilians any more or less European, of couse, not just due to historical and cultural fators, but also because the bulk of their ancestry, at least in terms of really ancient and more distinctive admixtures (e.g. Anatolia_N, Iran_N, WHG, Steppe_EMBA, etc.) is still overwhelmingly formed by the same main components that shape the European genetics elsewhere.


All of the Ionic colonies in Sicily are from Euboea, and the Doric ones are from Corinth, Megara, Rhodes and Crete. The biggest demographic change came with Magna Greacians, as Syracuse was one of the most populous Greek city in Classical antiquity. But others contributed too. The greatest component but not the absolute majority is the ancient Greek ancestry, IMO. But this nearly complete replacement is very exaggerated.

Greeks from Anatolia and Cyprus rarely came to Sicily, as for Moors, Arbereshe and Normans, their contribution each was a 1 digit percentage. I have all the statistics for Arbereshe, they don't extend 3%, and were slightly above 1% in 15th century.

IMO, there might have been an ancient Greek-like population which poured into Sicily, possibly related with southern mainland Italians which pushed native Sicilians really close to Minoans. I believe the Bell Beaker Sicily sample might be what Sicilians were right before the Greek colonization, from which time frame was it taken?


"We detected Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the MiddleBronze Age 1800–1500 bc, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals towards Minoans and Mycenaeans in the PCA(Fig. 2b); in distal modelling, Sicily_MBA requires 15.7±2.6% o fIran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry (P=0.060; Fig. 4,Supplementary Table 14). Sources closer in time always require Minoan_Lassithi or Anatolia_EBA as a source (SupplementaryTable 21). Modern southern Italians harbour Iranian-related ancestry71, and our results show that this ancestry must have reached Sicily before the period of Greek political control when Sicily and southern Italy were part of Magna Graecia."

"We modelled Sicily_LBA as 81.5±1.6% Anatolia_Neolithic,5.9±1.6% WHG and 12.7±2.1% Yamnaya_Samara (Fig. 4b,Supplementary Table 14). Although this distal modelling providesno hint of Iranian-related ancestry, modelling with sources closer intime supports Sicily_LBA having such ancestry through groups suchas Anatolia_EBA or Minoan_Lassithi (Supplementary Table 22)."

"Our distal modelling of modern Sicilians requires not only thatthe two eastern ancestry sources that we have shown were presentby the Bronze Age—10.0±2.6% Yamnaya_Samara and 19.9±1.4%Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic—but also a predominant component of North African ancestry (46.9±5.6% Morocco_LN). These results are consistent with most ofthe North-African-related ancestry having come into Sicily duringthe Iron Age and afterwards—a scenario that is further supportedby our observation that modern Sicilians form a clade with Ibiza_Phoenician (P=0.060) and the three most recent Sardinian individuals in our time series (Supplementary Information). Althoughthese results are consistent in principle with a nearly completeancestry turnover on the island since the Bronze Age, we cannotrule out the possibility that Bronze Age Sicilians made a more modest ancestry contribution to modern Sicilians."

This was not the case with Campia, Apulia and Basilicata. Most of their ancestry comes from Italic people.

What do think is % of the 900BC Sicilians in modern Sicilians?

Jovialis
19-06-20, 19:53
What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. Now drop it.

What is it with this hobby, do people pick the component they are mostly desended from, and champion just that, inspite of other significant admixture they have? This isn't picking your favorite soccer club, guys.

Jovialis
19-06-20, 20:00
I'm pretty sure the southern steppe ancestry is from CHG not even Iran_N to begin with. CHG is just related to Iran_N. There's too much ANE, ENA and AASI in Iran_N for it to exist in most Europeans.

Despite my reservations with the modeling in the chart I posted above, they were able to do it with Iran_N.

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 20:01
What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. Now drop it.

I'm here just because I love European culture and I believe Iranian culture relates to it, I actually believe the original Iranian culture is what we already see in Europe, not what we see in modern Iran.

ihype02
19-06-20, 20:06
What is it with this hobby, do people pick the component they are mostly desended from, and champion just that, inspite of other significant admixture they have? This isn't picking your favorite soccer club, guys.
IMO means in my opinion.

Jovialis
19-06-20, 20:10
I'm here just because I love European culture and I believe Iranian culture relates to it, I actually believe the original Iranian culture is what we already see in Europe, not what we see in modern Iran.

There is no doubt some overlap, culturally, and even genetically. We're all here to learn.

Jovialis
19-06-20, 20:11
IMO means in my opinion.

?

We must have cross posted, and you mistook me, I wasn't referring to your post.

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 20:12
ihype02: Probably quite a bit. The Sicilian Bell Beaker (I4930) is mostly EEF type ancestry. Has No Steppe. Ygorcs in post 155 modeled him as 72% Anatolian-Neolithic, 22% Maykop (CHG type) and 5.2% WHG. But that is just 1 individual. This new paper by VanDeLooschret et al 2020, which I refered to in post 156 has 18 new samples that pre-date the Bell Beaker Sicilian and the Bronze Age Sicilian Samples from Fernandes et al 2020 but post date the Sicilian_WHG (OrientaleC) from Favignana. The Catalano et al 2020 paper document that the Sicilian_WHG were from the WHG from the Southern Italian Mainland.


Post 152 provides some additional information. If you compare now these ancient Sicilian samples we have starting with the Sicilian_WHG from Favignana, the new samples from the Grotta Del Uzzo Site (near San Vito Lopo, Trapani) dating up to 5,200 BC, the Sicilian Bell Beaker from circa 2,200 BC, the Bronze Age Sicilians from Fernandes et al 2020 BC. I think you see all the ancient ancestries in Sicily that show up in modern Sicilians as documented by Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2.

So what exactly are you trying to say about Sicilians? I am having a hard time seeing what you are getting at.

ihype02
19-06-20, 20:15
See the PCA chart (I don't know why but apparently I can't post any pictures in my posts here yet): https://imgur.com/a/pbpPKao
The MBA/LBA ones seem to be closer to modern Sicilians than Minoans are.

ihype02
19-06-20, 20:20
So what exactly are you trying to say about Sicilians? I am having a hard time seeing what you are getting at.

I think Sicilians might have been more similar to the old Greeks, by the time passed and before the colonization started. So I believe that native Sicilians might been Minoan-like by 900BC.

ihype02
19-06-20, 20:21
?

We must have cross posted, and you mistook me, I wasn't referring to your post.
Oh I'm sorry.

Ailchu
19-06-20, 20:27
Many Kurds have posted their DNA tests on you tube. As you know Kurds are an Iranic people stock and they report on average from 10 to 12% South Asian ancestry which is India, Pakistan. So my guess is Iran should have higher percentage of south Asian ancestry due to its proximity and trade and cultural exchanges. Its not hard to see in Iranian phenotype south Asian ancestry


in other tests they score close to 100% westasian. these 10 to 12% do not have to be real south asian. could also be because this ancestry went from iran to south asia.

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 20:33
Shahmiri: No the Mycenaean's were not Indo-European people. Your statement is inconsistent with what the authors found. Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar having three-quarters of their ancestry from the First Neolithic Farmers of Western Anatolia. Are you saying the Neolithic Farmers are "Steppe-Herder" people. As for Indo-European, I usually think of that as a Linguistic term. From what I gathered, and I am not one who has spent tons of time researching the Yamnaya Culture, the Steppe Herder peoples are largely related to Eastern European Hunter Gathers from Russia/Ukraine and maybe some from ancient Siberia. As that culture spread South, some Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG) admixture was added and the peoples of the Caucuses adapted Indo-European languages and as the Steppe Herder people moved West the Indo-European Language spread but the Ancient Greeks in Lazaridis were clearly Early European Farmer Neolithic predominant genetically with some additional Caucus and Iran ancestry, as you noted. However, what you did not note was Mycenaean's differed from the Minoans with respect to some additional Eastern European Hunter Gather (EHG) type ancestry

"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6–8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

So sorry, I don't agree that the Mycenaeans were "Indo-European" ancestry wise. The paper you are citing clearly refutes that. The Greek Language is an Indo European Language. That and only that I agree with.

If genetics matters then we should look at what the greatest geneticists say, David Reich says "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia.", so when we read "However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe, or Armenia.", Indo-European origin could be from Armenia, not the Eurasian steppe, especially because we read in the same study: "Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasian steppe in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2)."

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 20:37
I think Sicilians might have become more similar to the old Greeks, by the time passed and before the colonization started. So I believe that native Sicilians might been Minoan-like by 900BC.

Ok, well I think the only way to confirm that is to get Sicilian Samples from the period between 900 BC and around 265 BC. So if the Sicilians shifted towards Minoans in that period, how far would that have moved them? But who exactly are the Old Greeks? Were there Greeks in the Neolithic period. I tend to think modern Ethnic Groups pretty much became close to what they are today by the Late Bronze to Iron Age. Distance Wise I am about 15 from Sicilian_Bell Beaker (2,200 BC) actually share DNA segments with Otzi (3,300 BC) and share DNA segments with both ancient Minoan and Mycenean Greek samples (again MTA Chroma analysis). However, I share DNA segments with like 26 of the 127 Ancient Roman Samples from Antonio et al 2019 (again MTA Chroma analysis).

Of course I am an American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry in 2020 and I can measure where I am today using DNA test (Ancestry an Nat Geo), various calculators and MTA. We have data from Sicily pre-Greek Colonization, and as I said it looks like we are getting 18 additional samples from the Grotta Del Uzzo site from San Vito Lopo, Trapani. My Fathers Paternal Grandparents (My Great Grandparents) were both born in Trapani Province so exciting to me on a personal level as well one of the Male samples has Y-DNA I2a2 (M436), which is an early I2a2 in Sicily (National Geographic tells me I am I-M223, which is a sub-clade of I-M436).

So yes it would be interesting to see what happened in Sicily between 900 BC and 265BC, a period when the Greek Colonization dominated, with some minor influence from Pheonicia and Carthage. It would then be interesting to see what happened over the Roman period till the collapse of Rome in the West in the 5th Century AD, the Byzantine_Eastern Empire to the Saracen period, then the Norman rule etc. I think, my hypothesis, is that you will see ebbs an flows within certain ranges but I don't think you will ever see Sicily clustering significantly away from where it clusters now in general.

