David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

I think what Jovialis was referring to, not that I am speaking for him, is Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer type ancestry being predominate in the Central Italian Neolithic Farmers. It does not mean Anatolian North I suspect. Furthermore, Thracian and Phygian are "Late Bronze Age" civilizations/peoples. The Thracians, based on Modi et al 2019 "Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians" document that the Thracians were genetically largely a 2-way admixture of Anatolian Early European Farmers and Steppe Herder source populations. From the paper

"In particular, within the ancient Eurasian genetic landscape, Thracians locate in an intermediate position between Early Neolithic farmers and Late Neolithic-Bronze Age steppe pastoralists, supporting the scenario that the Balkan region has been a link between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean since the prehistoric time. "


I am unaware of any Genetic study in the literature regarding the Phygians. My ex ante priors would be that it is very, very, very, likely, they would also harbor significant Anatolian Neolithic Early European Farmer type ancestry as well, along with other source ancestries from Southern Caucuses/Iran given their geography and some Steppe DNA given they spoke an early Indo-European language. But again, regarding the Phygians, my guesses are only speculation based on their geography as I am unaware of any DNA studies regarding them.

I'm out of juice, but thank you for your response.

And particularly for your patience. I never had much, and what I had I spent on my husband and children. I have none left for most other adults.
 
I'm out of juice, but thank you for your response.

And particularly for your patience. I never had much, and what I had I spent on my husband and children. I have none left for most other adults.

Thanks Angela.
 
Palermo, to the best of my recollection, the Mycenaean samples which Lazaridis analyzed did have steppe ancestry, ranging from 7% to some number in the teens. The problem was that a week before the paper came out Eurogenes went on record saying that the "ELITE" Mycenaeans would be just like Polish Corded Ware. When they clearly weren't, the fall back position was that they were commoners. In actuality, one of the samples was of an elite woman, and she also didn't have high percentages of steppe.

I've said for about ten years now that it was a mistake to expect the people in the Southern European countries to have the same kind of percentages of steppe as did those of northwestern, northern, central and eastern Europe. The farmers of Britain were almost wiped out, those in Central Europe had their numbers dwindle because of crop failures and the newly introduced plague. Much of northern Europe and eastern Europe were empty of settlers. The admixed steppe/farmer groups (almost 50% steppe), became the dominant group.

This was not the case in the south, which seems to always have been more densely populated. If the findings for Greece hold true elsewhere, it may have been that steppe men, in particular, filtered in, perhaps as mercenaries, perhaps as guards, etc. It's all speculation, but it does not seem to have been a folk migration taking the reins of power and subjugating the locals, as was the case, for example, with the Langobards.

At any rate, until we have the samples, it's difficult to be certain of anything.

I too, btw, can't wait to see what the Sumerians were like. From the clues in the article, they may have been high in Natufian, like Levant Neolithic.

Alas not.

Mercenaries don't change the languages/cultures of the native population. The population density thing is true, but it's because it happened in multiple waves and not one fell swoop.

From Y-DNA we can tell the EEF paternal lineages were almost completely wiped out, even in Southern Europe. The hope that J2B2/EV13 were farmer lineages has all but disappeared. Their TMRCA is in early Bronze Age just like other IE lineages, and they are entirely absent from EEF communities. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of samples so far from Neolithic Europe and even the "EV-13" in Spain turned out to be fake. So there is subjugation of the locals 100%. The only holdout that we know of were the Minoans, who eventually fell as well.

There is nothing new here however. You go to Central/South America and you see the same thing. In some places you have more European DNA, in some other more Native American DNA. But they all speak Spanish.
 
With regards to:



I am really holding my breath for some long rumored J2b from Eneolithic Moldova to be part of this study. If it turns out L283 and has connection to the later Maros/Croatia finds in regards to autosomal makeup/cultural affinity, I think it could fit this particular hypothesis.

Nothing to hold out for. J2B is clearly a CHG or southern steppe related Y-DNA. It's non-existent in Neolithic Europe.
 
