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

The most interesting find to me are the LBA Sicilians from Trapani whom I would consider to be speakers of Indo-European. They have very little if any Caucasus admixture, and no steppe admixture. They cannot be Neolithic holdovers either since they carry Bronze Age TMRCA G2a-Z1903, one of them with a subclade specific to present day Scandinavia.

I'm pretty sure these are Balkaners. Ultimately from Chalcolithic Bulgaria, perhaps by way of Baden-Boleraz.

I am not sure if I understand Markod correctly, but this sounds like G2a-Z1903 travelled to Sicily independently of the R1b steppe-derived populations. Or if the two groups did move in tandem, up the Danube to Baden and then down through Italy (or west to Spain and then to Sicily), they did so without mixing or inter-marrying?

If Markod is still reading this thread, perhaps he could elaborate.
 
This is from the Ancient Iberia thread, but relevant to my question

A quick look at the haplogroups by period reveals that:

New lineages that appear during the Chalcolithic include:

- I2a1a-M26 and I2a1b-M423. Until the MLN, the I2 individuals all belonged to I2a2 - mostly the now rare Western European L1228 clade, but also to Z161.

- G2a-Z1903 (downstream of L30, L140 and CTS342, TMRCA 4500 ybp, found all over Europe) while earlier Neolithic G2a belonged mostly to G2a-PF3148 (like Ötzi), a rarer clade today found notably in Sardinia and the Middle East.

So there seems to have been a significant population replacement between the Middle-Late Neolithic and the Chalcolithic. The newcomers were also descended from the European G2a-I2a mixed population, but it looks like a male elite, probably originating from the Balkans, started replacing other Neolithic lineages in Iberia, and based on the modern distribution of I2-M26, I2-M423 and G2a-Z1903, across most of central and western Europe.

In this study, these new lineages only show up in southern Iberia, while R1b-L23 (with some L51 and P312) makes its appearance only in central and northwest Iberia from circa 2100 BCE.
 
I'm pretty sure these are Balkaners. Ultimately from Chalcolithic Bulgaria, perhaps by way of Baden-Boleraz.

From page 208 of Game of Clans, by Carlos Quiles ---> "Three Baden samples (ca. 3600-2850 BC) show no contribution of Steppe ancestry (Lipson et al 2017), with one hg. G2a2b2a1a1c1a-Z1903 (formed ca. 6000 BC, TMRCA ca. 2400 BC), which . . . supports the cultural rather than demic diffusion of concepts related to the Yamna culture during the 'Transformation of Europe'"

https://indo-european.info/game-clans-clash-chiefs.pdf
 
From page 208 of Game of Clans, by Carlos Quiles ---> "Three Baden samples (ca. 3600-2850 BC) show no contribution of Steppe ancestry (Lipson et al 2017), with one hg. G2a2b2a1a1c1a-Z1903 (formed ca. 6000 BC, TMRCA ca. 2400 BC), which . . . supports the cultural rather than demic diffusion of concepts related to the Yamna culture during the 'Transformation of Europe'"

https://indo-european.info/game-clans-clash-chiefs.pdf

I personally wouldn't quote him for interpretations, but those samples also falsify Gimbutas, who saw Baden as a "steppe" culture genetically.

I'm also pretty sure the cultural influence went both ways, with many innovations flowing from "Old Europe" to the steppe. There's been quite a few papers in the last few years showing just that.
 
Yes, DO NOT quote Quiles, his work is from my perspective colored by an ideological axe to grind with Eastern Europeans; he wishes to credit the Indo-Europeanization of Europe to R1b tribes now in Western Europe-their descendants have mainly been shorn of national and in general tend to white guilt, self-hating, and 'rootless cosmopolitanism' rather than to Eastern Europeans, who still have a sense of pride in Western civilization and who they are and their ancestors, the R1a tribes (in the interest of full disclosure I am R1a, but my opposition is out of my anti-authoritarian right Anglo-American ideological tradition; while I distrust racists I disdain neoliberal statists even more, and even more the insinuation that Eastern Europeans are, then as now, primitives in need of civilizing by the elites of western Europe)
 
Yes, DO NOT quote Quiles, his work is from my perspective colored by an ideological axe to grind with Eastern Europeans; he wishes to credit the Indo-Europeanization of Europe to R1b tribes now in Western Europe-their descendants have mainly been shorn of national and in general tend to white guilt, self-hating, and 'rootless cosmopolitanism' rather than to Eastern Europeans, who still have a sense of pride in Western civilization and who they are and their ancestors, the R1a tribes (in the interest of full disclosure I am R1a, but my opposition is out of my anti-authoritarian right Anglo-American ideological tradition; while I distrust racists I disdain neoliberal statists even more, and even more the insinuation that Eastern Europeans are, then as now, primitives in need of civilizing by the elites of western Europe)

Western Civilization was created by the Greeks and Romans, not the Indo-Europeans.
 