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 20:43
If genetics matters then we should look at what the greatest geneticists say, David Reich says "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia.", so when we read "However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe, or Armenia.", Indo-European origin could be from Armenia, not the Eurasian steppe, especially because we read in the same study: "Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasian steppe in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2)."

Well who is the greatest geneticist is subjective, but yes Reich is one of the best. As to where Indo-European languages were first spoken, that is a matter of intense debate and if it turns out to be Armenia then hey no issue for me. Now more to the point on a personal level, the fact that the Mycenaean's can't be modeled as having significant EHG ancestry is something I have no issue with. In fact, it actually is something that internally makes me smile because it refutes long held blog, you tube and internet theories about who the ancient Greeks were. So if you are saying that the ancient Greeks did not look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans then I am in agreement 100% as I have never said any such thing nor have I ever believed such a thing.

ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 20:49
in other tests they score close to 100% westasian. these 10 to 12% do not have to be real south asian. could also be because this ancestry went from iran to south asia.

Honestly, I feel like people can manipulate their models depending on what they want for to be true.

Shahmiri
19-06-20, 21:08
Well who is the greatest geneticist is subjective, but yes Reich is one of the best. As to where Indo-European languages were first spoken, that is a matter of intense debate and if it turns out to be Armenia then hey no issue for me. Now more to the point on a personal level, the fact that the Mycenaean's can't be modeled as having significant EHG ancestry is something I have no issue with. In fact, it actually is something that internally makes me smile because it refutes long held blog, you tube and internet theories about who the ancient Greeks were. So if you are saying that the ancient Greeks did not look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans then I am in agreement 100% as I have never said any such thing nor have I ever believed such a thing.

Do you mean they are Sicilians who look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans? I just searched Sicilians in Google Images, this is the first image:

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170802161448-addio-pizzo-movement-siciliy-anti-mafia-italy-exlarge-169.jpg

It really doesn't matter how ancient Greek and Italians look like, the ancient Greek and Roman cultures were much more advanced than north European cultures and they related to other advanced cultures in the Middle East, not north of Europe.

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 21:12
I agree, that is exactly what I am saying. Where did I say something else? You obviously missed the substance of my post, ancient Greeks and Romans looked Southern European like, not like Danes/Swedes/Norwegians and English-Anglo Saxons.

I am still having trouble with the substance of your post. If your position is that the first Indo_European languages are from ancient Iran/Persia or Armenia, then that is a hypothesis that I think the so called Kurgen Hypothsis could "broadly support" but I will admit I don't know enough to have a definite opinion as to where the first Indo-European languages developed. I do know from some old Jesuit educated folks (I am Dominican educated in my K-8 years) that it was Jesuits from the 16th century that first noted a connection of European and Iranian and even ancient Indian type languages like Sanskrit seemed to be connected. So you could be correct that the first Indo-European languages came from ancient Iran/Armenia area. Still, I think most from what I have read, limited, suggest the earliest Indo-European languages were among the EHG in ancient Russia/Ukraine (Pontic-Caspian Steppe) which is the mainstream version of the Kurgan hypothesis.

Again I am not well versed enough in ancient Indo-European history so to speak so maybe someone else here can provide more information supporting your views. In terms of ancient ancestry, I think it is clear Iran-Neolithic type ancestry was in Sicily even before the Bronze Age. This new paper by VanDeLoosdrecht 2020 clearly documents this (Again See Post 152 and 156). So I am not arguing that point

blevins13
19-06-20, 23:28
Well who is the greatest geneticist is subjective, but yes Reich is one of the best. As to where Indo-European languages were first spoken, that is a matter of intense debate and if it turns out to be Armenia then hey no issue for me. Now more to the point on a personal level, the fact that the Mycenaean's can't be modeled as having significant EHG ancestry is something I have no issue with. In fact, it actually is something that internally makes me smile because it refutes long held blog, you tube and internet theories about who the ancient Greeks were. So if you are saying that the ancient Greeks did not look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans then I am in agreement 100% as I have never said any such thing nor have I ever believed such a thing.

He is saying that Mycenaean came from South Caucasus....it is a valid option that is gaining momentum....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 23:39
He is saying that Mycenaean came from South Caucasus....it is a valid option that is gaining momentum....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

What is that based on?

Palermo Trapani
19-06-20, 23:49
He is saying that Mycenaean came from South Caucasus....it is a valid option that is gaining momentum....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Who is saying that? I am not saying that?

Edit, sorry, I see who you are referring. I haven't heard any such thing nor I have I seen a paper other than the Lazaridis et al 2017 study, which clearly did not say that. It clearly states that for both Minoans and Myceneans, 75% of their ancestry is from the first Neolithic Farmers from Anatolia and Aegean, the remainder from Caucus and Iran, but Myceneans have some additional EHG type ancestry, minimum of 4% but no more than 16% if I remember correctly from the paper.

So some South Caucus type ancestry and Iran Neolithic, that is documented in the Lazaradis et al study but not anything near the predominant source ancestry nor is it EHG from the Pontic-Steppe either. Why won't people accept the results of the study? If there are new samples that show different admixture proportions, then I guess the academics can add them to the current samples and re-calibrate their admixture models but until then, as the old saying goes "it is what it is."

Angela
20-06-20, 00:51
For goodness' sakes, even if Drews was correct and the Greek speakers left the steppe, crossed the Caucasus, traversed Anatolia, and then entered the Aegean and Greece, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their ancestry is not Caucasus related, although they have some, as they have steppe. By the time there was a "functioning" Mycenaean society, they were vast majority European farmer, no matter how much some people might want to make them Near Eastern foreigners.

ratchet_fan
20-06-20, 00:55
For goodness' sakes, even if Drews was correct and the Greek speakers left the steppe, crossed the Caucasus, traversed Anatolia, and then entered the Aegean and Greece, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their ancestry is not Caucasus related, although they have some, as they have steppe. By the time there was a "functioning" Mycenaean society, they were vast majority European farmer, no matter how much some people might want to make them Near Eastern foreigners.

I don't want to assume people having agendas but there seems to be a desire to exotify everything in Europe. I even read about East African/SSA admix in Mycenaeans recently.

blevins13
20-06-20, 01:03
What is that based on?

Based on, that Lazaridis did not confirm steppe ancestry for Mycenaean and left the door open for Anatolian route.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

blevins13
20-06-20, 01:10
For goodness' sakes, even if Drews was correct and the Greek speakers left the steppe, crossed the Caucasus, traversed Anatolia, and then entered the Aegean and Greece, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their ancestry is not Caucasus related, although they have some, as they have steppe. By the time there was a "functioning" Mycenaean society, they were vast majority European farmer, no matter how much some people might want to make them Near Eastern foreigners.

Not that I want to make them Near Eastern.....but with their technological progress The Caucasian-Anatolian root makes more sense to me...I share Drews views....waiting for genetic to confirm it or prove them false.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

blevins13
20-06-20, 01:11
I don't want to assume people having agendas but there seems to be a desire to exotify everything in Europe. I even read about East African/SSA admix in Mycenaeans recently.

You should read this ....it is not recent


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drews



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Ailchu
20-06-20, 01:43
I don't want to assume people having agendas but there seems to be a desire to exotify everything in Europe. I even read about East African/SSA admix in Mycenaeans recently.

that goes the other way too. people so desperately want to seperate "european" from "near eastern". those two are no valid genetic groups. also why do you think people immediately came with SSA, south asian, and additional natufian when talking about the difference between iran neo and modern iranians and not also with additional anatolian neolithic or steppe?


Honestly, I feel like people can manipulate their models depending on what they want for to be true.

you immediately believe Dupidh when he claims that kurds on youtube have 10% south asian but when someone questions it, then it's because people just want to believe what they want? go look on youtube and tell me how many vids you find from kurds with 10% south asian and how many from people with less.

Jovialis
20-06-20, 02:25
that goes the other way too. people so desperately want to seperate "european" from "near eastern". those two are no valid genetic groups. also why do you think people immediately came with SSA, south asian, and additional natufian when talking about the difference between iran neo and modern iranians and not also with additional anatolian neolithic or steppe?
you immediately believe Dupidh when he claims that kurds on youtube have 10% south asian but when someone questions it, then it's because people just want to believe what they want? go look on youtube and tell me how many vids you find from kurds with 10% south asian and how many from people with less.
Pardon me, are you referring to my post? Are you denying that there has been changes to Iranians since the neolithic? Came up with what? SSA in post-middle ages is a fact. Natufian admixture into Iran is real.There are studies that prove what I said. Also, if you want to challenge what I said, why don't you be up front about it. Unless I am misunderstanding your post.

ratchet_fan
20-06-20, 02:32
that goes the other way too. people so desperately want to seperate "european" from "near eastern". those two are no valid genetic groups. also why do you think people immediately came with SSA, south asian, and additional natufian when talking about the difference between iran neo and modern iranians and not also with additional anatolian neolithic or steppe?



you immediately believe Dupidh when he claims that kurds on youtube have 10% south asian but when someone questions it, then it's because people just want to believe what they want? go look on youtube and tell me how many vids you find from kurds with 10% south asian and how many from people with less.

I actually agree with you on the first part. I think its weird people (especially those of predominantly West Eurasian ancestry) would rather ultimately have their lines come from East Eurasians than Middle Easterners. And yea I agree the biggest difference is the increase in Anatolian Neolithic which might actually have lead to a decrease in basal eurasian and AASI type components given Iran_N likely has those in greater degree.

With the second point I was referring to people trying to find weird things in ancient groups not with Kurds. I was specifically thinking of people trying to argue for East African ancestry in Mycenaeans.

Palermo Trapani
20-06-20, 04:04
I actually agree with you on the first part. I think its weird people (especially those of predominantly West Eurasian ancestry) would rather ultimately have their lines come from East Eurasians than Middle Easterners. And yea I agree the biggest difference is the increase in Anatolian Neolithic which might actually have lead to a decrease in basal eurasian and AASI type components given Iran_N likely has those in greater degree.

With the second point I was referring to people trying to find weird things in ancient groups not with Kurds. I was specifically thinking of people trying to argue for East African ancestry in Mycenaeans.

Ailichu/ratchet fan: Since this thread is specifically about Sicilian DNA, I am going to maybe be a little more blunt, but hopefully in a respectful and civil manner and hope it is taken as such.