" We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos."

It has some important points, we know about the lack of Iranian-related ancestry among the Etruscans who had a very high amount of steppe related ancestry, Etruscans had some relatives in Greece, like Lemnians.
 
" We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos."
It has some important points, we know about the lack of Iranian-related ancestry among the Etruscans who had a very high amount of steppe related ancestry, Etruscans had some relatives in Greece, like Lemnians.

Etruscans did not lack the Iranian-related ancestry, they are actually part of the Mediterranean continuum (minoans to Republican era Romans) who are distinguished by having Anatolian_N + CHG. The steppe component is a minority component, albeit an important one. But also, the Etruscans are not related to Lemnians, the Etruscans were shown to be autochthonous.
 
The lecture is in the hebrew university jerusalem
Erikl86 from anthrogenica
Going to this lecture so he will
Give some notes:cool-v:
(Michalis, @Ariel, @Ahuwarhd: Reich in his Southern Arc drop: I'm going to attend this, so will report with my own notes on this )
 
Etruscans did not lack the Iranian-related ancestry, they are actually part of the Mediterranean continuum (minoans to Republican era Romans) who are distinguished by having Anatolian_N + CHG. The steppe component is a minority component, albeit an important one. But also, the Etruscans are not related to Lemnians, the Etruscans were shown to be autochthonous.

Look at this genetic study: "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"

C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry”.

Etruscan seems to be linked to both Rhaetic, a language documented in the eastern Alps in a population that ancient historians claim to have migrated from the Po valley, and to Lemnian, a language putatively spoken on ancient Lemnos in the Aegean Sea.

The lack of Iranian-related ancestry in C.Italy_Etruscan might also suggest that the close linguistic affinity across the Mediterranean Sea could represent population movements departing from the Italian peninsula.
 
The lecture is in the hebrew university jerusalem
Erikl86 from anthrogenica
Going to this lecture so he will
Give some notes:cool-v:
(Michalis, @Ariel, @Ahuwarhd: Reich in his Southern Arc drop: I'm going to attend this, so will report with my own notes on this )

Gotta love to community! If one is willing to listen, they can get wind of so many interesting rumors and presentations ahead of major publications.
 
Nothing to hold out for. J2B is clearly a CHG or southern steppe related Y-DNA. It's non-existent in Neolithic Europe.

That is certainly one way to look at it. In my mind it does not hurt to have a proper verifiable trail in a blockbuster scientific study, so even the staunchest doubters know what's up. I think we can agree on this.
 
Look at this genetic study: "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"

Take a look at admixture proportions, there is indeed Iran-related ancestry. In fact it is comparable to their Eneolithic steppe ancestry. From the study Antonio et al. 2019.

m5lUnVD.png
 
Together with Minoans and Roman Republicans, this component can be broadly modeled as a Pan-Mediterranean population (constituted by AN and IN/CHG components) with the addition of WHG and Steppe-related ancestry in Roman Republicans. When modeled also with Minoans and Amhara_NAF, which roughly proxies the same ancestral signature, the majority of the samples required an additional CHG/IN contribution (two-way admixtures in supplementary fig. 7B and C, Supplementary Material online) as well as Steppe-related and WHG. We further observed that, as previously seen, the WHG contribution is less clear in those samples stretching downward in the PCA. Although the CHG/IN additional contribution may simply proxy the presence of Steppe-related ancestry in IAA, the absence of which in Minoans has already been reported (Lazaridis et al. 2017), the same cannot be said about Roman Republicans (two-way admixtures in supplementary fig. 7D, Supplementary Material online), which harbored a considerable amount of Steppe component (Antonio et al. 2019). However, this signature is not confirmed with f4 analyses (supplementary fig. 8B and C, Supplementary Material online), where just Mycenaean groups report less CHG ancestry than our samples.

Genetic Origin of Daunians and the Pan-Mediterranean Southern Italian Iron Age Context | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Another study confirming what I said.

