Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

[Regio X]

If I add Taforalt from Morocco, it gets a bit better for Iberians (lower distance). Not that much for Basques though.

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/hig...ire_adjunct_files/0/aaw3492_Data_file_S1.xlsx

 

[Regio X]

@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

North Italians

 

[Angela]

@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

North Italians

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]

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

N. Italians

 

[ihype02]

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]

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

N. Italians

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]

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%?

I find 50% more than enough for Sicilians in terms of ancient Greek impact overall, Calabria might have more.

 

[Angela]

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%?

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]

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]

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

The main Messapic cities included:

• Alytia (Alezio)
• Brundisium/Brentesion (Brindisi)
• Cavallino
• Hodrum/Idruntum (Otranto)
• Hyria/Orria (Oria)
• Kaìlia (Ceglie Messapica)
• Manduria
• Mesania (Mesagne)
• Neriton (Nardò)
• Rudiae (outside Lecce)
• Mios/Myron (Muro Leccese)
• Thuria Sallentina (Roca Vecchia)
• Uzentum (Ugento)

 

[Angela]

The only way we'll know for sure is when we have ancient dna.

 

[Salento]

... 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]

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...nline-files/1-s2.0-S1040618220300264-main.pdf


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

 

[Ygorcs]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Shahmiri]

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.

 

[Angela]

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.

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]

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]

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.