I think the statement that European and Near Eastern are not valid genetic groups is not entirely accurate. I think it is well known here on this site that West Eurasians were one group some 50,000 years ago, admixed with Neanderthals and then spread into various "distinct populations" but related in that they all stem from West Eurasians.

This first paper by Jones et al 2015 is one that I am aware of that measures the time of divergence among some of the populations that are discussed in the Lazaradis et al 2016 paper, which is also linked.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912


Lazaridis et al 2016 Figure 1 lays it out. The term "Middle Eastern" is to me a specific term for modern Arab-Islamic culture, Arab being a language pretty much that developed in the early part of the first millennium AD. The term "Near Eastern" is a broad term that captures, as Figure 1 indicates below, Anatolian Farmers, Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG), Iran-Neolithic (IN), Levant Neolithic, Natufians and would also capture, although not ploted in Figure 1, peoples from the Arabian peninsula (Bedouins) who were nomadic peoples living across the deserts of modern Saudi Arabia and into deserts in Assyria during ancient times. Best I can tell, I have never seen any ancient DNA from this area. I think it is clear that those ancient populations were distinct enough to cluster separately, but of course related enough to cluster relatively in the same area code. I don't think anyone here who is of Italian, Greek or of ancestry from other countries on the Balkan peninsula denies they have significant ancestry from Anatolian-Europeans (EEF).

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310

The well cited Raveane et al 2019 paper states clearly all modern Italian Regions have significant Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, ranging from 56% (SItaly1 sample) to 72% (NItaly4 sample). Other ancestries identified in that paper include Western Hunter Gather (WHG), Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG), Iran-Neolithic (IN), Eastern Hunter Gather (EHG) and some North African (likely from Phoenician period and again Saracen period) in Sicily. I think what some people take issue with, I am in this group, is that when "middle eastern" is used that means I am being told that I am ethnically "Arab-Bedoiun" or ethnically Levantine. I am not, not that those are all great civilizations, some of the greatest civilizations were in the Levant (ancient Pheonicians) and the nearby civilizations near the Euphrates (Summeria, etc) which is where the Levant's border ends. And for the record, just because the Normans ruled Sicily in middle ages and Vandals in 4th/5th century AD doesn't make me a Viking or German. I am neither of those as well.

In my experience there are 2 types of people who use "middle eastern" in ways that suggest agendas, 1) one is based on making themselves the I guess standard of Modern Europeans, those tend to be more of those with Nordicist views and argue Northern Europeans are the standard for who Europeans are. The other are again, in my experience, 2) use it to argue against strict border enforcement for illegal migrants from modern Middle East countries. The first one is nonsense. Europe is Europe, Northern Europeans can be Northern Europeans, Eastern Europeans can be Eastern Europeans, NW Europeans in the British Isles can be NW Europeans, Central Europeans can be Central Europeans and by damn Southern Europeans can be Southern Europeans. The 2nd point is more of a political issue that is one that I agree with, border controls are needed, immigration needs to be legal and be a 2 way street for both host country and immigrant. But that is a political issue that is more for the political board (Ailichu and I have had private conversations on this political issue).

Since this thread was about Sicilian DNA, that is what I am interested in. What explains how I got to be what I am and how Sicily got to be what it is and how it relates to other populations in Italy from other regions historically such as how close did the DNA source populations from Mesolithic to bronze age in Sicily mirror the same period in Southern Italy, in Rome/Lazio, Central to Northern Italian Alps (i.e. Otzi the Iceman, who I just found out via MTA Chroma analysis I share DNA segments with). So I personally want source populations correctly identified as to what they are and what they are not. Lumping all those populations documented in Lazaradis et al Figure 1 is just not correct.

That is my honest take on it, Cheers.

Philjames100
20-06-20, 04:51
Based on, that Lazaridis did not confirm steppe ancestry for Mycenaean and left the door open for Anatolian route.


Drews argues that the proto-Greeks came from the steppe (or forest steppe) to south Caucasus and from there to Greece.

The only reason Armenia is a potential source in the Lazaridis paper is because it has 'steppe ancestry'.

Shahmiri
20-06-20, 08:02
I agree, that is exactly what I am saying. Where did I say something else? You obviously missed the substance of my post, ancient Greeks and Romans looked Southern European like, not like Danes/Swedes/Norwegians and English-Anglo Saxons.

I am still having trouble with the substance of your post. If your position is that the first Indo_European languages are from ancient Iran/Persia or Armenia, then that is a hypothesis that I think the so called Kurgen Hypothsis could "broadly support" but I will admit I don't know enough to have a definite opinion as to where the first Indo-European languages developed. I do know from some old Jesuit educated folks (I am Dominican educated in my K-8 years) that it was Jesuits from the 16th century that first noted a connection of European and Iranian and even ancient Indian type languages like Sanskrit seemed to be connected. So you could be correct that the first Indo-European languages came from ancient Iran/Armenia area. Still, I think most from what I have read, limited, suggest the earliest Indo-European languages were among the EHG in ancient Russia/Ukraine (Pontic-Caspian Steppe) which is the mainstream version of the Kurgan hypothesis.

Again I am not well versed enough in ancient Indo-European history so to speak so maybe someone else here can provide more information supporting your views. In terms of ancient ancestry, I think it is clear Iran-Neolithic type ancestry was in Sicily even before the Bronze Age. This new paper by VanDeLoosdrecht 2020 clearly documents this (Again See Post 152 and 156). So I am not arguing that point

As I said there could be certainly different migrations in different periods, what do you think about: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA.shtml


Kura-Araxian expansion during the Bronze Age

The P77 and CTS6507 branch underwent a major expansion during the Early Bronze Age, from approximately 2500 BCE. The phylogeny suggests that this expansion took place from the South Caucasus region, including the Armenian Highlands, and spread in various directions around the Middle East and Europe. The European branch appears to have propagated through a Mediterranean route to Greece, Italy (including Sicily and Sardinia) and Iberia. Historically the Kura-Araxes culture is the best match for this expansion. While the Proto-Indo-Europeans (haplogroups R1a and R1b) were expanding from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe to central and northern Europe and Central Asia, the Kura-Araxes people, on the other side of the Caucasus, also developed a contemporary Bronze Age culture that expanded across West Asia, and possibly as far east as Pakistan and India. The Minoans, Europe's oldest proper civilisation (as opposed to archeological culture), could be an offshoot from that Kura-Araxes expansion. Kura-Araxian men would have belonged primarily to Y-haplogroup J2a1, but also to a lower extent to G2a-L293, G2a-M406, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77, and R1b1-L278.

The interesting thing is that it says this haplogroup has the highest frequency in the south-west Iran where ancient Elam was located.

Elami in Sicily:

http://uupload.ir/files/ktiw_elami.jpg

Elam in the south-west Iran:

http://uupload.ir/files/veoo_elam.png

I have written some articles regarding Elam and Indo-Europeans, like this one: https://www.academia.edu/41141910

Shahmiri
20-06-20, 08:47
Drews argues that the proto-Greeks came from the steppe (or forest steppe) to south Caucasus and from there to Greece.

The only reason Armenia is a potential source in the Lazaridis paper is because it has 'steppe ancestry'.

Not steppe ancestry but EHG (East European Hunter-Gatherer) ancestry which dates back to 7000 BC.

http://uupload.ir/files/hbwe_7000-bc-gene-map-s.jpg

Deird
20-06-20, 10:08
I have written some articles regarding Elam and Indo-Europeans, like this one: https://www.academia.edu/41141910

Dear Mojtaba,

I see you introduce yourself as "I am an academic historian from Iran, specialist in the history of western Iran from the 3rd to 1st millennium BC."
Well, I think you still have some way to go before you become a tiger.

Re: your paper on Nin.Shushinak
You have to know that in Old Sumerian NIN means either "Lord" or "Lady", it's only in younger Sumerian that NIN tends to apply only to women or goddesses.
Next, you ask "what does the suffix “ak” or “nak” mean?" Simple, this is the full Genitive marker of Sumerian, usually reduced to just -a. Thus, Nin.Shushinak clearly means "Lord of Shushi(n)".
You can compare with a name of Venus NIN.SI4.AN.NA "Mistress of the light of the sky" => AN "sky", AN.NA "of the sky".

If you want to become for real what you claim to already be, you need to work more of some relevant topics.
Stay well, my little beetle :rolleyes2:
And learn some Sumerian.

Shahmiri
20-06-20, 10:52
Dear Mojtaba,

I see you introduce yourself as "I am an academic historian from Iran, specialist in the history of western Iran from the 3rd to 1st millennium BC."
Well, I think you still have some way to go before you become a tiger.

Re: your paper on Nin.Shushinak
You have to know that in Old Sumerian NIN means either "Lord" or "Lady", it's only in younger Sumerian that NIN tends to apply only to women or goddesses.
Next, you ask "what does the suffix “ak” or “nak” mean?" Simple, this is the full Genitive marker of Sumerian, usually reduced to just -a. Thus, Nin.Shushinak clearly means "Lord of Shushi(n)".
You can compare with a name of Venus NIN.SI4.AN.NA "Mistress of the light of the sky" => AN "sky", AN.NA "of the sky".

If you want to become for real what you claim to already be, you need to work more of some relevant topics.
Stay well, my little beetle :rolleyes2:
And learn some Sumerian.

As you read in my article, the important question is that the names of ancient cities were from the names of gods or vice versa? Is it really possible that first Elamites built a city with the name of Susa and then Sumerians gave a name to Elamite god from the name of their city and then Elamite worshipped this god?!

Anyway the name of god is Insus/Inshush, not Ninshush, compare to Proto-Germanic *ansuz "god, deity" from Proto-Indo-European *h₂énsus "god, vital force", from *h₂ens- (“to engender, beget”): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ansuz#Etymology

http://uupload.ir/files/i4x0_hensus.jpg

Learn some Indo-European.

Angela
20-06-20, 14:12
I'm pretty sure the southern steppe ancestry is from CHG not even Iran_N to begin with. CHG is just related to Iran_N. There's too much ANE, ENA and AASI in Iran_N for it to exist in most Europeans.

The overlap between CHG and Iran Neo is so large, or, to put it another way, the differences are so minor, that to make a big deal of it is quibbling, imo. It's just that some hobbyists and bloggers can't bear the idea that the ancient ancestors they choose to glorify, the Indo Europeans, should have any ancestry which by its very name advertises that it's from the Near East.

