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

[kingjohn]

The closest modern thing to early european farmer
Face
cute lady :


https://www.bigstockphoto.com/image...ring-a-traditional-sardinian-costume-sardinia

 

[Angela]

The closest modern thing to early european farmer
Face
cute lady ������:
https://www.bigstockphoto.com/image...ring-a-traditional-sardinian-costume-sardinia

I'm not so sure. Cagliari, as the capitol, has quite a bit of admixture.

I think you'd have to go to Ogliastra, and even then, some papers posit some admixture there. Plus, they don't plot close to EEF; they plot close to MN farmers, because of the elevated, in some cases 20%, WHG.

They have a sort of "infantile" look to me, maybe like the Danubians?

Women from near Oristano, where there was a large Phoenician settlement:

Both gorgeous, I think.

From Iglesias, also in the Southwest

Now the northern Corsican speaking areas:

 

[bigsnake49]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Those are some gorgeous women! Thanks Angela!

 

[kingjohn]

Wow angela they are stunning
You are correct the more isolated areas
Should be better represent

 

[Angela]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Those are some gorgeous women! Thanks Angela!

Sardinian women are reknowned in Italy for their beauty, but I'm sure even in Sardinia not every woman is beautiful. I think there's probably a tendency to only take pictures of attractive people.

Famous Sardinian showgirls and actresses:

Melissa Satta-She has a more Italian look to me. I don't like her. You can barely find a picture of her with clothes on.

This one was with George Clooney for years: Elisabetta Canalis. I always thought she looked a bit like Cindy Crawford.

My personal favorite: Caterina Murino. Perhaps a more Greek Islander like look? She was in one of the Bond movies.

The admixture certainly didn't hurt them, imo.

Pier Angeli and Marisa Pavan, sisters, were born and raised in Sardinia but the family came from the Marche, so center/north. It's a different look.

I love them both, but especially Marisa, because she looks like my mother, and especially in her later years; so elegant and refined, with that bone structure still beautiful.

 

[Riverman]

I think you'd have to go to Ogliastra, and even then, some papers posit some admixture there. Plus, they don't plot close to EEF; they plot close to MN farmers, because of the elevated, in some cases 20%, WHG.

They have a sort of "infantile" look to me, maybe like the Danubians?

The Sardinians had a long term selection for smaller bodies and lower body height. The EEF were genetically somewhat taller on average, so its not just the admixture, but in situ evolution as well which altered Sardinians somewhat. But Sardinians were used as examples for classic (gracile) Mediterranean in anthropological works nevertheless and this being now proven to be correct, as they are closest to the source (= ANF) genetically.

 

[ratchet_fan]

As far as I'm aware Europeans don't score excess ENA and AASI that Iranian related ancestry has.

Also the people in post 122 are gorgeous.

 

[Ygorcs]

You know, I hate to keep posting this graphic, but...

Here we can see that you can model south Italians with having more than just 2% WHG. Infact, SItaly3 has is shown to have more than other Italian populations, albeit, much less steppe or EHG.

I confess that in all honesty I don't give this model much credit, maybe partly because I just don't know what NAfrica1 and AN really consists like, and it also lacks any Levant-related admixture, so results may be more or less skewed.

That a priori suspicion is only strengthened when I look more closely at the graph: so are most Northwestern European and Eastern European populations, as well as NItaly1 (NItaly4 has just the tiniest bit of it, too), COMPLETELY lacking any CHG whatsoever? Was steppe ancestry in those areas composed not just mostly, but entirely of "pure" EHG? That'd have profound implications for most genetic studies if it is really accurate.

Also is it really likely that Sitaly1 COMPLETELY lacks any even negligible amount of EHG, so presumably zero steppe ancestry even in the modern era, after so much admixture? Moreover, Sicily2 has extremely minor EHG, so presumably very little steppe ancestry, too. Again, I think that sounds strange.

Amidst all those suspect results, I honestly think the entire model doesn't come off to me as the most credible one, and the higher WHG (virtually as much WHG as in Sardinia in SItaly1 and Sicily2, EXACTLY the ones with little or no EHG and thus presumably steppe admixture) may just be an artifact of an imprecise model. It conflicts with other genetic studies' conclusions in too many ways.

 

[Ygorcs]

The 0 WHG is a little off, but the Steppe could be picking some of that up with EHG?

Looks plausible. I agree.