I cannot comment on whether Quiles has an illicit agenda. I am simply intrigued that G2a-Z1903 samples from the Chalcolithic and EBA were found to have no Steppe ancestry in three different studies:

(1) Lipton et al at the Baden site,
(2) by the authors of the Ancient Iberia paper (with Maciamo's gloss, which I quote upthread #62), and
(3) by Fernandes et al in the article under discussion here

I've been skimming through Quiles for the past few hours, and he actually discusses the Fernandes article on page 27 of Game of Chiefs, the second volume of his series.

Quiles writes of the Fernandes study: "Iranian-related ancestry is found in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1800-1500 BC), with a consistent shift towards Mycenaeans in the PCA. Specifically, two of the three sampled individuals can only be fit with Iran Neolithic (ca. 15-18%), apart from Northwest Anatolian and WHG-related ancestry, with good fits obtained with Minoans. Of the two reported haplogroups, one from the Aegean-related group is G2a-Z1903 . . . ."

He continues: "In the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1450-900 BC), a further incursion of Steppe-related ancestry is found (ca. 15%), even though the two reported samples are one G2a-Z1903, and the other G2a-FGC46572."

Is Quiles' reading of the Fernandes article correct? If so, it seems strange to me that G2a-Z1903 would have travelled through the Aegean (possibly Crete?) en route to Sicily, unless it was quite simply very widely diffused throughout Europe during the Copper Age. Or is it more likely that G2a-Z1903 admixed with Iranian-related elements in Sicily proper?
 
I've always been of the opinion that this sub lineage of G2a was widely diffused throughout Europe during the Copper Age and it admixed with "Iranian/CHG" like ancestry in Sicily, ancestry which started arriving a bit later.

If it hasn't been found in Anatolia I think that is the most likely scenario.
 
Thanks, Jovialis.

The abstracts have changed.

Original:
A series of studies have documented how Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry reached central Europe by at least 2500 BCE, while Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BCE. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean where they have contributed to many populations living today remains poorly understood. We generated genome-wide ancient DNA from the Balearic Islands, Sicily, and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from these islands from 3 to 52. We obtained data from the oldest skeleton excavated from the Balearic islands (dating to ~2400 BCE), and show that this individual had substantial Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry; however, later Balearic individuals had less Steppe heritage reflecting geographic heterogeneity or immigration from groups with more European first farmer-related ancestry. In Sicily, Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BCE and likely came at least in part from Spain as it was associated with Iberian-specific Y chromosomes. In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry also arrived by the Middle Bronze Age, thus revealing that this ancestry type, which was ubiquitous in the Aegean by this time, also spread further west prior to the classical period of Greek expansion. In Sardinia, we find no evidence of either eastern ancestry type in the Nuragic Bronze Age, but show that Iranian-related ancestry arrived by at least ~300 BCE and Steppe ancestry arrived by ~300 CE, joined at that time or later by North African ancestry. These results falsify the view that the people of Sardinia are isolated descendants of Europe's first farmers. Instead, our results show that the island's admixture history since the Bronze Age is as complex as that in many other parts of Europe.

Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry reached Central Europe by at least 2500 BC, whereas Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BC. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean, where they have contributed to many populations that live today, remains poorly understood. Here, we generated genome-wide ancient-DNA data from the Balearic Islands, Sicily and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from 5 to 66. The oldest individual from the Balearic Islands (~2400 BC) carried ancestry from steppe pastoralists that probably derived from west-to-east migration from Iberia, although two later Balearic individuals had less ancestry from steppe pastoralists. 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.

Anyone know how to get access to the whole paper? The Reich Lab usually provides it. Has anyone checked?

 
Thanks, Jovialis.

The abstracts have changed.