Problem is, the genetics doesn't lie. CHG is vast majority Iran Neo. We've known this for a long time, and the most recent papers confirm it. That's why, imo, it's so difficult to distinguish the two in modern people, and why I have an issue with some of the modeling.

https://i.imgur.com/2b3pjUS.png

Angela
20-06-20, 14:40
Based on, that Lazaridis did not confirm steppe ancestry for Mycenaean and left the door open for Anatolian route.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)


That's completely wrong.

This is a direct quote from the abstract of the paper as published in Nature. As in everything he writes, it couldn't be more clear.

https://i.imgur.com/3gYZd1T.png

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318862250_Genetic_origins_of_the_Minoans_and_Mycen aeans

So, as I've said dozens of times over the years, whether the Greek speakers came via the Balkans, or from the steppe through the Caucasus and across Anatolia, as with the Drews hypothesis, of course they have some steppe.

bigsnake49
20-06-20, 15:44
That's completely wrong.

This is a direct quote from the abstract of the paper as published in Nature. As in everything he writes, it couldn't be more clear.

https://i.imgur.com/3gYZd1T.png

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318862250_Genetic_origins_of_the_Minoans_and_Mycen aeans

So, as I've said dozens of times over the years, whether the Greek speakers came via the Balkans, or from the steppe through the Caucasus and across Anatolia, as with the Drews hypothesis, of course they have some steppe.

Why does it matter which way they came? The Greek language is in the same family as Armenian so the more plausible conclusion is that they lived close to each other. For me the more interesting question is the timing.

Palermo Trapani
20-06-20, 18:24
Shahmiri: As for your post 218 nice information. As for Y-DNA Haplogroup T there are is one excellent poster here (Salento) who is Y-DNA T that is much more knowledgeable about that particular Haplogroup. So maybe he can chime in on that issue. As for the Elymians in NW Sicily, we don't have any clear DNA from a period that would coincide with purely "Elymian period" To find out exactly who the Elymians are I would think we would need DNA from Trapani and Palermo Provinces ancient humans in the period Post the one in Fernandes et al 2020 and pre 1,000 BC before Pheonician sea/city ports were set up and the Greek colonization which reached as far as towns like Segesta and Selinunte in Trapani. The best place for these samples to come from would be Erice and Segesta which were two of the most important Elymian cities.

As for Indo-European language, I have read enough on the Elymians (have visited both Segesta and modern Erice) and have seen enough research indicating the Elymians possibly spoke an Indo-European language, but that is not 100% conclusive yet. So need 2 things in my view, 1) Archaeological finds that are clearly Elymian with writing and 2) DNA samples that are clearly from an Elymian Settlement before 1,000 BC.

Deird
20-06-20, 18:57
As you read in my article, the important question is that the names of ancient cities were from the names of gods or vice versa? Is it really possible that first Elamites built a city with the name of Susa and then Sumerians gave a name to Elamite god from the name of their city and then Elamite worshipped this god?!

It's not an article, rather a personal draft.
Anyway, there's no particular issue with Sumerians giving a name like Nin.Shushinak "god of Susa".
I have the feeling you're confusing the name itself (which is Sumerian) and the god (which is probably Elamite).



Anyway the name of god is Insus/Inshush, not Ninshush, compare to Proto-Germanic *ansuz "god, deity" from Proto-Indo-European *h₂énsus "god, vital force", from *h₂ens- (“to engender, beget”): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ansuz#Etymology

*ansu- is not an Indo-European word, but a borrowing from some Caucasic source akin to present-day NWC *ancw- "god".
Note that the Zoroastrian reform promoted a Caucasic god Ahura and downgrading IEan gods to the status of demons.

http://uupload.ir/files/i4x0_hensus.jpg


Learn some Indo-European.

I know PIE well enough to read between the lines.

Salento
20-06-20, 19:28
Shahmiri: As for your post 218 nice information. As for Y-DNA Haplogroup T there are is one excellent poster here (Salento) who is Y-DNA T that is much more knowledgeable about that particular Haplogroup. So maybe he can chime in on that issue. As for the Elymians in NW Sicily, we don't have any clear DNA from a period that would coincide with purely "Elymian period" To find out exactly who the Elymians are I would think we would need DNA from Trapani and Palermo Provinces ancient humans in the period Post the one in Fernandes et al 2020 and pre 1,000 BC before Pheonician sea/city ports were set up and the Greek colonization which reached as far as towns like Segesta and Selinunte in Trapani. The best place for these samples to come from would be Erice and Segesta which were two of the most important Elymian cities.

As for Indo-European language, I have read enough on the Elymians (have visited both Segesta and modern Erice) and have seen enough research indicating the Elymians possibly spoke an Indo-European language, but that is not 100% conclusive yet. So need 2 things in my view, 1) Archaeological finds that are clearly Elymian with writing and 2) DNA samples that are clearly from an Elymian Settlement before 1,000 BC.

The Haplogroup in the post is a T1a, I’m a T1a2 ..., they say that the difference between T1a1 and T1a2 is comparable to the difference between R1a and R1b.

Torzio has been researching the y T Haplogroup for a very long time and he probably has all the answers about it :)

ratchet_fan
20-06-20, 19:41
The overlap between CHG and Iran Neo is so large, or, to put it another way, the differences are so minor, that to make a big deal of it is quibbling, imo. It's just that some hobbyists and bloggers can't bear the idea that the ancient ancestors they choose to glorify, the Indo Europeans, should have any ancestry which by its very name advertises that it's from the Near East.

Problem is, the genetics doesn't lie. CHG is vast majority Iran Neo. We've known this for a long time, and the most recent papers confirm it. That's why, imo, it's so difficult to distinguish the two in modern people, and why I have an issue with some of the modeling.

https://i.imgur.com/2b3pjUS.png

That's actually what I suspected. They also seemed to place a lot of importance on a certain uniparental markers , making arguments such as the ancestry can't be from Iran_N because no mtdna U7 was found in the steppe. I just didn't want to accuse them of having an agenda without much concrete proof. I also saw people arguing there was AASI in Iran_N but not in CHG but that graph disproves that idea. They either both have it or they both don't since CHG is just Iran_N with a little EHG and WHG.

Palermo Trapani
20-06-20, 20:02
The Haplogroup in the post is a T1a, I’m a T1a2 ..., they say that the difference between T1a1 and T1a2 is comparable to the difference between R1a and R1b.

Torzio has been researching the y T Haplogroup for a very long time and he probably has all the answers about it :)

Salento: Thanks for chiming in, that is why I deferred to the expert that has some humility.:good_job:

Angela
20-06-20, 23:08
Why does it matter which way they came? The Greek language is in the same family as Armenian so the more plausible conclusion is that they lived close to each other. For me the more interesting question is the timing.

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me or to anyone with any sense.

However, there is a segment of the hobbyist community which would prefer to see the Mycenaeans as "non-European", i.e. not as European as they are, sort of transplanted Armenians.

There are others who, as Near Easterners, wish to claim them and their accomplishments for themselves.

Stupid, useless, typical anthrofora nonsense.

On the other hand, posts which are completely inaccurate in terms of the claims made about the findings of academic papers should be corrected,don't you agree?

So, yes, Lazaridis found STEPPE in the Mycenaeans, although not in the Minoans, but he didn't come to a conclusion as to whether the route was from the steppe west and down through the Balkans, which I still think is more likely although I'm not married to the idea, or from the steppe through the Caucasus, and across Anatolia to the Aegean, which would be the Drews' Greeks from the east hypothesis.

blevins13
21-06-20, 00:22
It doesn't matter in the slightest to me or to anyone with any sense.

However, there is a segment of the hobbyist community which would prefer to see the Mycenaeans as "non-European", i.e. not as European as they are, sort of transplanted Armenians.

There are others who, as Near Easterners, wish to claim them and their accomplishments for themselves.

Stupid, useless, typical anthrofora nonsense.

On the other hand, posts which are completely inaccurate in terms of the claims made about the findings of academic papers should be corrected,don't you agree?

So, yes, Lazaridis found STEPPE in the Mycenaeans, although not in the Minoans, but he didn't come to a conclusion as to whether the route was from the steppe west and down through the Balkans, which I still think is more likely although I'm not married to the idea, or from the steppe through the Caucasus, and across Anatolia to the Aegean, which would be the Drews' Greeks from the east hypothesis.

I am surprised from you Angela, from where Mycenaean came from it should matter, why? To understand history, language, genetics. Drews views seems convincing to me and genetics so far does not contradict them.
If you consider Drew hobbyist....than there is nothing more to say, I rest my argument here. In this forum I always have said that Mycenaean were too advanced to have come directly from steppe. In addition their lack of tumulus adds to this argument.... but this remain an open discussion. Lazaridis left it open as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
21-06-20, 01:00
I am surprised from you Angela, from where Mycenaean came from it should matter, why? To understand history, language, genetics. Drews views seems convincing to me and genetics so far does not contradict them.
If you consider Drew hobbyist....than there is nothing more to say, I rest my argument here. In this forum I always have said that Mycenaean were too advanced to have come directly from steppe. In addition their lack of tumulus adds to this argument.... but this remain an open discussion. Lazaridis left it open as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Blevins, you always misunderstand me. Of course I care where the Mycenaeans came from in terms of genetics and history. What I meant is that I have no agenda about it; I'm not emotionally committed to either alternative. Whatever it turns out to be is fine with me.

Also, of course Drews is not a hobbyist. He's a respected scholar. However, until we have genetic proof it's still a hypothesis, or use the word theory or argument if you prefer. Also, you have to understand that the Drews "theory" isn't saying that the Mycenaeans don't have steppe; it's saying the "route" was from the steppe, through the Caucasus and across Anatolia.

It doesn't matter which route was taken. The autosomal signature of the Mycenaeans remains the same: they had very little steppe.

I completely agree with you that their culture is too sophisticated and advanced to only have steppe influence, but don't forget that they also have Iran Neo like ancestry, as do the Minoans, who had a sophisticated civilization before them, which came from influence from Anatolia. They adopted a lot of their culture from the Minoans, and who knows, perhaps they got the Iran Neo like genes in part from admixture with them.

ratchet_fan
21-06-20, 02:10
I see a lot of models saying Iran_Neo has excess ENA above what can be explained by ANE in addition to AASI. Is that actually true? I haven't seen any Europeans really score AASI admixture which would be the case if that was true.

bigsnake49
21-06-20, 02:19
Why are we polluting every thread with wild theories about the Greeks? Let's just wait for more DNA studies and of course archaeology.

