Ancient genomes reveal structural shifts after the arrival of Steppe-related ancestry

[Angela]

But these Daunians already had substantial CHG and Iran N. So not sure all of it can be speculated on the ancient Greek colonies.

Archetype, I was trying to make that precise point, although I guess I wasn't clear enough. That's why I said " don't know how any conclusion can be reached until we have samples from the people inhabiting the southern mainland before the arrival of even the Greeks or the "Daunians"

So, I completely agree.

In fact, I've pointed out numerous times over the last ten years that Otzi carried CHG/IR Neo/West Asian. I've speculated that it "might" have arrived in sufficient quantity to the Balkans and Italy in the Bronze Age to change the autosomal make up to some degree. Of course, subsequent events may have increased the percentage.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Archetype, I was trying to make that precise point, although I guess I wasn't clear enough. That's why I said " don't know how any conclusion can be reached until we have samples from the people inhabiting the southern mainland before the arrival of even the Greeks or the "Daunians"

So, I completely agree.

In fact, I've pointed out numerous times over the last ten years that Otzi carried CHG/IR Neo/West Asian. I've speculated that it "might" have arrived in sufficient quantity to the Balkans and Italy in the Bronze Age to change the autosomal make up to some degree. Of course, subsequent events may have increased the percentage.

We'll just have to wait and see.

I clearly did not catch your drift, mb. Wow did not know Otzi carried such ancestry. Thats quite neat.

 

[Riverman]

I clearly did not catch your drift, mb. Wow did not know Otzi carried such ancestry. Thats quite neat.

But only a small portion and it would have been drastically reduced afterwards, by incoming people which were more steppe-rich. Basically the same can be said for Southern Italia before the Greek colonisation, Hellenistic and Imperial times.
There are also Italian finds (from other regions) which point to a high level of survival of the EEF component in areas not as much affected by migrations from the steppe and Pannonia. So I wonder which kind of culture and massive migration some have in mind which should have brought that much of Iranian-related ancestry before the Iron Age?
On the other hand I have to agree: I can't say it for sure, and nobody who hasn't look in the actual local samples in the crucial time can say how much of an impact earlier (pre-IA) CHG/Iranian related ancestry had.
Agreed on that.

 

[Jovialis]

But only a small portion and it would have been drastically reduced afterwards, by incoming people which were more steppe-rich. Basically the same can be said for Southern Italia before the Greek colonisation, Hellenistic and Imperial times.
There are also Italian finds (from other regions) which point to a high level of survival of the EEF component in areas not as much affected by migrations from the steppe and Pannonia. So I wonder which kind of culture and massive migration some have in mind which should have brought that much of Iranian-related ancestry before the Iron Age?
On the other hand I have to agree: I can't say it for sure, and nobody who hasn't look in the actual local samples in the crucial time can say how much of an impact earlier (pre-IA) CHG/Iranian related ancestry had.
Agreed on that.

Otzi was found in the Alps almost outside the border of Italy, yet he still had some CHG. Central Neolithic Italy had relatively even higher amounts of CHG, as well as the earliest J2 in Europe thus far. We are talking about south Italy, Which is even further away, in the direction where CHG would likely have increased as it is today. Puglia has always been one of two ports of entry for the farmers. I don't know if it was a massive migration, or a slow trickle with later farmers with increasing amounts of CHG over time. One way or another, I think once a comprehensive study is done on this question, we will know for sure.

 

[Riverman]

Otzi was found in the Alps almost outside the border of Italy, yet he still had some CHG.

He was from a Chalcolithic context (copper processing cultures), obviously, so already having received a fair share from the immigrants of the East.

Central Neolithic Italy had relatively even higher amounts of CHG, as well as the earliest J2 in Europe thus far.

I would bet that if you would do a more complete sampling of Pannonia and Northern Italia at that time, after the spread of Copper metallurgy, you would get J2 there too.