Original:
A series of studies have documented how Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry reached central Europe by at least 2500 BCE, while Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BCE. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean where they have contributed to many populations living today remains poorly understood. We generated genome-wide ancient DNA from the Balearic Islands, Sicily, and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from these islands from 3 to 52. We obtained data from the oldest skeleton excavated from the Balearic islands (dating to ~2400 BCE), and show that this individual had substantial Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry; however, later Balearic individuals had less Steppe heritage reflecting geographic heterogeneity or immigration from groups with more European first farmer-related ancestry. In Sicily, Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BCE and likely came at least in part from Spain as it was associated with Iberian-specific Y chromosomes. In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry also arrived by the Middle Bronze Age, thus revealing that this ancestry type, which was ubiquitous in the Aegean by this time, also spread further west prior to the classical period of Greek expansion. In Sardinia, we find no evidence of either eastern ancestry type in the Nuragic Bronze Age, but show that Iranian-related ancestry arrived by at least ~300 BCE and Steppe ancestry arrived by ~300 CE, joined at that time or later by North African ancestry. These results falsify the view that the people of Sardinia are isolated descendants of Europe's first farmers. Instead, our results show that the island's admixture history since the Bronze Age is as complex as that in many other parts of Europe.

Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry reached Central Europe by at least 2500 BC, whereas Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BC. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean, where they have contributed to many populations that live today, remains poorly understood. Here, we generated genome-wide ancient-DNA data from the Balearic Islands, Sicily and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from 5 to 66. The oldest individual from the Balearic Islands (~2400 BC) carried ancestry from steppe pastoralists that probably derived from west-to-east migration from Iberia, although two later Balearic individuals had less ancestry from steppe pastoralists. 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.

Anyone know how to get access to the whole paper? The Reich Lab usually provides it. Has anyone checked?


Being someone who has always read on the history of the peoples of Sicily, the statement Steppe Pastoralist ancestry arrived around 2200 BCE and likely came from Spain as it was associated with Iberian Y Chromosomes. Some of the Greek Historians posited the hypothesis that the Sicani, who occupied the center territory of Sicily, were in fact from Iberia. So while not conclusive proof, IMHO, the evidence that is presented in this paper suggest that the Greek Historians from Antiquity may be correct on this specific case regarding the Origins of the Sicani. My time in Segesta last summer and reading the official books, (I purchased one) published by the Segesta Archaeological Park is that the Elymi were a Ligurian population. The Siculi being part of the Oenotrian Italic peoples from the Southern Mainland.

Edit to post above (which I put in another thread related to this, so consolidating it here with above post). The abstract also indicates Iranian Neolithic ancestry into Sicily, from which I assume it got to Southern Italy, or it concurrently got into Sicily and Southern Italian mainland. These results seem to corroborate Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2 results.
 
Last edited:
Well, I just spent two plus hours plowing through every word of the Supplement, two hours I'll never get back, and I regret it.

In my opinion it's a complete jumble. Every group has one or more "outliers" and model after model fails. They show you how they just were at one point flipping populations from left to right and back to try to get something to make sense.

They also are still insisting they have to use Morocco Late Neolithic to model certain populations, including modern Sardinians and Sicilians. Morocco Late Neolithic cannot be the source population. It's too far removed in time. Using it also may distort the percentages for Anatolian or European farmer in both populations.

For what it's worth, this is Moroccan Late Neolithic.

KEB samples belong to haplogroups K1, T2, and X2, which are prominently found in Anatolian and European Neolithic samples (2, 21) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 4). Regarding the paternal lineages, IAM individuals carry Y chromosomes distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup, while the Y chromosome from KEB belongs to the T-M184 haplogroup; although scarce and broadly distributed today, this haplogroup has also been observed in European Neolithic individuals (16) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 5). Both mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages (K1, J2, and T2 haplogroups and G-M201 haplogroup, respectively) for samples from TOR (Iberian Early Neolithic) are similar to those observed in Europe during Neolithic times (21).