Shahmiri
21-06-20, 08:19
It's not an article, rather a personal draft.

You are right but I have written a real article about it in Persian.


Anyway, there's no particular issue with Sumerians giving a name like Nin.Shushinak "god of Susa".
I have the feeling you're confusing the name itself (which is Sumerian) and the god (which is probably Elamite).

*ansu- is not an Indo-European word, but a borrowing from some Caucasic source akin to present-day NWC *ancw- "god".
Note that the Zoroastrian reform promoted a Caucasic god Ahura and downgrading IEan gods to the status of demons.

I also believe in the cultural contacts between Sumerians/Caucasians and Indo-Europeans, it is really difficult to say which one is the source of another one, but saying Inshushinak is a Sumerian word with the meaning of "god of Susa" solves nothing, linguists generally believe the word Susa is from the local city deity Inshushinak, not vice versa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa#Name

Anyway in another semi-article: https://www.academia.edu/41979799 I have mentioned that another Indo-European word for "god" with the original meaning of "sky, heaven" *danǵʰ-, *dinw-, *deiw- (Lithuanian dangus, Latin deus, Sanskrit deva, ...) really relates to Sumerian dingir "god, sky, heaven".

blevins13
21-06-20, 12:12
Why are we polluting every thread with wild theories about the Greeks? Let's just wait for more DNA studies and of course archaeology.

Discussion of Mycenaean here is probably out of place, but for Europe they are one of the first civilizations, so it is hard to bypass them. Lazaridis has answered a lot of questions in his study, but he left a couple of questions opened for further studies.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Ailchu
21-06-20, 18:05
Pardon me, are you referring to my post? Are you denying that there has been changes to Iranians since the neolithic? Came up with what? SSA in post-middle ages is a fact. Natufian admixture into Iran is real.There are studies that prove what I said. Also, if you want to challenge what I said, why don't you be up front about it. Unless I am misunderstanding your post.

i was referring to you and Dupidh. i won't deny there have been changes, but why mention SSA admixture which is probably one of the least important ones in iran? why not anatolian neolithic or steppe? Do you have numbers for SSA in iran or for the other admixtures in modern iranians? why are you so sure that iranian jews were able to conserve the iranian pre-medieval ancestry better than the iranian population at large? you make it sound as if that is because of SSA admixture in iranians that is absent in iranian jews. imo in the end the iranian population at large doesn't matter but specific subpopulations and even the most conserved ones will be shifted. But still, do you have a source for these claims?

ihype02
21-06-20, 18:52
Plato on Sicily:
[ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5B&la=greek&can=%5B0)353ε (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e&la=greek&can=e0&prior=[)] (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5D&la=greek&can=%5D0&prior=e) τούτου (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%2Ftou&la=greek&can=tou%2Ftou0&prior=]) κινδυνεύσει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kinduneu%2Fsei&la=greek&can=kinduneu%2Fsei0&prior=tou/tou) καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C0&prior=kinduneu/sei) τὸ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5C&la=greek&can=to%5C0&prior=kai) τυραννικὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=turanniko%5Cn&la=greek&can=turanniko%5Cn0&prior=to) ἅπαν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%28%2Fpan&la=greek&can=a%28%2Fpan0&prior=turanniko\n) καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C1&prior=a(/pan) τὸ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5C&la=greek&can=to%5C1&prior=kai) δημοτικὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dhmotiko%5Cn&la=greek&can=dhmotiko%5Cn0&prior=to) γένος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ge%2Fnos&la=greek&can=ge%2Fnos0&prior=dhmotiko\n), ἥξει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%28%2Fcei&la=greek&can=h%28%2Fcei0&prior=ge/nos) δέ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=de%2F&la=greek&can=de%2F0&prior=h(/cei), ἐάνπερ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29a%2Fnper&la=greek&can=e%29a%2Fnper0&prior=de/) τῶν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tw%3Dn&la=greek&can=tw%3Dn0&prior=e)a/nper) εἰκότων (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29ko%2Ftwn&la=greek&can=ei%29ko%2Ftwn0&prior=tw=n) γίγνηταί (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=gi%2Fgnhtai%2F&la=greek&can=gi%2Fgnhtai%2F0&prior=ei)ko/twn) τι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ti&la=greek&can=ti0&prior=gi/gnhtai/) καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C2&prior=ti) ἀπευκτῶν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29peuktw%3Dn&la=greek&can=a%29peuktw%3Dn0&prior=kai), σχεδὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sxedo%5Cn&la=greek&can=sxedo%5Cn0&prior=a)peuktw=n) εἰς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29s&la=greek&can=ei%29s0&prior=sxedo\n) ἐρημίαν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29rhmi%2Fan&la=greek&can=e%29rhmi%2Fan0&prior=ei)s) τῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=th%3Ds&la=greek&can=th%3Ds0&prior=e)rhmi/an) Ἑλληνικῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*%28ellhnikh%3Ds&la=greek&can=*%28ellhnikh%3Ds0&prior=th=s) φωνῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fwnh%3Ds&la=greek&can=fwnh%3Ds0&prior=*(ellhnikh=s) Σικελία (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*sikeli%2Fa&la=greek&can=*sikeli%2Fa0&prior=fwnh=s) πᾶσα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%3Dsa&la=greek&can=pa%3Dsa0&prior=*sikeli/a), Φοινίκων (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*foini%2Fkwn&la=greek&can=*foini%2Fkwn0&prior=pa=sa) ἢ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%29%5C&la=greek&can=h%29%5C0&prior=*foini/kwn) Ὀπικῶν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*%29opikw%3Dn&la=greek&can=*%29opikw%3Dn0&prior=h)) μεταβαλοῦσα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=metabalou%3Dsa&la=greek&can=metabalou%3Dsa0&prior=*)opikw=n) εἴς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29%2Fs&la=greek&can=ei%29%2Fs0&prior=metabalou=sa) τινα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tina&la=greek&can=tina0&prior=ei)/s) δυναστείαν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dunastei%2Fan&la=greek&can=dunastei%2Fan0&prior=tina) καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C3&prior=dunastei/an) κράτος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kra%2Ftos&la=greek&can=kra%2Ftos0&prior=kai). τούτων (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%2Ftwn&la=greek&can=tou%2Ftwn0&prior=kra/tos) δὴ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dh%5C&la=greek&can=dh%5C0&prior=tou/twn) χρὴ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrh%5C&la=greek&can=xrh%5C0&prior=dh) πάσῃ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%2Fsh%7C&la=greek&can=pa%2Fsh%7C0&prior=xrh) προθυμίᾳ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=proqumi%2Fa%7C&la=greek&can=proqumi%2Fa%7C0&prior=pa/sh|) πάντας (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%2Fntas&la=greek&can=pa%2Fntas0&prior=proqumi/a|) τοὺς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%5Cs&la=greek&can=tou%5Cs0&prior=pa/ntas) Ἕλληνας (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*%28%2Fellhnas&la=greek&can=*%28%2Fellhnas0&prior=tou\s) τέμνειν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=te%2Fmnein&la=greek&can=te%2Fmnein0&prior=*(/ellhnas) φάρμακον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fa%2Frmakon&la=greek&can=fa%2Frmakon0&prior=te/mnein). εἰ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29&la=greek&can=ei%290&prior=fa/rmakon) μὲν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%5Cn&la=greek&can=me%5Cn0&prior=ei)) δή (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dh%2F&la=greek&can=dh%2F0&prior=me\n) τις (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tis&la=greek&can=tis0&prior=dh/) ὀρθότερον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29rqo%2Fteron&la=greek&can=o%29rqo%2Fteron0&prior=tis) ἄμεινόν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Fmeino%2Fn&la=greek&can=a%29%2Fmeino%2Fn0&prior=o)rqo/teron) τ᾽ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=t%27&la=greek&can=t%270&prior=a)/meino/n) ἔχει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29%2Fxei&la=greek&can=e%29%2Fxei0&prior=t%27) τοῦ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%3D&la=greek&can=tou%3D0&prior=e)/xei) ὑπ᾽ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=u%28p%27&la=greek&can=u%28p%270&prior=tou=) ἐμοῦ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29mou%3D&la=greek&can=e%29mou%3D0&prior=u(p%27) ῥηθησομένου (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=r%28hqhsome%2Fnou&la=greek&can=r%28hqhsome%2Fnou0&prior=e)mou=), ἐνεγκὼν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29negkw%5Cn&la=greek&can=e%29negkw%5Cn0&prior=r(hqhsome/nou) εἰς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29s&la=greek&can=ei%29s1&prior=e)negkw\n) τὸ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5C&la=greek&can=to%5C2&prior=ei)s) μέσον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%2Fson&la=greek&can=me%2Fson0&prior=to)

[353e] the whole tribe of tyrants and democrats alike will be in danger of destruction. But should any of these consequences—likely as they are though lamentable—come to pass, hardly a trace of the Greek tongue will remain in all Sicily (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0164:letter=8: section=353e&auth=tgn,7003122&n=1&type=place), since it will have been transformed into a province or dependency of Phoenicians or Opicians.1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0164%3Aletter%3D 8%3Asection%3D353e#note1) Against this all the Greeks must with all zeal provide a remedy. If, therefore, any man knows of a remedy that is truer and better than that which I am now about to propose,

1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0164%3Aletter%3D 8%3Asection%3D353e#note-link1) Probably some tribes of central Italy (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0164:letter=8: section=353e&auth=tgn,1000080&n=1&type=place), Samnites or Campanians.

There was most likely also a migration of Italic people in Sicily after 800BC. Plato actually visited Sicily.