Etruscans and Latins require additional CHG to be modeled properly. That is because the Central Italian Neolithic samples were a bit higher in CHG compared to people like LBK.

Also, the language claim makes no sense when you consider the Etruscans were similar to the Latin, yet they spoke a completely different language. Frankly, language is somewhat arbitrary in this case.
 
Look at this genetic study: "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"

I see what happened here, that is Etruscan.CEU, though is not representative of the majority of Etruscan samples, which are modeled similar to the graphic I presented. Nevertheless, these Etruscans.CEU do indeed have more steppe.

Also, the Etruscan influence going to Lemnos, rather than the other way around, does make sense with the data we have. I mistakenly thought you meant it the other way around.
 
Gotta love to community! If one is willing to listen, they can get wind of so many interesting rumors and presentations ahead of major publications.

That's somewhat of a double-edged sword. Though it is intriguing to get a peak.
 
That's somewhat of a double-edged sword. Though it is intriguing to get a peak.

Indeed, people tend to sandwich their worldviews, in between the facts of symposia/presentations (which might also have their inherent biases), so it gets really muddy. Subjectivity is part of human nature.
 
“We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether)”

Though we need to wait for samples, perhaps these Steppe-less individuals lived in the Aegean islands and not the mainland during the Mycenaean era and are more like Minoans. If memory serves, all of the available Mycenaean samples had Steppe. In the Biomuse study yet to be released, the few post-Mycenaean ancient Greeks of the mainland all had Steppe, about half the amount of the medieval Doliani sample.
 
Genetics and linguistics are not always coincident.

Nothing could be more true. My veiled criticism is not because of this. It's due to the fact that when coming to certain conclusions all interested scholars should participate. But it is too early; they are still not talking to each other.


" We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos."

It has some important points, we know about the lack of Iranian-related ancestry among the Etruscans who had a very high amount of steppe related ancestry, Etruscans had some relatives in Greece, like Lemnians.


All true, except that "Lemnians" are not existent. Or rather, archaeology has found a couple of inscriptions in Lemnos that have turned out to be related to the Etruscan language, but unlike with the Alpine Rhaetians, there is no archaeological culture in Lemnos that shows correlation with the Etruscans (in contrast, the archaeological culture of the Rhaetians on the one hand is distinct from that of the Etruscans, on the other hand it shows relationships). This is why archaeologists and some linguists, even before the latest genetic studies, thought that the presence of a couple of Etruscan-related inscriptions were due to movements of small groups of Etruscans from Italy, particularly from southern Etruria (Cerveteri or Veio in Lazio) to Lemnos who maintained the use of the Etruscan language that changed over time to become distinct anyway, absorbed by the local population, who may have been Thracian in origin. Then the island of Lemnos around 500 B.C. was conquered by the Athenian Greeks.



Etruscans did not lack the Iranian-related ancestry, they are actually part of the Mediterranean continuum (minoans to Republican era Romans) who are distinguished by having Anatolian_N + CHG. The steppe component is a minority component, albeit an important one. But also, the Etruscans are not related to Lemnians, the Etruscans were shown to be autochthonous.

Take a look at admixture proportions, there is indeed Iran-related ancestry. In fact it is comparable to their Eneolithic steppe ancestry. From the study Antonio et al. 2019.


Etruscans did lack the Iranian-related ancestry according to the studies, it is indeed the conclusion for the Etruscans of Posth 2021. In the chart you've posted the other component is EHG, not Steppe, it's comparable to their Eneolitich EHG ancestry, and the sample includes also Latins, a Protovillanovan sample from Abruzzo and the outliers with non-native ancestry. Let's not confuse when geneticists use Iran_N instead of CHG in relation to Steppe, all ancient Europeans can be modeled with Iran_N instead of CHG + EHG. Iran_N uncoupled to a Steppe source, as found in the Minoans, is a different story.

Both Etruscans and Latins, who had a very similar genetic profile, are composed of WHG, EEF and Steppe (30 percent according to Antonio 2019, 25 percent according to the 2021 study, so between a third and a quarter of their genome, not exactly little).

