The genomic history of southeastern Europe-Mathiesen et al

Falco said:
Maybe that extra Levant could be related to a movement of Anatolian BA mixture into the area, since they seem to score an additional 7% Levant_N? It's possible this group could have went through Greece as well before reaching southern Italy/Sicily, but later migrations from the north diluted it, unlike in Sicily.

Also, in a new study of Y-DNA and surnames from southern Italy/Sicily, Boattini (who I believe was a co-author of last year's Sarno paper) makes reference to the time periods and admixtures in question; I pointed them out here. They seem pretty sure it was a Bronze Age movement, at least for now.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been speculating myself and makes a ton of sense. Yes nobody knows for sure what went on but this scenario is very logical.
 
LATGAL said:
Their relative positions on the PCA are clearer here . Sicilians seem primarily slightly northeastern compared to Mycenaeans, which speaks to roughly "equal" amounts of further steppe and near eastern ancestry in Sicilians. But position based on just the first two PCs can be potentially misleading since it basically shows you the relative amounts of HG vs Basal and ANE vs non-ANE. In other analyses, it's clear that part of the Anatolia_N in Southern Europe has been apparently replaced by a bit of the very related Levant_N, and that sort of ancestry seems to show a peak in Sicilians/Calabrians, with Cretans close to them. The recent Sarno study was interesting in that regard too and shows something similar. I'm speaking here of the extra Levant that can't be defined as part of the Anatolia_N. "Exact percentages" won't be resolved until we get proximal samples though, like you said.

On the other hand, most of the more important and plentiful Caucasus in Southern Europe seems to already be quite old in most of it, which indeed quite a few people didn't seem to be expecting. Nonetheless, near eastern ancestry increasing in all of Southern Europe since the Bronze Age (or even the Iron Age for at least parts of it) is an almost definite yes for me at this point but I'll gladly change my mind if future samples speak against that. But it's clear that Sicilians don't seem to be quite the 'near-easternized' population some people were expecting compared to ancient uber-steppe(?) Southern Europe. They're rather more ANE/eastern, like the rest of Southern Europe.

As for the ss/nth toponyms, I have brought that up in the past too in relation with Italy where they seem to exist as well (and more towards the center and south IIRC, in fact) and wondered if it weren't part of a later non-IE migration from Anatolia that affected both the Balkans and Italy.
Click to expand...

From the link to which you sent me, you're basing that conclusion on the Sicilian Beaker sample. That may indeed be the case. On the other hand using that sample might not be accurate for the reasons I stated above.

Also, not everyone interprets the data in the same way:
"Matt:
"From visual analysis, it looks like to get to Sicilians, the easiest ancient model is Mycenaean+Central_European (though this may or may not be most historically and linguistically sensible). For Balkans it's Mycenaean+Slavic. The Balkans BA populations don't seem quite right as ancestral without extensive Anatolia_BA like ancestry.}

As for some people not seeing that the "CHG" like ancestry could have started arriving in Europe very early, it seemed to me that for years I was the only one seeing that it could have been like that. Oetzi's genome alone should have been enough of a clue, along with archaeological evidence. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the more densely populated regions of southern Europe might not have been as impacted by the Indo-Europeans as Central Europe with its numerous population crashes, or the far northeast and Britain, which were barely populated. The fact that people didn't, might in some cases mean just not knowing very much about Italian or Greek or Balkan pre-history, but some people denied it because it didn't fit their preferred narrative.

Concerning the "Levantine" admixture, I have never denied that some of it may be pretty recent. It's possible that more of the "Moorish" influx into Sicily came from the Middle East than has seemed probable from the historical evidence, although that wouldn't explain the data for Calabria. Likewise, for some strange reason, it may be that Rome decided to send all of its Near Eastern slaves to Sicily, although it makes no sense to me. Also, again, it wouldn't explain the numbers in mountainous Calabria. However, I don't know the total percentage, much less how much is "recent", whether it's a little or a lot, and neither does anyone else. What I have objected to is that people have pretended that they do know, and often for very suspect motives.

I don't know to what "other" analyses you refer, but if it's similar to the analyses that posited so much of this "CHG like" ancestry was also "recent", then I wouldn't be very impressed. Modeling modern Sicilians with Unetice, for example, makes no sense to me. Whatever "Indo-European" from Central Europe made it to Sicily after traversing the entire peninsula and then crossing to the island would have been heavily diluted by the time it arrived. Extra "Levant" is obviously going to have to be added in modeling like that. As to Sarno et al, Falco's post is informative.

