Genetic structure and differentiation from early bronze age in Sicily

[Pax Augusta]

Genetic structure and differentiation from early bronze age in the mediterranean island of sicily: Insights from ancient mitochondrial genomes

​

September 2022 Frontiers in Genetics 13
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.945227

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.945227/full

Sicily is one of the main islands of the Mediterranean Sea, and it is characterized by a variety of archaeological records, material culture and traditions, reflecting the history of migrations and populations’ interaction since its first colonization, during the Paleolithic. These deep and complex demographic and cultural dynamics should have affected the genomic landscape of Sicily at different levels; however, the relative impact of these migrations on the genomic structure and differentiation within the island remains largely unknown. The available Sicilian modern genetic data gave a picture of the current genetic structure, but the paucity of ancient data did not allow so far to make predictions about the level of historical variation. In this work, we sequenced and analyzed the complete mitochondrial genomes of 36 individuals from five different locations in Sicily, spanning from Early Bronze Age to Iron Age, and with different cultural backgrounds. The comparison with coeval groups from the Mediterranean Basin highlighted structured genetic variation in Sicily since Early Bronze Age, thus supporting a demic impact of the cultural transitions within the Island. Explicit model testing through Approximate Bayesian Computation allowed us to make predictions about the origin of Sicanians, one of the three indigenous peoples of Sicily, whose foreign origin from Spain, historically attributed, was not confirmed by our analysis of genetic data. Sicilian modern mitochondrial data show a different, more homogeneous, genetic composition, calling for a recent genetic replacement in the Island of preIron Age populations, that should be further investigated.


Discussion

The study of ancient complete mitochondrial genomes from Sicily presented in this paper has generated insight into the diachronic level of population genetic structure of one of the main islands of the Mediterranean Sea. The analysis of mitogenomes from the Mediterranean allowed us to contextualize the Sicilian genetic variation with that of possibly related groups from Early Neolithic to Iron Age. Whereas the comparison with modern Sicilian variation marked the first step towards the understanding the genetic impact of ancient cultures on the modern inhabitants of the Island.


The 36 sequences we analyzed belong to five different archaeological sites, and the haplogroups composition revealed a wide range of variation, even within the same necropolis. The high mitochondrial genetic variation of ancient Sicily is evident also when compared with other ancient European populations, as shown by the PCA in Figure 2B and by MDS plot in Figure 4A. The FST heatmap in Figure 4B further confirms this pattern, highlighting a higher differentiation among Sicilian groups with respect to what is present in other Mediterranean islands (e.g., Sardinia), or in Continental Europe. Indeed, we observed a statistically significant genetic structure within Sicilian groups (AMOVA FST: 0.08947; p-value: 0.00139 + −0.00035) whereas in Sardinia, the other main island in the Mediterranean basin, the genetic differentiation is not significant (AMOVA FST: 0.00158; p-value:0.42158 + −0.00459). The mitochondrial genetic structure we identify in Sicily is in agreement with the documented historical migrations of populations belonging to different cultures, which made the Island a major Mediterranean crossroad for different populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Levant for a long time (Sarno et al., 2017), and deserves to be further investigated. It also supports that these cultural exchanges were actually accompanied by movements of people, with a possible following exchange of genes.

The eleven individuals sequenced in the necropolis of Motya clustered in two different subgroups, with the three individuals attributed to the Phoenician culture that genetically clustered together and separated from the Bronze Age samples from the same necropolis. These three samples also show similarities with the Phoenician individual from Lilibeo, whose sampling location in the main Island postulates a migration between the two areas or a recent shared ancestry, and further confirms the Phoenician presence within the island of Motya. Another noteworthy pattern of genetic similarities come from the analysis of Baucina and Polizzello samples. In Baucina the individuals have been attributed to the Sicanian culture (26 individuals) and to the Greek culture (3 individuals); the haplogroups compositions and the FST heatmap (Figures 2, 4) actually show the presence of genetic differentiation between these two groups, thus reflecting their different cultural attribution. The observed genetic structure within the Baucina settlement could suggest that a certain social and ethnic distinction was maintained during the Greek colonization. This scenario is also supported by the archaeological records that show a strong Hellenization of the settlements and necropolises starting from the second half of the sixth century BCE, as a consequence of the arrival and establishment of Greeks in the region living alongside the local people (Lyons, 1996; Morgan, 1999).