Mediterranean is a geographical concept first and foremost. If we consider everything from southern France/Iberian Peninsula to the Aegean to be Mediterranean, however, significant differences remain between Etruscans/Latins on the one hand, and Mycenaeans/Minoans on the other, and are the differences that still exist today between the southwestern European cluster and the non-Slavic southeastern European cluster.

The "Mediterranean" stratum (or Old Europe as it was named by Marija Gimbutas) in the Etruscans as in the Latins is the ancient stratum that has characterized Western Europe since the Chalcolithic (when it emerges that the Farmers have mixed somewhat with the WHGs of the Mesolithic), while in the Mycenaeans and Minoans, the lack of WHG and the presence of extra Iran_N compared to a Steppe-type source make them from the beginning a more typical southern Eastern European population.

Not to mention the uniparental markers, especially males, which suggest completely different ethnogenesis. The Etruscans as well as the Latins with dominant R1b is as if they were the fusion on a par of an R1b-driven north-central European population, migrated to Italy during the Bronze age, with the G2a-driven Chalcolithic local population. For the Mycenaeans we await further analyzed samples, but those few published so far suggest completely different routes.



6Vg8aNN.png


faVcZOE.png
 
Indeed, people tend to sandwich their worldviews, in between the facts of symposia/presentations (which might also have their inherent biases), so it gets really muddy. Subjectivity is part of human nature.

In the past, when people invented creation stories, the characters and gods usually looked like the people who told them.
 
Etruscans did lack the Iranian-related ancestry according to the studies, it is indeed the conclusion for the Etruscans of Posth 2021. In the chart you've posted the other component is EHG, not Steppe, it's comparable to their Eneolitich EHG ancestry, and the sample includes also Latins, a Protovillanovan sample from Abruzzo and the outliers with non-native ancestry. Let's not confuse when geneticists use Iran_N instead of CHG in relation to Steppe, all ancient Europeans can be modeled with Iran_N instead of CHG + EHG. Iran_N uncoupled to a Steppe source, as found in the Minoans, is a different story.

Aneli et al says otherwise, I have posted the excerpt. You do need extra CHG in both Etruscans and Latins. There's a lot of issues with Posth et al 2021, including the conclusions that are made. Frankly I do not believe modern Tuscans were formed in the trajectory they proposed. A lot of the stuff they say doesn't really make sense. If anyone wants to see what I am referring to, they can read my posts on the thread here on eupedia.

The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec (eupedia.com)

Both Etruscans and Latins, who had a very similar genetic profile, are composed of WHG, EEF and Steppe (30 percent according to Antonio 2019, 25 percent according to the 2021 study, so between a third and a quarter of their genome, not exactly little).

Yes, I was careful to say eneolthic steppe in my post. Nevertheless, Yamnaya is 60% EHG, 40% CHG. That does not seem to be the case for the levels in the Republican era Romans (i.e. Etruscans and Latins) They look like they are in dead heat, in some cases, which within and of itself shows extra CHG influence.

Mediterranean is a geographical concept first and foremost. If we consider everything from southern France/Iberian Peninsula to the Aegean to be Mediterranean, however, significant differences remain between Etruscans/Latins on the one hand, and Mycenaeans/Minoans on the other, and are the differences that still exist today between the southwestern European cluster and the non-Slavic southeastern European cluster.

That is irrelevant, because I am not speaking about a geographical concept, I am explicitly referring to a genetic concept which was defined in the excerpt I posted.
 
Furthermore, I am not talking about the origin of their paternal lineages, yes they probably originally came from central/Northern Europe. However, the fact of the matter is that these IA Etruscans, and Latins need CHG+Anatolian to be modeled properly. It is a fact that they are genetically "Mediterranean" according to the criteria in the Aneli paper. It is factually incorrect to say they are heavily steppe, with the exception of the CEU shifted people.
 

This thread has been viewed 203068 times.

Back
Top