The Arrival of Steppe & Iranian Related Ancestry in Islands of West Mediterranean

Plus, their Ibiza Phoenician plots right on top of Mycenaeans. Did they have a lot of Morocco LN too?

I'm really not understanding this. Going by the PCA plot the sample is Greek, isn't it?

fEefemp.png
[/IMG]

That's really bizarre... I mean, did Morocco_LN completely lack the indigenous North African componente that was found already in Iberomaurusian (Upper Paleolithic) and is still found in reasonable proportions even today in the Maghreb? Where was it hiding in the Neolithic then? I would expect a lot of Maghrebi ancestry to pull the sample quite a bit away from the Aegean/East Mediterranean populations, let alone Mycenaeans. What is Morocco_LN made of? Is it full of CHG/Iranian and EEF (with WHG included) like the Mycenaeans? What about the minor but non-negligible steppe ancestry pulling Mycenaeans a bit northward toward BA Europe?
 
The Moroccan LN in Sicilians must have a lot of Anatolian Neolithic, why else would they plot near Mycenaeans?
 
I posted this in the thread discussing the Marcus paper specifically on Sardinia, but I thought I'd paste in a copy here too.

I agree that Fernandes covers more "ground", so to speak, so it isn't going to be as detailed about Sardinian genetic history as this paper, but I do think that they made some errors of judgment. As you have pointed out, there is no archaeological context for those four Late Antiquity samples. They land on Mycenaeans fwiw. I don't know how many snps they have either.

In terms of Sardinian samples I also think that Fernandes made an error in only using the HGDP samples for the "Ogliastra" group. Those are the samples that Cavalli-Sforza chose and they are not all from Ogliastra, although many of them are. The Marcus paper we are discussing here used many, many modern Sardinian samples, and grouped together a group specifically from Ogliastra.

Although different analyses showed slightly different things, this is their conclusion: "Together, these results319 suggest high levels of drift specific to Ogliastra (likely also driving the first two PCs of present-day320 Sardinian variation), but simultaneously also less admixture than other Sardinian provinces."

For "Levantine" (as a stand in for Punic admixture) they show, in a three way mix, about 16% for southwestern Sardinia, and less in the modern samples from the rest of the island. I wonder if the settlements in Sardinia remained basically "Levantine", in contrast to those in Spain which had a "Carthaginian" identity, and thus contained some "North African". Certainly the "Saracens" would have been mostly "North African", although I don't know if a Moroccan LN sample is the best one to use to measure it.

That was always my contention about "Phoenician" admixture on the island, i.e. that it would show up to some degree in the SW and less in other areas, given that the Phoenicians were not "colonizers", like the Greeks. Sardinia has been a land "apart" to some degree, the terrain lends itself to separation of groups, and so I always doubted that there was widespread admixture even in Sardinia itself. Olbia is a prime example, as is indeed the entire Northern sliver, which is more shifted to northern Italy, and speaks a different language from those of the rest of Sardinia.

Sardinia_Language_Map.png
 
That's really bizarre... I mean, did Morocco_LN completely lack the indigenous North African componente that was found already in Iberomaurusian (Upper Paleolithic) and is still found in reasonable proportions even today in the Maghreb? Where was it hiding in the Neolithic then? I would expect a lot of Maghrebi ancestry to pull the sample quite a bit away from the Aegean/East Mediterranean populations, let alone Mycenaeans. What is Morocco_LN made of? Is it full of CHG/Iranian and EEF (with WHG included) like the Mycenaeans? What about the minor but non-negligible steppe ancestry pulling Mycenaeans a bit northward toward BA Europe?

I went back to the original paper discussing these samples, Rosa Fregel et al. It is discussed here, and there's a link to the original paper as well.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-from-Levant-and-Europe?highlight=Rosa+Fregel

We have to keep in mind that Fernandes is using the samples labeled KEB to measure "North African" ancestry.