Leopoldo Leone
21-06-20, 20:01
LINK - If you prefer to see pictures of these tables:



Target
Distance

Anatolia_Barcin_N


EHG_Karelia


Iran_Neo


MAR_EN


Maykop


Natufian


WHG


Yamnaya_RUS



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.03016186

92,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


7,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.03005867

89,2


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


10,8


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.03054454

91,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


8,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.02933668

85,8


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


14,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.03482724

88,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


12,0


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.03204897

77,6


0,0


0,0


1,6


2,4


0,0


9,2


9,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.03682332

76,8


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


9,0


14,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.04110646

89,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


3,4


0,0


7,0


0,0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03634092

67,4


6,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


12,4


13,6



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.03899473

81,4


0,0


0,0


1,2


1,2


0,0


7,6


8,6



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03095006

49,4


0,0


0,0


0,4


0,0


0,0


8,6


41,6



Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
0.05027567

72,0


0,0


0,0


0,2


22,6


0,0


5,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.02619634

76,6


0,0


0,0


0,0


15,2


0,0


8,0


0,2



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.03939586

83,4


0,0


0,0


1,0


9,4


0,0


6,2


0,0



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.02363986

81,0


0,0


0,0


1,8


1,8


0,0


5,8


9,6



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.04711925

81,0


0,0


0,0


0,0


11,6


0,0


7,4


0,0



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.03185393

73,8


0,0


0,0


1,0


11,0


0,0


6,0


8,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H
0.02219327

52,8


0,0


1,8


0,0


15,6


7,4


0,8


21,6



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H
0.03396469

48,4


0,0


2,6


0,0


10,6


12,8


0,6


25,0



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H
0.02012140

44,6


0,0


4,8


0,0


19,8


10,8


4,0


16,0



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H
0.02622899

48,6


0,0


5,8


0,0


8,0


8,6


5,6


23,4



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H
0.02486791

47,4


0,0


6,0


2,4


14,4


9,4


3,6


16,8



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H
0.02924797

50,0


0,0


4,2


2,2


8,8


8,6


4,4


21,8




************************************************** ***



Target
Distance

Anatolia_Barcin_N


EHG_Karelia


GEO_CHG


Iran_Neo


MAR_EN


Natufian


WHG


Yamnaya_RUS



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4062
0.03016186

92,6


0


0


0


0


0


7,4


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4063
0.03005867

89,2


0


0


0


0


0


10,8


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4064
0.03054454

91,6


0


0


0


0


0


8,4


0



ITA_Sicily_MN:I4065
0.02933668

85,8


0


0


0


0


0


14,2


0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3122
0.03482724

88


0


0


0


0


0


12


0



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3123
0.03187045

78,4


0


0


1,8


1,4


0


9,4


9



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I3124
0.03682332

76,8


0


0


0


0


0


9


14,2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I7807
0.04120160

91


0


0,6


0


0


0


6,4


2



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03634053

67,4


6,4


0


0


0


0


12,4


13,8



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11442
0.03901785

82


0


0


0


1,2


0


7,4


9,4



ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03095006

49,4


0


0


0


0,4


0


8,6


41,6



Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe
0.05084224

80


0


13,4


0,6


0,2


0


4,2


1,6



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I3125
0.02476793

81,8


0


4,4


4,6


0


0


7,6


1,6



ITA_Sicily_MBA:I4109
0.03981940

87,2


0


1,8


1,8


0,8


0


5,2


3,2



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
0.03282856

77,8


0


5,4


0


1


0,4


5


10,4



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3878
0.02364671

81,6


0


0,6


0,6


1,8


0


5,8


9,6



ITA_Sicily_LBA:I10372
0.04686058

86


0


1,2


0


0


0


4,6


8,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H
0.02305468

57,8


0


7


3,8


0


8,2


0


23,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H
0.03479737

52,8


0


1,2


6,2


0


12,6


0


27,2



Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H
0.02260920

51,4


0


7,8


8,2


0


11,4


3


18,2



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H
0.02683218

52


0


1,2


8,4


0


8,4


5


25



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H
0.02621562

52


0


5


9


1,8


10,6


3


18,6



Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H
0.02984338

53,4


0


1,2


6,8


2


9


3,6


24





I seriously doubt these admixtures are correct: there's literally no way that the Natufian component ( who was present in 10-20% in Anatolian) could have changed from virtually 0% to an average of 10% without a similar increase of other ancestral components, given that the "semites" are 50% Iran neolithic themselves( and we have no evidence of a migration from the Levant to Italy after the bronze age); in the face of it, MAR_EN increases in a similar fashion but we have no evidence of a massive migration from north africa to Sicily ( roughly MAR-EN + Natufian would make a 15% contribution from North Africa ), and the biggest flow in this model is that Natufian were present in both Anatolian farmers and MAR_EN, and the former made up as well 50% of the latter, so very likely these are just result of shared ancestral dna now assigned to a pop and now to another, even if there's no direct connection between the two. Also Iran_neolithic seems to me a little bit too low. As always, the fact that you can model a pupulation as made up of this and that ancestral populations doesn't mean it is literally descended from those populations you have used in your model. That's why finer analysis and archeological evidence are a must in order to get a clear picture of what the situation was in the past.

Angela
21-06-20, 21:38
Plato on Sicily:
[ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5B&la=greek&can=%5B0)353ε (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e&la=greek&can=e0&prior=[)] (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%5D&la=greek&can=%5D0&prior=e)τούτου (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%2Ftou&la=greek&can=tou%2Ftou0&prior=])κινδυνεύσει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kinduneu%2Fsei&la=greek&can=kinduneu%2Fsei0&prior=tou/tou)καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C0&prior=kinduneu/sei)τὸ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5C&la=greek&can=to%5C0&prior=kai)τυραννικὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=turanniko%5Cn&la=greek&can=turanniko%5Cn0&prior=to)ἅπαν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%28%2Fpan&la=greek&can=a%28%2Fpan0&prior=turanniko\n)καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C1&prior=a(/pan)τὸ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5C&la=greek&can=to%5C1&prior=kai)δημοτικὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dhmotiko%5Cn&la=greek&can=dhmotiko%5Cn0&prior=to)γένος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ge%2Fnos&la=greek&can=ge%2Fnos0&prior=dhmotiko\n), ἥξει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%28%2Fcei&la=greek&can=h%28%2Fcei0&prior=ge/nos)δέ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=de%2F&la=greek&can=de%2F0&prior=h(/cei), ἐάνπερ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29a%2Fnper&la=greek&can=e%29a%2Fnper0&prior=de/)τῶν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tw%3Dn&la=greek&can=tw%3Dn0&prior=e)a/nper)εἰκότων (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29ko%2Ftwn&la=greek&can=ei%29ko%2Ftwn0&prior=tw=n)γίγνηταί (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=gi%2Fgnhtai%2F&la=greek&can=gi%2Fgnhtai%2F0&prior=ei)ko/twn)τι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ti&la=greek&can=ti0&prior=gi/gnhtai/)καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C2&prior=ti)ἀπευκτῶν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29peuktw%3Dn&la=greek&can=a%29peuktw%3Dn0&prior=kai), σχεδὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sxedo%5Cn&la=greek&can=sxedo%5Cn0&prior=a)peuktw=n)εἰς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29s&la=greek&can=ei%29s0&prior=sxedo\n)ἐρημίαν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29rhmi%2Fan&la=greek&can=e%29rhmi%2Fan0&prior=ei)s)τῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=th%3Ds&la=greek&can=th%3Ds0&prior=e)rhmi/an)Ἑλληνικῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*%28ellhnikh%3Ds&la=greek&can=*%28ellhnikh%3Ds0&prior=th=s)φωνῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fwnh%3Ds&la=greek&can=fwnh%3Ds0&prior=*(ellhnikh=s)Σικελία (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*sikeli%2Fa&la=greek&can=*sikeli%2Fa0&prior=fwnh=s)πᾶσα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%3Dsa&la=greek&can=pa%3Dsa0&prior=*sikeli/a), Φοινίκων (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*foini%2Fkwn&la=greek&can=*foini%2Fkwn0&prior=pa=sa)ἢ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%29%5C&la=greek&can=h%29%5C0&prior=*foini/kwn)Ὀπικῶν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*%29opikw%3Dn&la=greek&can=*%29opikw%3Dn0&prior=h))μεταβαλοῦσα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=metabalou%3Dsa&la=greek&can=metabalou%3Dsa0&prior=*)opikw=n)εἴς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29%2Fs&la=greek&can=ei%29%2Fs0&prior=metabalou=sa)τινα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tina&la=greek&can=tina0&prior=ei)/s)δυναστείαν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dunastei%2Fan&la=greek&can=dunastei%2Fan0&prior=tina)καὶ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%5C&la=greek&can=kai%5C3&prior=dunastei/an)κράτος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kra%2Ftos&la=greek&can=kra%2Ftos0&prior=kai). τούτων (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%2Ftwn&la=greek&can=tou%2Ftwn0&prior=kra/tos)δὴ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dh%5C&la=greek&can=dh%5C0&prior=tou/twn)χρὴ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrh%5C&la=greek&can=xrh%5C0&prior=dh)πάσῃ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%2Fsh%7C&la=greek&can=pa%2Fsh%7C0&prior=xrh)προθυμίᾳ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=proqumi%2Fa%7C&la=greek&can=proqumi%2Fa%7C0&prior=pa/sh|)πάντας (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pa%2Fntas&la=greek&can=pa%2Fntas0&prior=proqumi/a|)τοὺς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%5Cs&la=greek&can=tou%5Cs0&prior=pa/ntas)Ἕλληνας (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*%28%2Fellhnas&la=greek&can=*%28%2Fellhnas0&prior=tou\s)τέμνειν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=te%2Fmnein&la=greek&can=te%2Fmnein0&prior=*(/ellhnas)φάρμακον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fa%2Frmakon&la=greek&can=fa%2Frmakon0&prior=te/mnein). εἰ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29&la=greek&can=ei%290&prior=fa/rmakon)μὲν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%5Cn&la=greek&can=me%5Cn0&prior=ei))δή (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dh%2F&la=greek&can=dh%2F0&prior=me\n)τις (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tis&la=greek&can=tis0&prior=dh/)ὀρθότερον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29rqo%2Fteron&la=greek&can=o%29rqo%2Fteron0&prior=tis)ἄμεινόν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Fmeino%2Fn&la=greek&can=a%29%2Fmeino%2Fn0&prior=o)rqo/teron)τ᾽ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=t%27&la=greek&can=t%270&prior=a)/meino/n)ἔχει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29%2Fxei&la=greek&can=e%29%2Fxei0&prior=t%27)τοῦ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tou%3D&la=greek&can=tou%3D0&prior=e)/xei)ὑπ᾽ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=u%28p%27&la=greek&can=u%28p%270&prior=tou=)ἐμοῦ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29mou%3D&la=greek&can=e%29mou%3D0&prior=u(p%27)ῥηθησομένου (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=r%28hqhsome%2Fnou&la=greek&can=r%28hqhsome%2Fnou0&prior=e)mou=), ἐνεγκὼν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29negkw%5Cn&la=greek&can=e%29negkw%5Cn0&prior=r(hqhsome/nou)εἰς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ei%29s&la=greek&can=ei%29s1&prior=e)negkw\n)τὸ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5C&la=greek&can=to%5C2&prior=ei)s)μέσον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%2Fson&la=greek&can=me%2Fson0&prior=to)

[353e] the whole tribe of tyrants and democrats alike will be in danger of destruction. But should any of these consequences—likely as they are though lamentable—come to pass, hardly a trace of the Greek tongue will remain in all Sicily (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0164:letter=8: section=353e&auth=tgn,7003122&n=1&type=place), since it will have been transformed into a province or dependency of Phoenicians or Opicians.1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0164%3Aletter%3D 8%3Asection%3D353e#note1) Against this all the Greeks must with all zeal provide a remedy. If, therefore, any man knows of a remedy that is truer and better than that which I am now about to propose,

1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0164%3Aletter%3D 8%3Asection%3D353e#note-link1) Probably some tribes of central Italy (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0164:letter=8: section=353e&auth=tgn,1000080&n=1&type=place), Samnites or Campanians.