We are talking about south Italy, Which is even further away, in the direction where CHG would likely have increased as it is today. Puglia has always been one of two ports of entry for the farmers. I don't know if it was a massive migration, or a slow trickle with later farmers with increasing amounts of CHG over time. One way or another, I think once a comprehensive study is done on this question, we will know for sure.

Yes I hope for actual studies to come out, but don't put too much hope into those, because they will most likely show a significant migration affecting most of the pre-steppe Mediterranean, but not even coming close with their increase of the CHG-Iranian related component. That's my bet, I might be wrong of course.

 

[Jovialis]

He was from a Chalcolithic context (copper processing cultures), obviously, so already having received a fair share from the immigrants of the East.



I would bet that if you would do a more complete sampling of Pannonia and Northern Italia at that time, after the spread of Copper metallurgy, you would get J2 there too.



Yes I hope for actual studies to come out, but don't put too much hope into those, because they will most likely show a significant migration affecting most of the pre-steppe Mediterranean, but not even coming close with their increase of the CHG-Iranian related component. That's my bet, I might be wrong of course.

What makes you so sure of this bet?

 

[Jovialis]

Also, I don't know what you are talking about, drastically reduced? Take a look at the modeling for Antonio et al 2019. The Iron age Latins and Etruscans are not overwhelmingly steppe. The CHG/IN components are just about as much as steppe, and Anatolian_N is the majority. The reason they're pulled a bit north was due to a copper age WHG revival. Steppe has always been a minority component in Italy.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Otzi was found in the Alps almost outside the border of Italy, yet he still had some CHG. Central Neolithic Italy had relatively even higher amounts of CHG, as well as the earliest J2 in Europe thus far. We are talking about south Italy, Which is even further away, in the direction where CHG would likely have increased as it is today. Puglia has always been one of two ports of entry for the farmers. I don't know if it was a massive migration, or a slow trickle with later farmers with increasing amounts of CHG over time. One way or another, I think once a comprehensive study is done on this question, we will know for sure.

Catal Hoyuk didn't have cattle nor ceramics prior to 8,6 ka, when they started to expand into the Barcin area.
But cattle and ceramics had spread 9-8,8 ka into western Anatolia and across the Aegean (Crete & Grecce). Their origin is supposed to be the Eastern Taurus Mountains, so they were likely CHG.
They may have spread further into Italy prior to the arrival of the Central Anatolian farmers.

 

[Riverman]

Also, I don't know what you are talking about, drastically reduced?

I just meant that these people carrying higher CHG-Iranian ancestry before the Iron Age got replaced and their share of the total populaton reduced by newly incoming people, Urnfield/Italics, Illyrians, Greeks and so on. So whatever their original contribution was, it was highest in pre-LBA time and got reduced afterwards.

 

[Angela]

I just meant that these people carrying higher CHG-Iranian ancestry before the Iron Age got replaced and their share of the total populaton reduced by newly incoming people, Urnfield/Italics, Illyrians, Greeks and so on. So whatever their original contribution was, it was highest in pre-LBA time and got reduced afterwards.

How can you say that with such certainty? I don't know what happened and neither does anyone else, but if I were going to bet, I'd say that by the time the Italics got to far southern Italy hey were probably greatly reduced in number and highly admixed. Don't forget, it took a long time for them to reach there.

Italy was heavily populated by the time the steppe people arrived. They just didn't have the same impact in Italy that they had in northern Europe. Take a look at the results of all the Parma Beakers and Sicily Beakers.

Of course, I'm speculating too, but I think with more details from Italian pre-history, and at least I own it, as they say.

As for Otzi, I don't get your point. He was, indeed, a Chalcolithic person, that is, BEFORE the Bronze Age, and yet he already had, in the old parlance, "West Asian" ancestry, which hadn't yet made it to Spain. So, as I've said over and over again, that ancestry was entering from the east in a pincer movement alongside the steppe ancestry coming in across Northern Europe. Why you would assume that Steppe people would wipe it out in Italy and the Balkans the way they might have done in Central and Northern Europe, I have no idea. Goodness, northeastern and parts of Northern Europe were almost uninhabited and uninhabitable. Hunter Gatherers need a lot of land to survive. They had to keep their numbers low, no doubt through infanticide among other things. Even for the farmers it was extremely difficult; not until the invention of different kinds of plows in the Middle Age could the deep, compact soil of a lot of that area be farmed. That wasn't true in the south. Goodness, we have Thracians in the Iron Age who still had no steppe.