"IAM individuals are similar to North African Later Stone Age samples from the Taforalt site in Morocco, dated ∼15,000 y ago (Fig. 2 and SI Appendix,Supplementary Note 6). When projected, IAM samples are halfway between Taforalt and modern North Africans, in the Levantine corner of the PCA space (Fig. 2).
Southern Iberian Neolithic individuals from TOR cluster withSardinians and with other Anatolian and European Neolithicsamples. Moreover, KEB samples are placed halfway between the IAM and Anatolian/European farmer clusters, in close proximity to Levant aDNA samples and also to Guanche samples."

"IAM is composed of the North African component observed in Mozabites. KEB is placed in an intermediate position, with ∼50% each of European Early Neolithic and North African ancestries. It is worth
mentioning that, compared with current North African samples, IAM and KEB do not show any sub-Saharan African ancestry in the MEGA-HGDP ADMIXTURE analysis, suggesting that trans-Saharan migrations occurred after Neolithic times."

So, as far as North Africa is concerned, there seems to be a back migration from the Near East into North Africa, then large amounts of Levant farmer in the Neolithic. There's another pulse from there in the Muslim era, followed by large amounts of SSA at some point, so much so that modern North Africans can be up to 25-30% SSA depending on the era. (There are some who have much less.)

These KEB samples are modeled as about half IAM and half Anatolian farmer.

Now, according to the paper the area inhabited by these people was Morocco and the signal gets weaker as you go east in North Africa, i.e. toward Egypt.

My hesitancy about this is based on the fact that we have no way of knowing how similar the North Africans of the Iron Age or, later, the early Medieval period, were to these KEB people, especially when, in the case of Italy and the Muslim invasion, you're talking about Tunisia. Now, were they KEB like, or modern Amazegh like, or were they modern Mozabite like, or somewhere in between all of those.

As I stated somewhere above, this may also explain the "Levantine" signal in Sicily which has so enthralled some internet pop gen people. It makes a lot more sense than some phantom migration of "Byzantines" from the Levant, of which there is no historical record, just as the high levels of Iran Neolithic in the Bronze Age also negate the need to "blame" this on high levels of migration from this same "Byzantine" migration.

And no, not "everyone" failed to see that migration from the Balkans, in particular Greece, could have, and probably did bring quite a bit of "Iran Neolithic" to Sicily in the Bronze Age. I certainly saw it, and posted about it often. In fact, I proposed even late Neolithic/Bronze Age, and there's some evidence it was already in Sicily in the early Bronze, although it increased over time.
 
Plus, their Ibiza Phoenician plots right on top of Mycenaeans. Did they have a lot of Morocco LN too?

I'm really not understanding this. Going by the PCA plot the sample is Greek, isn't it?

fEefemp.png
[/IMG]
The Phoenician is only 25 percent Anatolian neo, the rest is morocco_ln. I have no idea how he wound up there
 
this seems to point Sea Peoples...

259 An exception is individual I10553 (1226-1056 calBCE) who carried Y-haplogroup J2b2a (Online Table
260 1), previously observed in a Croatian Middle Bronze Age individual bearing Steppe ancestry44,
261 suggesting the possibility of genetic input from groups that arrived from the east after the spread
262 of first farmers. This is consistent with the evidence of material culture exchange between
263 Sardinians and mainland Mediterranean groups15, although genome-wide analyses find no significant
264 evidence of Steppe ancestry so the quantitative demographic impact was minimal. qpAdm modeling
265 of the ancestry of the Sardinia_Nuragic_BA10365 outlier with respect to sources potentially more
266 closely related in space and time does infer some ancestry in this individual from an eastern source
267 (either carrying Steppe ancestry or Iranian-related ancestry) that we do not detect by modeling
268 with sources more distant in space and time, consistent with the hypothesis of eastern influence

four J2b2a1 appear around 1200-1000 BC in Sardinia also...