Going back for a moment to Vucedol, I find this interesting:
Vucedol distance%=2.267
"Remedello_BA:RISE489" 36.85
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0443" 29.5
"Anatolia_BA" 16.75
"Beaker_Sicily:I4930" 12.45
"Greece_Peloponnese_N:I3920" 3.55
"Levant_N" 0.9

1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Italian_Tuscan:NA20505 2.979706
Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152 4.094883
Balkans_BA 4.120439
Italian_South:ITS7 4.281019
Italian_South:ITS7 4.281019
Sicilian 4.417910
Greek 5.438889


Vucedol is closer to Tuscans than I am going by this, and by some lights, I'm half Tuscan. :)

These are interesting too:

Beaker_Sicily
Tiszapolgar_ECA 39.4 %
Armenia_EBA 23.1 %
Greece_Peloponnese_N:I3709 19.6 %
Remedello_BA 15.1 %
Anatolia_BA 2.8 %

Beaker Northern Italy :I2478
Beaker_central Europe 48.1%
Remedello 51.9%

Beaker NI: I2477
Remedello 61.5%
Tizaapolgar ECA 37.9%

Btw, has anyone ever told you that your writing "voice" is very similar to that of "Agamemnon" on anthrogenica. Very strong resemblance, imo. :)

@Davef,
Don't fall into the Sikeliot trap. Not much difference in terms of "northern" ancestry between some mainland Greeks and Sicilians.
 
Angela, it's cool, I'm not subscribing to his ideas at all. Falco never said anything about how big the difference was (or how big the dilution was) nor do I deny that a number of Greeks from the mainland are very close to Sicilians and South Italians.

There was little or no "dilution" in the more southern areas of mainland Greece. The further south, the less dilution.
 
Just trying to clarify.

I want to make sure that incorrect data isn't even inadvertently transmitted.
 
Angela said:
Just trying to clarify.

I want to make sure that incorrect data isn't even inadvertently transmitted.
Click to expand...

Im totally cool with that
 
No, I was not basing that conclusion on the Vucedol sample. I was providing a PCA that highlights both Sicilians and Mycenaeans (the four dots under them).

A continuing connection with an Anatolia_BA-like population (that's something I kept saying too about the Balkans and Italy before we got the Anatolia_BA or Mycenaean samples, based on archaeological and potential linguistic associations) for much or even most of this kind of ancestry seems plausible (but it'd still post-date and/or is missing from the samples we currently have in 'modern' amounts) but it doesn't seem like it can account for all the ancestry, considering the Levant/Caucasus ratios, especially prominent in Sicily, parts of Iberia, Crete etc. You need something more southern than that as well, North African or Levantine, which as I said seems much less extensive compared to the earlier, purely Caucasus ancestry but it's there.

Matt is perfectly right that on the PCA made up of the first two PCs, you seem to need something central-northwestern in much of Italy and northeastern in the Balkans to get to modern positions. But this visual approximation also doesn't give you all the info, just the relative ratios of ANE and HG, since both areas also seem like they have some further near eastern ancestry in other analyses. Might not end up being the case but that's what it plausibly seems like to me right now. Also, Sicily, the Aegean and Iberia have further ties to the Levant and North Africa already back in the Iron Age so much of this kind of ancestry might be quite old indeed.
 
davef said:
Angela, it's cool, I'm not subscribing to his ideas at all. Falco never said anything about how big the difference was (or how big the dilution was) nor do I deny that a number of Greeks from the mainland are very close to Sicilians and South Italians.

There was little or no "dilution" in the more southern areas of mainland Greece. The further south, the less dilution.
Click to expand...

Angela said:
Just trying to clarify.

I want to make sure that incorrect data isn't even inadvertently transmitted.
Click to expand...

Right, should've clarified re the N-S cline in mainland Greece, but I was merely speaking in general terms. No intentions of misdirection here.
 
K = 14 admixture analysis of ancient Southeastern European genomes

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/201...sis-of-ancient-southeastern-european-genomes/

The Mesolithic samples from Serbia and Romania are made up almost entirely of the dark blue Western European hunter-gatherer component.

The Mesolithic and Neolithic samples from Ukraine are made up of a mix of the dark blue component and the medium blue Eastern European component.

The Mesolithic samples from Latvia are made up mostly of the dark blue component, with smaller amounts of the medium blue component.

The Neolithic samples from Southeastern Europe are made up mostly of the light blue early European farmer component, with varying amounts of the dark blue component.

One of the samples from the Late Copper Age Varna culture of northeastern Bulgaria, ANI163, has a significant amount of the medium blue component.

Another Late Copper Age sample from Bulgaria, I2181, also has a significant amount of the medium blue component.

None of the samples from the Late Neolithic and Copper Age Trypillia and Globular Amphora cultures in Ukraine and Poland show significant amounts of the medium blue component.