 

[real expert]

How on EARTH can you say that with such certainty? I don't know what happened and neither does anyone else, but I will tell you one thing: if I were going to bet, I'd say that by the time the Italics got to far southern Italy I would say they were probably few in number and highly admixed.

Italy was heavily populated by the time the steppe people arrived. They just didn't have the same impact in Italy that they had in northern Europe. I mean look at the Parma Beakers or Sicily Beakers.

Of course, I'm speculating too, but I think with more knowledge of Italian pre-history, and at least I admit I'm speculating.

As for Otzi, I totally don't get your point. He was, indeed, a Chalcolithic person, that is, BEFORE the Bronze Age, and yet he already had, in the old parlance, "West Asian" ancestry, which hadn't made it to Spain. So, as I've said over and over again, that ancestry was entering from the east in a pincer movement alongside the steppe ancestry coming in across Northern Europe. Why you would assume that Steppe people would wipe it out in Italy and the Balkans the way they might have done in Central and Northern Europe, I have no idea. Goodness, northeastern and parts of Northern Europe were almost uninhabited and uninhabitable. Hunter Gatherers need a lot of land to survive. They had to keep their numbers low, no doubt through infanticide among other things. Even for the farmers it was extremely difficult; not until the invention of different kinds of plows in the Middle Age could the deep, compact soil of a lot of that area be farmed. That wasn't true in the south. Goodness, we have Thracians in the Iron Age who still had no steppe.

What you say makes lots of sense. North, and especially Northeast Europe is even today relatively sparsely populated.

 

[Angela]

My post number 149 is a prime example of what's going on with me with the site lately. I edited my original post extensively, as real expert's post shows, and yet it took forever to "register" so to speak.

I guess I better write out my posts on Word, first, or something, or my trial attorney side will always be front and center.

 

[Hawk]

My post number 149 is a prime example of what's going on with me with the site lately. I edited my original post extensively, as real expert's post shows, and yet it took forever to "register" so to speak.

I guess I better write out my posts on Word, first, or something, or my trial attorney side will always be front and center.

Would be good to upgrade the forum to Xenforo. :wink:

 

[Riverman]

Why you would assume that Steppe people would wipe it out in Italy and the Balkans the way they might have done in Central and Northern Europe, I have no idea.

My assumption is basically similar to yours and I'm not saying they did "wipe it out" or something like that at all. I said reduced, probably even drastically, not wiped out. But in any case they won't have increased it! That's that basic point and my assumption is its initial impact wasn't nearly as big as it would have to be to account for the later ancestral profile. Even when it entered the scene and even less so after the steppe-heavy migrations came down. That's why I'm assuming the increase can be largely attributed to later migration, just not fully so. We have so far:
- No samples proving a drastic increase of Iranian before the IA in Italia.
- No proof for the survival of these people, if they ever existed and had that impact, until historical and Imperial times.
We're all speculating, agreed. If it would be done and over, we would discuss the implications rather than the "if at all". Its just my personal impression from the available facts that it doesn't add up to the numbers of Antiquity and modern populations. I might be wrong, yes of course, but I think the chances for my position are minimum as good up to this point.

 

[Jovialis]

My assumption is basically similar to yours and I'm not saying they did "wipe it out" or something like that at all. I said reduced, probably even drastically, not wiped out. But in any case they won't have increased it! That's that basic point and my assumption is its initial impact wasn't nearly as big as it would have to be to account for the later ancestral profile. Even when it entered the scene and even less so after the steppe-heavy migrations came down. That's why I'm assuming the increase can be largely attributed to later migration, just not fully so. We have so far:
- No samples proving a drastic increase of Iranian before the IA in Italia.
- No proof for the survival of these people, if they ever existed and had that impact, until historical and Imperial times.
We're all speculating, agreed. If it would be done and over, we would discuss the implications rather than the "if at all". Its just my personal impression from the available facts that it doesn't add up to the numbers of Antiquity and modern populations. I might be wrong, yes of course, but I think the chances for my position are minimum as good up to this point.