We detect definitive evidence of Iranian-related ancestry in an Iron Age Sardinian I10366 (391-209
271 calBCE) with an estimate of 11.9 ± 3.7.% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry, while
272 rejecting the model with only Anatolian_Neolithic and WHG at p=0.0066 (Supplementary Table 9).
273 The only model that we can fit for this individual using a pair of populations that are closer in time
274 is as a mixture of Iberia_Chalcolithic (11.9 ± 3.2%) and Mycenaean (88.1 ± 3.2%) (p=0.067). This
275 model fits even when including Nuragic Sardinians in the outgroups of the qpAdm analysis, which is
276 consistent with the jhypothesis that this individual had little if any ancestry from earlier Sardinians.

1000 years after successive Balkan migrations would have left the island so changed
 
Instead, this would favour a migration from SE Spain (Motillas are like Nuraghi, Norax legend):

Specifically, we find that f4(Mbuti.DG, X; Formentera_MBA, Menorca_LBA) is
223 positive when X=Iberia_Chalcolithic (Z=2.6) or X=Sardinia_Nuragic_BA (Z=2.7). While it is tempting
224 to interpret the latter statistic as suggesting a genetic link between peoples of the Talaiotic culture
225 of the Balearic islands and the Nuragic culture of Sardinia, the attraction to Iberia_Chalcolithic is
226 just as strong, and the mitochondrial haplogroup U5b1+16189+@16192 in Menorca_LBA is not
227 observed in Sardinia_Nuragic_BA but is observed in multiple Iberia_Chalcolithic individuals. A
228 possible explanation is that both the ancestors of Nuragic Sardinians and the ancestors of Talaiotic
229 people from the Balearic Islands received gene flow from an unsampled Iberian Chalcolithic-related
230 group (perhaps a mainland group affiliated to both) that did not contribute to Formentera_MBA.
 
some hocus-pocus with R1b beakers:

The fact that that none of the models for Sicily_EBA individuals analyzed by themselves
602 requires Yamnaya_Samara ancestry in order to fit, despite the fact that the analysis of the pool of
603 all samples in Supplementary Table 9 requires Yamnaya_Samara,is also notable. It highlights the
604 statistical power that comes from pooling samples.
 
Nice to see the Sea Peoples hypothesis is getting some attention, I didn't associate it with J2b but an Aegean origin and settlement in the Central Mediterranean was obvious to me (ostensibly at least). Bring on the Etruscans!
 
also K4 displays some Nuraghe individuals with blue (for Iran Neo ancestry)
 
Astonishingly, some people in this "hobby", particularly on other sites, seem to lack a real understanding of how these programs work. Not for the first time, something I have proposed has been completely misused because some people can only think linearly, although some neurotic agendas also, I think, come into play.

I proposed, somewhere above, that PERHAPS at least some, if not most, of the "Levantine" which people find in Sicilians might not actually be Levantine. Some of it might be North African since North Africans have always had a lot of ANCIENT "Levantine" ancestry.

This doesn't mean a LOT of actual LEVANTINE people entered, say, Sicily, with the Saracens. All the documentation we have indicates most of the Saracens or Moors or whatever you want to call them, were from North Africa, not the Levant or Arabia. Since the invasion wasn't long after the arrival of Islam, I'm not sure there was even much Arabian ancestry from the tribes which arrived around that time and whose ancestry would indeed be mixed in modern North Africans with that of the "Berbers".

When people are willy nilly throwing populations into the various programs, especially Levant Neolithic or something like that, the algorithm may find "Levant" in a sample, when it's only there in a very ancient sense.

It would be like looking at an Italian admixed person and saying there's a lot of Anatolian Neolithic and some Iranian related ancestry and some Beaker. Yeah, ok, but what does that tell you about the historical processes? Isn't that what we're supposed to be studying?

I want to understand the history of my country. I want to know how much change there was at certain pivotal moments of our history. I'm not trying to make some "racial" or ethnic point about my country or anyone elses. Obviously, some people are engaged in precisely that.

Plus, all of this is PROVISIONAL. Nothing should be concluded in such dogmatic terms when the North African sample used was from the Neolithic and is half Spanish farmer (with some WHG) and has Anatolian Neolithic from the "Levantine" ancestry too. There's too much overlap. That's why earlier papers saw an EEF signal heading out of the Levant with farmers.