Oh, only now did I notice you said 0 WHG. No, the models don't give 0 WHG. The average is actually 1.8%. I included WHG + Grotta Continenza_Meso as WHG proxies, but only the latter yielded higher than zero.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Yes, maybe that's happening, but do you really think most South Italians and especially Sicilians have that much higher WHG than ~2%? I've seen models that authors claimed were good enough and virtually or even totally lacked WHG (Fernandes et al.'s model, too, and they did included WHG in the model, but 0% was found, so the samples probably don't have any more WHG than Morocco_LN already had, that is, very little).

Not sure, Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2, puts it a little higher than 2% I think in one of the Sicily samples, I think Sicily2, but it doesn't have it higher than 5% I think. As for the Morroco_LN, I still think that was not a good choice for the model if it is as you say 30% Berber vs 70% combined Barcin+Plus Levant, still would be East shifted, but this is just my distances for modern Levant populations and modern North Africans. The closer distances to Levant is consistent with the overall history of Sicily and Southern Italy, Pheonicians from Lebanon in Sicily, Imperial Rome immigrants from the Levant (Syrian, Lebanese, Jewish groups) and Jewish populations having presence in Sicily to Rome for a long time as well, than relative to Imperial and Antiquity Rome, a more recent event with the Abbasids having total control over Sicily from 965 to circa 1060 when Normans invaded. This is just 2 Dodecad calculators, but they have always in my view been the most accurate for me, along with MDLP16 which always is consistent with the Dodecad. So again, I think if Morroco_LN was not modeled correctly in Fernandes et al 2020 in terms of how it was presented, then it being as I said 30% Ancient Berber or ANA, etc, will not work either. I mean I am a long way from Modern North Africans, Gulf Arabs and Bedouins, compared to those 2 populations, Levantines are relatively closer, but still a ways off. Like I said, 3% is a conservative estimate for me in terms of Levant admixture, a liberal measure per NAT_GENO is 8%. But for me if all 8% of NAT GENO's Asia minor is Levant, then that would exclude any CHG/IRAN_NEO that your G25 shows is showing up in Sicily and Southern Italy.

Dodecad 12B

Distance to: PalermoTrapani
26.10905016 Lebanese
28.19606356 Syrians
29.27436592 Jordanians
33.01994549 Assyrian
34.16200228 Egyptans
40.26631719 Yemenese
41.43235330 Algerian
50.62842482 Moroccan
52.89788086 Moroccans
64.09156107 Saudis
105.94043845 Mozabite

Dodecad K7

Distance to: PalermoTrapani
29.83052464 Lebanese
32.02290118 Syrians
32.79348868 Algerian
33.21865440 Jordanians
33.49544596 Palestinian
35.43561626 Moroccan
37.43704449 Bedouin
38.14336246 Egyptans
41.02020112 Iranian
41.65384616 Iranians
42.01605526 Moroccans
42.60630118 Mozabite
47.05017960 Saudis

MDLP_16


Distance to: PalermoTrapani
18.89489349 Lebanese_Christian
19.72824878 Lebanese_Muslim
21.74456714 Lebanese_Druze
22.54472887 Jordanians
23.62102242 Jordanian
23.84182879 Syrian
25.33938634 Lebanese_Armenian
28.09622039 Egyptian_Comas
28.66693217 Egyptian
29.08761936 BedouinA
30.46836556 Egyptian_Metspalu
33.97012511 Libyan
34.22714274 Yemen
35.37747871 Saudi-Arabians
36.89399274 Yemeni
38.16703551 Saudi
41.35443991 Moroccan
45.03089606 Algerian
81.38181984 Mozabite
81.89870084 BedouinB

 

[Ygorcs]

I wouldn't take such a debate as "personal", and let's remember that the first model proposed by Ygorcs had as an average for south Italians something like 9-10% Levant_N, which is quite too high, I daresay. The new model, with an average of 3.5, seems plausible.

It's still the same thing, though. It's just that the Levant_N is now subsumed into Anatolia_N, because in the second model it includes all the somewhat Levant-shifted Neolithic Anatolian individuals. Two different ways to show the very same thing, nothing else. Now, what really needs to be investigated is when, where and if EEF became more Tepecik-Ciftlik (that is, with extra Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N) instead of overwhelmingly Barcin_N as most of the early samples are. :wary2:

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Oh, only now did I notice you said 0 WHG. No, the models don't give 0 WHG. The average is actually 1.8%. I included WHG + Grotta Continenza_Meso as WHG proxies, but only the latter yielded higher than zero.