What do you mean if they ever existed? Of course they existed, that's why CHG exists in minoans, Mycenaeans, as well as people we see in Iron Age Italy. Why would it not happen in south Italy, where the geography and migrations patterns are conducive to such a scenario. We simply have not explored this area in that time yet.

 

[Riverman]

What do you mean if they ever existed? Of course they existed, that's why CHG exists in minoans, Mycenaeans, as well as people we see in Iron Age Italy. Why would it not happen in south Italy, where the geography and migrations patterns are conducive to such a scenario. We simply have not explored this area in that time yet.

Sorry, bad wording. I meant if people with Iranian-CHG ancestry that high and having such a big impact on Italia ever existed. I mean that more Eastern shifted Mediterraneans existed and expanded in the Copper Age is for sure, yes.

 

[Jovialis]

Sorry, bad wording. I meant if people with Iranian-CHG ancestry that high and having such a big impact on Italia ever existed. I mean that more Eastern shifted Mediterraneans existed and expanded in the Copper Age is for sure, yes.

I guess until we have a comprehensive amount of samples from southern Italy in the Bronze Age, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Angela]

Would be good to upgrade the forum to Xenforo. :wink:

From your lips to God's ears as my Jewish friends say.

 

[Angela]

My assumption is basically similar to yours and I'm not saying they did "wipe it out" or something like that at all. I said reduced, probably even drastically, not wiped out. But in any case they won't have increased it! That's that basic point and my assumption is its initial impact wasn't nearly as big as it would have to be to account for the later ancestral profile. Even when it entered the scene and even less so after the steppe-heavy migrations came down. That's why I'm assuming the increase can be largely attributed to later migration, just not fully so. We have so far:
- No samples proving a drastic increase of Iranian before the IA in Italia.
- No proof for the survival of these people, if they ever existed and had that impact, until historical and Imperial times.
We're all speculating, agreed. If it would be done and over, we would discuss the implications rather than the "if at all". Its just my personal impression from the available facts that it doesn't add up to the numbers of Antiquity and modern populations. I might be wrong, yes of course, but I think the chances for my position are minimum as good up to this point.

For the record, never have I said or even implied that CHG/Iran Neo might not have increased with Greek migration, or with some migration in the Imperial Era.

I just think it's highly speculative to make the kind of pronouncements you've been making. You'd get thrown out of my court for that kind of reasoning. That's especially true in light of the fact that we don't have any ancient samples from the Southern Italian peoples before the Greeks and the Italics, nor any sign in Italy of the kind of ethnic cleansing which took place in central Europe and northwestern Europe with the arrival of the steppe admixed groups. The Latins of the Iron Age are proof of that.

 

[Riverman]

For the record, never have I said or even implied that CHG/Iran Neo might not have increased with Greek migration, or with some migration in the Imperial Era.

I just think it's highly speculative to make the kind of pronouncements you've been making. You'd get thrown out of my court for that kind of reasoning. That's especially true in light of the fact that we don't have any ancient samples from the Southern Italian peoples before the Greeks and the Italics, nor any sign in Italy of the kind of ethnic cleansing which took place in central Europe and northwestern Europe with the arrival of the steppe admixed groups. The Latins of the Iron Age are proof of that.

Probably the Etruscan study will help out, because the Daunian results were of great importance for me coming to that judgement. Because what I just don't believe is what some people always say (not necessarily you): "The other people were hiding." In most cases, the people sampled represent the people of the respective region and ethnicity. That was the main reason for my argument, that I don't think some local highly Iranian shifted Copper Age survivors were hiding en masse somewhere. They might be there, those locals with more Iranian shifted local ancestry, but they won't change the big picture all too much - I guess.