There was most likely also a migration of Italic people in Sicily after 800BC. Plato actually visited Sicily.




Rome, Carthage, the Greeks and the Etruscans were all fighting for territory in the Med., perhaps especially in Sicily. Now all left a huge genetic footprint however.

ihype02
21-06-20, 21:55
Rome, Carthage, the Greeks and the Etruscans were all fighting for territory in the Med., perhaps especially in Sicily. Now all left a huge genetic footprint however.
Absolutely. It's just that if old Greeks were like the vast majority of the population in Sicily I doubt Plato would be worried about the Greek language going extinct.
Wars in Sicily were ruthless on all sides, I am really glad I don't live in that time.

bigsnake49
21-06-20, 22:07
I seriously doubt these admixtures are correct: there's literally no way that the Natufian component ( who was present in 10-20% in Anatolian) could have changed from virtually 0% to an average of 10% without a similar increase of other ancestral components, given that the "semites" are 50% Iran neolithic themselves( and we have no evidence of a migration from the Levant to Italy after the bronze age); in the face of it, MAR_EN increases in a similar fashion but we have no evidence of a massive migration from north africa to Sicily ( roughly MAR-EN + Natufian would make a 15% contribution from North Africa ), and the biggest flow in this model is that Natufian were present in both Anatolian farmers and MAR_EN, and the former made up as well 50% of the latter, so very likely these are just result of shared ancestral dna now assigned to a pop and now to another, even if there's no direct connection between the two. Also Iran_neolithic seems to me a little bit too low. As always, the fact that you can model a pupulation as made up of this and that ancestral populations doesn't mean it is literally descended from those populations you have used in your model. That's why finer analysis and archeological evidence are a must in order to get a clear picture of what the situation was in the past.

Very well said. In some of the Oracles associated with the Gedmatch calculators I get very small genetic distances with 4 way population mixes that absolutely don't make any sense.

DuPidh
21-06-20, 23:52
Rome, Carthage, the Greeks and the Etruscans were all fighting for territory in the Med., perhaps especially in Sicily. Now all left a huge genetic footprint however.

Its not true about Greeks. Greeks have fought once under Alexander the Great. Even then they were conquered and forced to fight by Macedonians who were not Helens. Greeks were not a unified entity fighting for expansion. They were organized in competing city states who fought among themselves but had no military power to wage campaigns in other countries or territories. Their colonies were created not from military campaigns but through their ability to convince the hosts to accept them (tricks). They radiated their know how rather than imposing it through force, because they had no force., and were a costal people. Greeks never build anything out of sea sight.
Romans were a formidable fighting force for the time, and Carthaginians

Philjames100
22-06-20, 01:35
Based on, that Lazaridis did not confirm steppe ancestry for Mycenaean and left the door open for Anatolian route.


From the Lazaridis 2017 supplementary material:


“populations of (Middle/Late Bronze Age) Armenia themselves have some EHG-related ancestry, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHG related ancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia. (p.35)

Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-related populations we infer that they have ~56-63% Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry, which is smaller than the ~74-80% of such ancestry when modeling them without the later populations as a source. This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselves have Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia and Neolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of it into the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrations from the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it. (p.36)

The two alternative scenarios differ in their derivation of the northern (steppe) / eastern (Near East) non-Anatolian Neolithic ancestry in Mycenaeans. In the first one, Anatolian Neolithic first admixed with an eastern population in the Aegean, with subsequent admixture from a northern population. In the second one, the eastern/northern populations admixed east of Greece (in a population related to Middle/Late Bronze Age Armenia), and then the aggregate population admixed into the Aegean. (p.45)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event. (p.47)

The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)


Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Materia (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/nihms888167-supplement-supp-info-12-pdf)l



"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."


Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/figure/F7/?report=objectonly)

blevins13
22-06-20, 02:27
From the Lazaridis 2017 supplementary material:


“populations of (Middle/Late Bronze Age) Armenia themselves have some EHG-related ancestry, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHG related ancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia. (p.35)

Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-related populations we infer that they have ~56-63% Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry, which is smaller than the ~74-80% of such ancestry when modeling them without the later populations as a source. This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselves have Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia and Neolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of it into the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrations from the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it. (p.36)

The two alternative scenarios differ in their derivation of the northern (steppe) / eastern (Near East) non-Anatolian Neolithic ancestry in Mycenaeans. In the first one, Anatolian Neolithic first admixed with an eastern population in the Aegean, with subsequent admixture from a northern population. In the second one, the eastern/northern populations admixed east of Greece (in a population related to Middle/Late Bronze Age Armenia), and then the aggregate population admixed into the Aegean. (p.45)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event. (p.47)

The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)


Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Materia (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/nihms888167-supplement-supp-info-12-pdf)l



"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."


Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/figure/F7/?report=objectonly)


And at the end Lazaridis 2017 said, I quote:

“Two key questions remain to be addressed by future studies. First, when did the common ‘eastern’ ancestry of both Minoans and Mycenaeans arrive in the Aegean? Second, is the ‘northern’ ancestry in Mycenaeans due to sporadic infiltration of Greece, or to a rapid migration as in Central Europe? Such a migration would support the idea that proto-Greek speakers formed the southern wing of a steppe intrusion of Indo-European speakers. Yet, the absence of ‘northern’ ancestry in the Bronze Age samples from Pisidia, where Indo-European languages were attested in antiquity, casts doubt on this genetic– linguistic association, with further sampling of ancient Anatolian speakers needed”


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
22-06-20, 04:30
Its not true about Greeks. Greeks have fought once under Alexander the Great. Even then they were conquered and forced to fight by Macedonians who were not Helens. Greeks were not a unified entity fighting for expansion. They were organized in competing city states who fought among themselves but had no military power to wage campaigns in other countries or territories. Their colonies were created not from military campaigns but through their ability to convince the hosts to accept them (tricks). They radiated their know how rather than imposing it through force, because they had no force., and were a costal people. Greeks never build anything out of sea sight.
Romans were a formidable fighting force for the time, and Carthaginians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Wars#:~:text=The%20Sicilian%20Wars%2C%20o r%20Greco,Mediterranean%20between%20580%E2%80%9326 5%20BC.

Did you ever in your life actually take an ancient history course??? Just asking.

Jovialis
22-06-20, 05:36
i was referring to you and Dupidh. i won't deny there have been changes, but why mention SSA admixture which is probably one of the least important ones in iran? why not anatolian neolithic or steppe? Do you have numbers for SSA in iran or for the other admixtures in modern iranians? why are you so sure that iranian jews were able to conserve the iranian pre-medieval ancestry better than the iranian population at large? you make it sound as if that is because of SSA admixture in iranians that is absent in iranian jews. imo in the end the iranian population at large doesn't matter but specific subpopulations and even the most conserved ones will be shifted. But still, do you have a source for these claims?

The Middle East had Sub-Saharan African slavery for centuries, including Iran. The existence of Afro-Iranians is a testament to this legacy.




The Indian Ocean slave trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade) begun in the 6th century BC and was multi-directional and changed over time. To meet the demand for menial labor, black slaves captured by Arab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab) slave traders were sold in cumulatively large numbers over the centuries to the Persian Gulf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf), Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt), Arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia), India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), the Far East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_East), the Indian Ocean islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Indian_Ocean) and Ethiopia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians#cite_note-2)Others came as immigrants throughout the centuries or from Portuguese slave traders who had conquered southern Iran.

During the Qajar dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty), many wealthy households imported Black African women and children as slaves to perform domestic work along side Eastern European Circassian slaves. This slave labor was drawn largely from the Zanj (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj), who were Bantu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages)-speaking peoples that lived along the coast of the Southeast Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Great_Lakes), in an area roughly comprising modern-day Tanzania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania), Mozambique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique) and Malawi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians#cite_note-Bagley-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians#cite_note-Ogot-4) However, Mohammad Shah Qajar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Shah_Qajar), under British pressure, issued a firman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firman_(decree)) suppressing the slave trade in 1848.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians#cite_note-5)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians

Judging from the trend we see throughout the Middle East, SSA increased after the post-medieval period. Moreover, we see that Jewish populations, in the admixture chart, tend to have little to no SSA, compared to non-Jewish populations from the same countries. Perhaps it reflects Jewish endogamy, which many religious and ethnic groups around the world are known for practicing. Or perhaps it is also driven by preferring higher classes, which would not tend to include former-slaves.


I sincerely doubt the dynamic is not the same, as virtually all the other groups represented in the region.

https://i.imgur.com/rLzrc6C.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Shahmiri
22-06-20, 09:45
Who is saying that? I am not saying that?

Edit, sorry, I see who you are referring. I haven't heard any such thing nor I have I seen a paper other than the Lazaridis et al 2017 study, which clearly did not say that. It clearly states that for both Minoans and Myceneans, 75% of their ancestry is from the first Neolithic Farmers from Anatolia and Aegean, the remainder from Caucus and Iran, but Myceneans have some additional EHG type ancestry, minimum of 4% but no more than 16% if I remember correctly from the paper.