As suspected from the mtDNA and Y chromosome data, KEB samples do not cluster with IAM and are placed in an intermediate position between IAM and TOR. We further explored the genetic structure of these samples using the program ADMIXTURE (22) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 7). At K = 5, TOR is composed of the component associated with the European Early Neolithic and 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. This could be in agreement with the analysis of present-day genome-wide data from Morocco, which estimated a migration of western African origin into Morocco only ∼1,200 y ago (11).
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6774
 
Angela:

A couple of questions 1) is it just a poorly written paper in terms of clarity? or 2) Methodology and execution not well laid out? 3) or is it what you are suggesting in post 72 poor use of samples to model populations. More specifically If I may ask, respectively, since I am of Sicilian ancestry "Tutti" what should I take from the results, at least considering the Iberian input they suggest into Sicily and the Iranian Neolithic input. I have not read the paper yet and while I may not plow through the Supplemental materials, I do still plan to read the main text of the article.
 
Jovialis: I don't want to misrepresent your statements in Post 55 but from my reading of Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2, there is Caucus-Hunter Gather (CHG) and Iran Neolithic (IN) is present in SItaly1, SItaly2, SItaly3 and Sicily1 and Sicily2, as well as AN, WHG and some small EHG, Sicily having some NA (Pink) which has been estimated at 4-5% (and appears to be that in the Raveane paper). So what different migrations could have resulted in Southern Italy and Sicily all having AN, WHG, CHG, IN, along with some EHG but taking different routes? etc.
 
I gone through the suplemental table chl sardinia
Outlier i15940 have some north african ancestery
His ydna e1b1b1a-m78 and his mtdna m1
So this evidence to case of north african ancestery which is damn old in sardinia.....:unsure:
Another individual I12221 from early mediveal sardinia 890-992 Ad is e1b1b1b2-z830/m123 nice:)

P.S
They add those e1b1b samples in there latest publication by nature :unsure: not in the link john posted in the first page in this thread....
 
Last edited:
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



Here is a figure from the Novembre et al 2020 paper on Sardinia.

ZKBUQzL.png


Morrocco_LN is very different from Morrocco_EN and Iberomaurusian. It only has a small fraction of Iberomaurusian-like admixture.
 
I gone through the suplemental table chl sardinia
Outlier i15940 have some north african ancestery
His ydna e1b1b1a-m78 and his mtdna m1
So this evidence to case of north african ancestery which is damn old in sardinia.....:unsure:
Another individual I12221 from early mediveal sardinia 890-992 Ad is e1b1b1b2-z830/m123 nice:)

P.S
They add those e1b1b samples in there latest publication by nature :unsure: not in the link john posted in the first page in this thread....

Here is what they have to say about the North African in Chalcolithic Italy and Spain if you didn't see it.

x3mOFDX.png


They go on to say that in both cases these incursions are not responsible for most of the North African signal they find.

What's particularly interesting is that they couldn't use the Morocco Late Neolithic signal to model them, but had to use Morocco Early Neolithic, which is quite different autosomally.
 
Here is a figure from the Novembre et al 2020 paper on Sardinia.

ZKBUQzL.png


Morrocco_LN is very different from Morrocco_EN and Iberomaurusian. It only has a small fraction of Iberomaurusian-like admixture.

Yes, and very different from today's North Africans. I'm aware that most analyses say the Sub-Saharan component only entered North Africa within the last 1200 years, so around 800 AD. However, the change is much bigger than that. Was there that much migration from the Levant and Arabia into North Africa after the establishment of Islam?

In other words, were the North Africans/Moors at the time they entered Iberia and Sicily still like Morocco Late Neolithic, or was that population long gone? If they were long gone, then using them as a source just muddles up the analysis and distorts the historical narrative.

Certainly, the percentage of Iberomaurusian in Sicilians is very small.
 
Here is what they have to say about the North African in Chalcolithic Italy and Spain if you didn't see it.

x3mOFDX.png


They go on to say that in both cases these incursions are not responsible for most of the North African signal they find.

What's particularly interesting is that they couldn't use the Morocco Late Neolithic signal to model them, but had to use Morocco Early Neolithic, which is quite different autosomally.


yes i saw fascinating paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0
the chl sardinian outlier i15940 they used morocco neolithic and not the late morocco individual as you mention correctly (y)
i didn't notice that they say that this north african admixture is different from what found today in modern sardinians
thank for open my eyes here :)

p.s
in the supplemental of this paper show the mtdna+y dna they found in those med islands :)
i attach table 4 from supplemental:
https://i.imgur.com/Te9toiA.png
 

This thread has been viewed 103801 times.

Back
Top