The sample from the Early Bronze Age Ezero culture of Bulgaria also doesn’t show a significant amount of the medium blue component. Another Early Bronze Age sample from Bulgaria, I2165, does show a significant amount of the component, however.

Two of the Pit Grave samples from Ukraine are similar to the Pit Grave samples from Russia, while the third, I1917, shows a bit more of the light blue component and more of the pine green component.

The one Pit Grave sample from Bulgaria has significantly more of the light blue component than the Pit Grave samples from Russia have.

Two of the samples from the Copper Age Vučedol culture in Croatia have significant amounts of the medium blue component, while the third, I2792, does not.

The five most recent samples from Bulgaria and Croatia also have significant but varying amounts of the medium blue component. The earliest of the five, I2163, shows the most, making it similar to Corded Ware samples, while the latest of the five, I5769, shows the least, making it similar to the four available Bronze Age Mycenaean samples.
 
allthough the colours don't represent exact WHG/EHG/EEF etc. , the conclusions are more or less the same as in the papers
 
The Mesolithic and Neolithic samples from Ukraine are made up of a mix of the dark blue component and the medium blue Eastern European component.
Click to expand...
difficult so to believe that the CHG component in Yamnayans (the other half being EHG) was the result of Maykop women mating IE blondish charioters, I think that women have not the power to substract yet DNA components, in this case 2/3 of WHG in mesolithic and neolithic Ukranians.
 
berun said:
difficult so to believe that the CHG component in Yamnayans (the other half being EHG) was the result of Maykop women mating IE blondish charioters, I think that women have not the power to substract yet DNA components, in this case 2/3 of WHG in mesolithic and neolithic Ukranians.
Click to expand...
maybe you shouldn't look for mesolithic or neolithic Ukraine as a source of Yamna, look at Khvalynsk instead
the CHG admixture began already during Khvalynsk copper age (1 out of 3 has it) and Yamna/Afanasievo got some more
there is still some 700 years gap between Khvalynsk and Yamna

furthermore Y-DNA wise mesolithic or neolithic Ukraine seems to be the R1b-V88 or R1b-V1636 branch, not the R1b-M269 branch
 
with Khvalynsk I have the same problem with DNA extracting vampires, in this case the red for Amerindian/far siberian
 
and for Yamna the case is worst, as it was R1b-Z2103, not the R1a which appears in clear IE cultures to me as CW, Sintashta or Andronovo. It was a time were it was hoped to find the IE bros in Ukraine, but autosomal is not for it.
 
berun said:
with Khvalynsk I have the same problem with DNA extracting vampires, in this case the red for Amerindian/far siberian
Click to expand...

the red is present in Yamna and Afanasievo, but less than in Khvalynsk
at least the Khvalynsk samples show that the elements in Yamna were allready present on the steppe at least 700 years prior to Yamna

I guess the red has something to do with the arrival of Q1a and pottery from Siberia
 
berun said:
and for Yamna the case is worst, as it was R1b-Z2103, not the R1a which appears in clear IE cultures to me as CW, Sintashta or Andronovo. It was a time were it was hoped to find the IE bros in Ukraine, but autosomal is not for it.
Click to expand...

yes, origin of R1b-L51 still is a mystery

also, meso/neolithic steppe seems to be more R1b-V88 or R1b-V1636
R1b-P297, ancestral to R1b-M269 and R1b-Z2103 seems to be more Baltic
 
berun said:
and for Yamna the case is worst, as it was R1b-Z2103, not the R1a which appears in clear IE cultures to me as CW, Sintashta or Andronovo. It was a time were it was hoped to find the IE bros in Ukraine, but autosomal is not for it.
Click to expand...

Berun, Off topic... but have you seen this??? Watch around minute 21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OieDukk2Sw

(sorry guys, but in spanish. And the kind (Galego) that even I Portuguese can understand effortlessly.)
 
Interesting that Galicians are more different than Basques. But understable, the region is in a corner which allows only herding. The Cardial people was not going there, and few Celts and Romans would end there. Basques are in the way and are mixed with Celts and Francos (French colonists).

View attachment 9818
 
berun said:
Interesting that Galicians are more different than Basques. But understable, the region is in a corner which allows only herding. The Cardial people was not going there, and few Celts and Romans would end there. Basques are in the way and are mixed with Celts and Francos (French colonists).

View attachment 9818
Click to expand...

Berun.
But he says that the Portuguese are the same. And actually Portuguese and Galicians have those same characteristics. Your argument would not apply to Portuguese.

Lets wait on it being published in Nature.
 
I put Galicia and the northen half of Portugal in the same niche. The autosomal map by the way ressembles that of the Reconquista.

View attachment 9819
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 185084 times.

Back
Top