About Mycenaeans we actually read they have additional ancestry from eastern Europe and Siberia. The fact is that it is talking about a far more eastern region than Armenia and Iran, this eastern European land was not Bulgaria or Romania but a region near to Siberia:

http://uupload.ir/files/drxo_siberia.gif

Minoans and Mycenaeans seem to be the same people but from two different periods, there is nothing which can prove one person who lived in 1,600 BC in Greece spoke Minoan or Mycenaean Greek, some additional ancestry from Siberia couldn't be related to an Indo-European migration to Greece, in fact there is no reason that we want to assume that there was a migration which caused cultural change in this land, we know about 1,600 BC different Indo-European cultures (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Luwian, ...) spread in the east of Greece, Mycenaeans were the same Minoans who adopted another Indo-European culture.

Philjames100
22-06-20, 12:57
Not steppe ancestry but EHG (East European Hunter-Gatherer) ancestry which dates back to 7000 BC.


"Individuals of the Late North Caucasus post-Catacomb horizon from Kabardinka (ca. 2200–2000 BC), one of hg. R1b1a1b-Z2103, show typical Steppe ancestry profile ... Armenia MLBA samples show an increase in EHG (ca. 10%) and Anatolia Neolithic ancestry [ca. 35%] relative to previous Kura–Araxes and Chalcolithic samples, with an intermediate position between both in the PCA (Allentoft et al. 2015). The diversity of haplogroups and the presence of certain clear outliers of steppe origin suggests close interactions between peoples of the southern and the northern Caucasus."

https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans/viii_14_the_caucasus-.htm


Lazaridis 2016:

Bronze Age Armenia: Armenia_EBA and Armenia_MLBA:

"during the Early Bronze Age there is an “eastward” shift away from Europe; and during the Middle/Late Bronze Age a partial “westward” counter-shift in the opposite direction. … We can model Armenia_EBA as a 2-way mixture of 60.3±3.0% CHG and 39.7±3.0% Anatolia_N … We cannot model the Middle/Late Bronze Age population of Armenia as a 2-way mixture. The 3-way mixture model with 10.5±2.0% EHG, 55.3±3.5% CHG, and 35.4±2.9% Anatolia_N fails marginally (P=0.0328) when several ancient outgroups are introduced to the Right set. This suggests added complexity in this population, although it suggests an increase in European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry during the Middle/Late Bronze Age, consistent with the observed “westward” shift.” "

Lazaridis et al. 2016, p.97
(https://www.docdroid.net/xuwUgtO/lazaridis-2016-farming-supplement-pdf)

Eurogenes:

"Armenia_EBA or Kura-Araxes shows strong affinity to Caucasus populations, particularly those from the Northeast Caucasus. ... Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. ... f4-stats suggest that they may have been closely related to the Sintashta people of the Middle Bronze Age Ural steppes, who do appear very Northern European in terms of genome-wide genetic structure."

Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.799±0.069
Sintashta 0.201±0.069
chisq 7.181
tail prob 0.618257

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/hurrians-and-others.html


Armenia_MLBA
Catacomb 0.234±0.028
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.766±0.028
chisq 10.723
tail prob 0.826248
Full output (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Zza_4dHh_BEc-gCPE2frg171B225xWV6)

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/catacomb-armeniamlba.html


"A couple of months ago I suggested that populations associated with the Early to Middle Bronze Age (EMBA) Catacomb culture were the vector for the spread of steppe ancestry into what is now Armenia during the MLBA. After taking a closer look at the Lchashen Metsamor samples, I now think that the peoples of the Sintashta and related cultures were also important in this process."

Armenia_MBA_Lchashen
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.788±0.043
Sintashta_MLBA 0.212±0.043
chisq 14.871
tail prob 0.315451

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/early-chariot-drivers-of-transcaucasia.html

Philjames100
22-06-20, 13:53
About Mycenaeans we actually read they have additional ancestry from eastern Europe and Siberia. The fact is that it is talking about a far more eastern region than Armenia and Iran, this eastern European land was not Bulgaria or Romania but a region near to Siberia

No, what the paper says is Mycenaeans had ancestry from "a ‘northern’ ultimate source related to the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia".

'Hunter-gatherers of Siberia' is a reference to 'Ancient North Eurasian' (ANE) ancestry found in Upper Palaeolithic samples from Siberia such as 'Mal'ta boy' (MA1) dated to 24,000 years BP, and 'Afontova Gora 3' dated to 16,000 years BP.

EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherers) had ANE ancestry.

Obviously Palaeolithic mammoth hunters from 16,000 years ago didn't invade Greece in 1700 BC.


"We can model Mycenaeans as a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (MA1 or AfontovaGora3). This is not surprising as CHG can be modelled as a mixture of primarily Iran Neolithic and European hunter-gatherers and EHG as a mixture of primarily “Ancient North Eurasians” from Upper Paleolithic Siberia (like MA1) and western European hunter-gatherers. Eastern European hunter-gatherers and Neolithic people from Iran represent two ends of a “northeastern interaction sphere” whose deep history is unclear but which is formed by increased affinity to Upper Paleolithic Siberians in eastern Europe and Basal Eurasian admixture in the Caucasus and Iran."

Lazaridis 2017, Supplementary Material p.28 (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/lazaridis2017-minoans-and-mycenaeans-supplement-pdf#page=29)

Philjames100
22-06-20, 14:18
About Mycenaeans we actually read they have additional ancestry from eastern Europe and Siberia. The fact is that it is talking about a far more eastern region than Armenia and Iran, this eastern European land was not Bulgaria or Romania but a region near to Siberia.

Minoans and Mycenaeans seem to be the same people but from two different periods, there is nothing which can prove one person who lived in 1,600 BC in Greece spoke Minoan or Mycenaean Greek, some additional ancestry from Siberia couldn't be related to an Indo-European migration to Greece, in fact there is no reason that we want to assume that there was a migration which caused cultural change in this land, we know about 1,600 BC different Indo-European cultures (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Luwian, ...) spread in the east of Greece, Mycenaeans were the same Minoans who adopted another Indo-European culture.


Lazaridis 2017 models the Mycenaean samples as either 13.2% Steppe_EMBA (Steppe Early/Middle Bronze Age), or 17.5% Steppe_MLBA (Steppe Middle/Late Bronze Age), or 19.8% Europe_LNBA (Europe Late Neolithic/Bronze Age), and the rest as 'Minoan'. (Table 1 'Proximate Sources')

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/table/T3/?report=objectonly


From the supplementary material:

"in our previous analysis using hunter-gatherer and Neolithic source populations we showed that Eastern European hunter-gatherer/Upper Paleolithic Siberian admixture was present in Mycenaeans but not in Minoans. Steppe populations of the Bronze Age have substantial such ancestry, as do Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations that were influenced by them. Thus, the discovery that Mycenaeans can be modelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations can explain the presence of this type of ancestry in them. The amount of steppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group (“Yamnya/Afanasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA) … The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age (Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher still when the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used as a source … We cannot distinguish which of these populations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe, from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration from central Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/Neolithic Bronze Age). (p.40)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event." (p.47)

Lazaridis et a. 2017 Supplementary Material (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/lazaridis2017-minoans-and-mycenaeans-supplement-pdf#page=41)


"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/figure/F7/?report=objectonly)


"The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Materia (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/nihms888167-supplement-supp-info-12-pdf)l (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/lazaridis2017-minoans-and-mycenaeans-supplement-pdf#page=50)

Philjames100
22-06-20, 14:31
there is nothing which can prove one person who lived in 1,600 BC in Greece spoke Minoan or Mycenaean Greek, some additional ancestry from Siberia couldn't be related to an Indo-European migration to Greece, in fact there is no reason that we want to assume that there was a migration which caused cultural change in this land, we know about 1,600 BC different Indo-European cultures (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Luwian, ...) spread in the east of Greece, Mycenaeans were the same Minoans who adopted another Indo-European culture.

The Mycenaeans left tablets written in Greek, using the Linear B script.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B

Minoans also left writings in the Linear A script, in a language not considered to be Greek or Indo-European (though Linear A hasn't been deciphered).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A

Shahmiri
22-06-20, 15:09
Lazaridis 2017 models the Mycenaean samples as either 13.2% Steppe_EMBA (Steppe Early/Middle Bronze Age), or 17.5% Steppe_MLBA (Steppe Middle/Late Bronze Age), or 19.8% Europe_LNBA (Europe Late Neolithic/Bronze Age), and the rest as 'Minoan'. (Table 1 'Proximate Sources')

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/table/T3/?report=objectonly


From the supplementary material:

"in our previous analysis using hunter-gatherer and Neolithic source populations we showed that Eastern European hunter-gatherer/Upper Paleolithic Siberian admixture was present in Mycenaeans but not in Minoans. Steppe populations of the Bronze Age have substantial such ancestry, as do Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations that were influenced by them. Thus, the discovery that Mycenaeans can be modelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations can explain the presence of this type of ancestry in them. The amount of steppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group (“Yamnya/Afanasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA) … The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age (Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher still when the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used as a source … We cannot distinguish which of these populations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe, from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration from central Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/Neolithic Bronze Age). (p.40)

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event." (p.47)

Lazaridis et a. 2017 Supplementary Material (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/lazaridis2017-minoans-and-mycenaeans-supplement-pdf#page=41)


"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/figure/F7/?report=objectonly)


"The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Materia (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/nihms888167-supplement-supp-info-12-pdf)l (https://www.docdroid.net/tvNk3DZ/lazaridis2017-minoans-and-mycenaeans-supplement-pdf#page=50)


How do they know that someone is either Minoan or Mycenaean? It is possible that Minoan was an aboriginal language in Greece which was spoken there from more than 7,000 years ago, but from about 2,000 BC Indo-Europeans gradually migrated there and some centuires later they became dominant culture in Greece.

This thing that Linear B which was used for writing Mycenaean Greek dates back to 1500 BC doesn't mean that Mycenaean Greek also belonged to this period, after the Islamic conquest of Iran, for about 400 years Arabic script was used for just writing Arabic in Iran but then Persians used the same script with some changes for writing Persian, it doesn't mean that in the first 400 years all Persians spoke Arabic.