Just look, for example, what happens when you take a "Punic" (i.e. Levantine of a certain era plus North African of a certain era) and put in 20% more Anatolian Neolithic. You get a Mycenaean. So, if you want to apply the same logic, the Myceaneans would have a very large proportion of Levantine ancestry.
 
When people are willy nilly throwing populations into the various programs, especially Levant Neolithic or something like that, the algorithm may find "Levant" in a sample, when it's only there in a very ancient sense.
This is highly unlikely, as there will be other more closely-related less-ancient populations that the algorithm will pick up mixed into better fits.

Plus, all of this is PROVISIONAL. Nothing should be concluded in such dogmatic terms when the North African sample used was from the Neolithic and is half Spanish farmer (with some WHG) and has Anatolian Neolithic from the "Levantine" ancestry too. There's too much overlap. That's why earlier papers saw an EEF signal heading out of the Levant with farmers.

Just look, for example, what happens when you take a "Punic" (i.e. Levantine of a certain era plus North African of a certain era) and put in 20% more Anatolian Neolithic. You get a Mycenaean. So, if you want to apply the same logic, the Myceaneans would have a very large proportion of Levantine ancestry.

If, as you suggested, you take Punic of the relevant era, mixed with North African and with Anatolian Neolithic, it comes out as nothing like Mycaenean. The best fit for Mycaenean is Neolithic Greek, mixed with some Southern Steppe Yamnayan, some CA/EBA Armenian and some CA/EBA Balkan; and I don't see any particular reason to question this best fit as unlikely.

I agree that such results are always provisional. The data doesn't prove anything - it only provides most likely explanations, given the limited data that we have available.
 
This is highly unlikely, as there will be other more closely-related less-ancient populations that the algorithm will pick up mixed into better fits.



If, as you suggested, you take Punic of the relevant era, mixed with North African and with Anatolian Neolithic, it comes out as nothing like Mycaenean. The best fit for Mycaenean is Neolithic Greek, mixed with some Southern Steppe Yamnayan, some CA/EBA Armenian and some CA/EBA Balkan; and I don't see any particular reason to question this best fit as unlikely.

I agree that such results are always provisional. The data doesn't prove anything - it only provides most likely explanations, given the limited data that we have available.

It all depends on which populations are chosen. Among the amateur ones I see being passed around I can tell that most of them are just plain WRONG, mixing populations from different eras etc, and, by the way, the goodness of fit is often not provided. Many of them are also clearly OVERFIT.

Like I said: linear thinking. The "Punic" individual lands right on top of Mycenaeans in a PCA, which is one measure of genetic relatedness, and one which is often used to draw conclusions about Sicilians. None of these tools can be interpreted in isolation from one another. Each has its pluses or minuses.

Forget it. Believe what you want. Obviously, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
 
BGh7sR7.png


In this admixture chart on line 550, it shows that the Ibiza_Phoenician sample's autosomal components looks very close to that of the Mycenaean. Let us see how things pan out in the final peer-reviewed version of the paper.

Here's another aspect of the paper I found to be intriguing:

WCdBVmt.png


The Reich paper states that it is plausible that the Caucasus-related ancestry reported in Ravenae et al is likely to have been there since the early or middle Bronze-Age. Thus it stands to reason that this makes Southern Italian mainlanders; especially SItaly3 (see figure G, below) are indeed different from Sicilians. But who knows how Reich would model them. This is just my observations and speculation. At any rate, here are examples of the difference, below. If the plausibility is indeed correct, than the mainland south owes a lot of it's ancestry to the early to middle bronze age. While Sicily took a different route to get where it is today (Perhaps with Messina being an exception).

dGcNc3F.png


Furthermore, I noticed that Anatolian_BA is also very similar to the Minoan and Mycenaean samples; More than it is to Levant_BA, as observed in the ADMIXTURE analysis below. One of the samples even overlaps with SItaly1

3TqJZbA.png


ve5Ua4q.png
 
BGh7sR7.png


In this admixture chart on line 550, it shows that the Ibiza_Phoenician sample's autosomal components looks very close to that of the Mycenaean. Let us see how things pan out in the final peer-reviewed version of the paper.