Sorry, I got fixated on a few of the Sicilian Models. I see the coefficient is 1.8% for the all the runs., Ok, my bad

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Jovialis: Ok, sorry I missed your post. I will move all my further posts to that thread.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

It's still the same thing, though. It's just that the Levant_N is now subsumed into Anatolia_N, because in the second model it includes all the somewhat Levant-shifted Neolithic Anatolian individuals. Two different ways to show the very same thing, nothing else. Now, what really needs to be investigated is when, where and if EEF became more Tepecik-Ciftlik (that is, with extra Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N) instead of overwhelmingly Barcin_N as most of the early samples are. :wary2:

Honestly, I think that the Kilinc 2016 and paper as recent as this one, https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092...ItvxtjMuLGWfxiStk27qI--flIkfbpvAZNATQR4-uDoSM, and I'd put Lazaridis 2017 too, found that such a gene flow from Anatolia hit south east Europe between the calcolithic and the bronze age.
[h=1][/h]

 

[Ygorcs]

Not sure, Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2, puts it a little higher than 2% I think in one of the Sicily samples, I think Sicily2, but it doesn't have it higher than 5% I think.

See my objections to that figure as I wrote about them just now to Jovialis:

I confess that in all honesty I don't give this model much credit, maybe partly because I just don't know what NAfrica1 and AN really consists like, and it also lacks any Levant-related admixture, so results may be more or less skewed.

That a priori suspicion is only strengthened when I look more closely at the graph: so are most Northwestern European and Eastern European populations, as well as NItaly1 (NItaly4 has just the tiniest bit of it, too), COMPLETELY lacking any CHG whatsoever? Was steppe ancestry in those areas composed not just mostly, but entirely of "pure" EHG? That'd have profound implications for most genetic studies if it is really accurate.

Also is it really likely that Sitaly1 COMPLETELY lacks any even negligible amount of EHG, so presumably zero steppe ancestry even in the modern era, after so much admixture? Moreover, Sicily2 has extremely minor EHG, so presumably very little steppe ancestry, too. Again, I think that sounds strange.

Amidst all those suspect results, I honestly think the entire model doesn't come off to me as the most credible one, and the higher WHG (virtually as much WHG as in Sardinia in SItaly1 and Sicily2, EXACTLY the ones with little or no EHG and thus presumably steppe admixture) may just be an artifact of an imprecise model. It conflicts with other genetic studies' conclusions in too many ways.

But of course there is another issue: I'm making models with 6 Sicilian samples, just 30 or so South Italian samples. No one can say they are 100% representative of the average population in those areas. They must be pretty close, but minor discrepancies are totally expected.

As for the Morroco_LN, I still think that was not a good choice for the model if it is as you say 30% Berber vs 70% combined Barcin+Plus Levant, still would be East shifted, but this is just my distances for modern Levant populations and modern North Africans. The closer distances to Levant is consistent with the overall history of Sicily and Southern Italy, Pheonicians from Lebanon in Sicily, Imperial Rome immigrants from the Levant (Syrian, Lebanese, Jewish groups) and Jewish populations having presence in Sicily to Rome for a long time as well, than relative to Imperial and Antiquity Rome, a more recent event with the Abbasids having total control over Sicily from 965 to circa 1060 when Normans invaded. This is just 2 Dodecad calculators, but they have always in my view been the most accurate for me, along with MDLP16 which always is consistent with the Dodecad. So again, I think if Morroco_LN was not modeled correctly in Fernandes et al 2020 in terms of how it was presented, then it being as I said 30% Ancient Berber or ANA, etc, will not work either. I mean I am a long way from Modern North Africans, Gulf Arabs and Bedouins, compared to those 2 populations, Levantines are relatively closer, but still a ways off. Like I said, 3% is a conservative estimate for me in terms of Levant admixture, a liberal measure per NAT_GENO is 8%. But for me if all 8% of NAT GENO's Asia minor is Levant, then that would exclude any CHG/IRAN_NEO that your G25 shows is showing up in Sicily and Southern Italy.

Agreed. NAT GENO's Asia Minor is based on modern samples? If it's that then it must have the typical very mixed genetic makeup of that region now, with Anatolian, CHG, Iran and Levant all in relevant proportions. As a whole, I think your results align well with my own estimates using the few samples I have (of course there must also be some internal genetic structure within Sicily itself). Now, of course I keep stressing that it all ultimately depends on terminology. If you use Barcin_N as your "perfect" example of ANF, because it was the least mixed of all together with Boncuklu, then you'll get higher Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N, because it must be added to make a not quite Barcin-like Anatolia_Neolithic. On the other hand, if you choose to define ANF as "everyone who lived in Anatolia in the Neolithic, period", then automatically Levant_N and CHG/Iran_N will diminish in your model. It's more complicated than it seems at first.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Also "Greece_N" had already a bit more Levant_N than other Anatolian samples, and you yourself said that when using all the Anatolian neolithic samples all the extra Levant_N is already accounted for. Even if the other EEF were more barcin-like, paper like Kilinc shows that in Italy, at least in the calcolithic, the population got more tepecik-like.

 

[Ygorcs]

Also "Greece_N" had already a bit more Levant_N than other Anatolian samples, and you yourself said that when using all the Anatolian neolithic samples all the extra Levant_N is already accounted for. Even if the other EEF were more barcin-like, paper like Kilinc shows that in Italy, at least in the calcolithic, the population got more tepecik-like.

Exactly, I think those previous studies point to a relevant part of that history, but the BA samples that have been analyzed until (though only from Sicily, nobody can say Sicily and South Italy were already very similar genetically) in Fernandes et al. 2020 do not indicate that change toward Tepecik-like ANF instad of Barcin-like (as in almost all the rest of Neolithic Europe). Maybe South Italy was different and started the transition before Sicily. Another possibility: we just happened to take samples from the least "eastern"-shifted part of BA Sicily. Some of that additional Levant_N (as well as the Morocco_EN and certainly at least a bit of the CHG/Iran_N) must've come with Phoenicians/Punics, some other bit with Eastern Roman migrants during the Roman Empire, some other bit with Jews, some other bit with Arabs/Arabized people... but much of it must've come from Southeastern Europe beginning in the Copper Age and going down to the Iron Age. I think was cumulative in several small migration events, not one major wave and nothing else afterwards.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

YGORCS: NAT GENO closed their research project on 30 June, I do know Tuscany_Central Italians was the reference population for Italy, which is my first one as well


National Geographic-GENO DNA Ancestral Reference Population Definitions that are part of my NAT GENO Dna estimate, My first modern reference population is Tuscany and my 2nd modern Reference Reference population is Greek. This is entirely consistent with every PCA plot of modern Sicilians, we plot with Southern Italians and Greeks depending on the paper seem to plot next to Sicily_South Italy to Central Italy. At least that is what I have always seen, so NAT GENO I think hit me pretty good. My True Ancestry for example gives my top ancient Distance as Ancient Greeks + Ancient Romans, a distance of 3, etc.

 

[Ygorcs]

YGORCS: NAT GENO closed their research project on 30 June, I do know Tuscany_Central Italians was the reference population for Italy, which is my first one as well


National Geographic-GENO DNA Ancestral Reference Population Definitions that are part of my NAT GENO Dna estimate, My first modern reference population is Tuscany and my 2nd modern Reference Reference population is Greek. This is entirely consistent with every PCA plot of modern Sicilians, we plot with Southern Italians and Greeks depending on the paper seem to plot next to Sicily_South Italy to Central Italy. At least that is what I have always seen, so NAT GENO I think hit me pretty good. My True Ancestry for example gives my top ancient Distance as Ancient Greeks + Ancient Romans, a distance of 3, etc.

Thank you! Looks pretty credible to me, though it may be confusing to a lot of people who will have a tendency to read it literally. The "Asia Minor" component looks very mixed, so it must represent many different ancestral components. They claim it is found in highest proportion in Turks from Iraq (interesting), Syrians and the Caucasus (Syrians and Caucasians? Wow, they're quite different, so this component must be very broad, indeed). A small bit of Levant and North African will also be found in Iberia, Italy and Greece (especially Greek islands), so that must be embedded in the West Mediterranean and Italy & Southern Europe clusters, too. In sum, I think it aligns well with the aDNA-based models.

I still think it'd be reeeeally great if you got your G25 coordinates. I'd love to play with them. lol

 

[Palermo Trapani]

YGORCS: Thanks, I think it does as well, those results as I stated are in line with what MTA gives me and pretty much every calculator I run distances one, Italian regions show up the close but Greeks are always in my top 25.

I was playing around with some calculators, don't remember, and I am trying to reconstruct what I did, but when I include Barcin8 and 31, I think I needed some other Eastern source ancestry, Levant or Armenian, etc. When I used Tep, it wasn't required so you might actually be on to something. I need to see if I can reconstruct what I did. BTW, you do a hell of job with your models, very impressive. When you cited Popper I gather you are working on a Masters thesis or maybe PHD, or maybe already have 1 or both. Not that I am tooting my own horn but I have a good grasp of research methodology, but I am more used to working with Regression, Logistic models, straight binary, conditional, fixed-effects, etc. So no BS coming from me you do know your stuff, which means as a MOD you have a great role here to make sure your ducks are in a row so to speak. Cheers