Here's another aspect of the paper I found to be intriguing:

WCdBVmt.png


The Reich paper states that it is plausible that the Caucasus-related ancestry reported in Ravenae et al is likely to have been there since the early or middle Bronze-Age. Thus it stands to reason that this makes Southern Italian mainlanders; especially SItaly3 (see figure G, below) are indeed different from Sicilians. But who knows how Reich would model them. This is just my observations and speculation. At any rate, here are examples of the difference, below. If the plausibility is indeed correct, than the mainland south owes a lot of it's ancestry to the early to middle bronze age. While Sicily took a different route to get where it is today (Perhaps with Messina being an exception).

dGcNc3F.png


Furthermore, I noticed that Anatolian_BA is also very similar to the Minoan and Mycenaean samples; More than it is to Levant_BA, as observed in the ADMIXTURE analysis below. One of the samples even overlaps with SItaly1

3TqJZbA.png


ve5Ua4q.png

I noticed that SItaly3 gets a small amount of SBA, but a relatively large amount of WHG. Now these results seem to make more sense to me:
ElSkvQX.png


My results are in:

Ancient Farmers: 77.0%
  • Western European Farmers: 31.1%
  • Levant: 2.4%
  • Neolithic-Chalcolithic Iran-CHG: 6.3%
  • Eastern European Farmers: 37.1%

Steppe Cultures: 16.8%
  • Karasuk-E Scythian 8.7%
  • Andronovo-Srubanaya: 8.1%

Western European & Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers: 6.2%
 
I noticed that SItaly3 gets a small amount of SBA, but a relatively large amount of WHG. Now these results seem to make more sense to me:

Ancestry a part, i still dont really understand the concept of Baltic and Ukraine Neolithic without admixture, what were their cultural characteristics for being considered Neolithic groups but Pottery?

And what does Eastern European Farmers means in terms of ancestral component, only EHG? and Steppe Cultures is EHG+CHG?
 
Ancestry a part, i still dont really understand the concept of Baltic and Ukraine Neolithic without admixture, what were their cultural characteristics for being considered Neolithic groups but Pottery?

And what does Eastern European Farmers means in terms of ancestral component, only EHG? and Steppe Cultures is EHG+CHG?

Eastern European farmers are EEF. There's no EHG involved. WHG if anything.
 
Eastern European farmers are EEF. There's no EHG involved. WHG if anything.

What's the difference between WEEF and EEEF in his results then?
 
What's the difference between WEEF and EEEF in his results then?

Probably a lot of drift, but also the minor admixture might have been different as well as at different percentages. We now know, for example, that there was bit more El Miron in the Iberian farmers, most KO1 in the eastern ones.
 
Bump, do we know all Y haplogroups of males, there is four J haplogroups, one is confirmed J2b-L283, another one says J2a, what about other two? Also three males have mtDNA inserted instead of Ydna.

Does anyone knows more about this?


MG2a2b2b1a1
MG2a2b2b1a1
Un/a (sex undetermined)
Un/a (sex undetermined)
Fn/a (female)
MH
MU5a2b3
MU5a2a1
MU5a2a1
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
MC1a2
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
MJ
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
MJ
MJ2a1
Un/a (sex undetermined)
MJ
Un/a (sex undetermined)
Fn/a (female)
Un/a (sex undetermined)
MR1b1a1a2a1a2a1
MR1b1a1a2a1a2 (xR1b1a1a2a1a2c)
MR1b1a1a2a1a2a1
MR1b1a1a2a1a2 (xR1b1a1a2a1a2c)
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
MR1b1a1a2a1a2 (xR1b1a1a2a1a2c)
Fn/a (female)
MG2a2b2a1a1c1a
MG2a2b2a1a1c1a2
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
Fn/a (female)
MG2a2b2a1a1c1a
 

This thread has been viewed 103806 times.

Back
Top