As highlighted in Figures 2B, 4A, the Sicanians of Baucina show rather more genetic links with the Iron Age samples from Polizzello (Diroma et al., 2021), coming from a necropolis located in the heart of Sicania, and dated ninth-seventh century BCE, than with their Greek neighbors. The genetic closeness of mitochondrial genomes of Sicanians from Baucina and Iron Age indigenous from Polizzello may support the attribution of Polizzello individuals to the Sicanian culture (de Miro, 1988). Additionally, these results reveal a certain genetic homogeneity of the inhabitants of central and western Sicily associated with the same culture.


When ancient Sicilians were contextualized within the Mediterranean domain, we did not find any genetic link between Sicanians individuals (both from Baucina and Iron Age Polizzello) and other Iberian populations. Fernandes et al. (2020) identified Iberia as a key ancestry source for Bronze Age people of Sicily, but the explicit demographic analyses of Sicanian sequences show that this ancestry may not be directly linked to the origin of the Sicanian culture, as originally postulated by Thucydides (VI, 2, 2). The resemblance between Iberia and Sicily seems instead to trace back to Late Neolithic, as emerging also from the low FST values reported in Figure 4B. Our inferential model-based analysis through Approximate Bayesian Computation further supports these results, favoring a local development of Sicanian individuals with a genetic continuity in Central/Western Sicily at least since the Early Bronze Age. Bearing in mind that we are only considering the evolution of the maternal lineage and cannot test other models that may be compatible with the observed genetic variation (such as demographic scenarios that account for sex-biased migrations), our model-based analysis still represents a first step toward a comprehensive and inferential reconstruction of past evolutionary and demographic dynamics in Sicily.


Another interesting similarity pattern came from the Phoenicians in Motya, that showed large resemblance with Levant Late Bronze Age, and the highest FST values (about 0.3) with Phoenicians from Iberian islands. Among the haplogroups identified in the new sequenced samples the most notable is undoubtedly the L3, currently present at high frequency in Northeast Africa (Soares et al., 2012). This L3 sequence found in a Bronze Age individual of Motya explicitly confirmed that the widespread human mobility from North Africa to Europe during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, involved also the most remote part of the Island, as emerged also in Fernandes et al. (2020).


Finally, we compared the ancient Sicilian genetic structure with that of modern individuals with known Sicilian ancestry, coming from nine cities around the Island. From the comparison of frequency distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups of ancient and modern Sicilian populations, as well as from the structure emerging from the PCA of Figure 5, we cannot exclude the possibility that Bronze/Iron Age Sicilians made a modest ancestry contribution to modern Sicilians, at least for the maternal lineage. The Y chromosome variation, indeed, has proven to overlap between current and Bronze Age inhabitants of Sicily (Fernandes et al., 2020), postulating a different demographic and evolutionary history for the females and males inhabitants of the Island. A more comprehensive analysis of sex biased processes and of the underlying demographic and evolutionary forces would benefit from an increased and extensive sequencing of modern populations, that would allow to perform explicit comparison between continuity/isolation models from Bronze Age to current time. While our data are indeed consistent with a nearly complete replacement (at least for the mitochondrial lineage) of the pre-Iron Age populations of Sicily by modern inhabitants of the Island, we cannot exclude the hypothesis that locally we may still find a degree of continuity that deserves to be investigated.


This study is restricted to the analysis of a uniparental marker, the mitochondrial genome. Focusing on this marker gave us the opportunity to extend the sampling and the sequencing to a higher number of individuals, so as to adequately representing different cultures dwelling in Sicily in different time periods, and allowing us to identify a structured genetic variation and quantify genetic distances among groups. Albeit limited to the maternal lineage, the present study indeed emphasizes the complex genetic scenario of Sicily since its colonization. The structured genetic variation in culturally defined groups actually supports that cultural processes and exchanges within the Island have been accompanied and promoted by movement of people, and that these dynamics left a footprint on the genetic background of ancient individuals. Modern populations present a rather different pattern of maternal genetic variation; the more homogeneous composition of contemporary uniparental gene pool within Sicily (also reported by Sarno et al., 2014) points towards a recent genetic replacement of pre-Iron Age populations that should be further explicitly addressed.


We acknowledge that the amount of genetic information as well as the inferential power of this uniparental marker is limited with respect to genome-wide ancient DNA data. The analysis of whole-genome variation of different ancient populations from Sicily would provide a more accurate and comprehensive source of information to make inference about past dynamics, such as the time and the origin of principal migration events within the island, the extent of genetic links among contemporary and diachronic groups, and will allow us to explicitly test the hypothesis of a genetic turnover within the island in the last two to three thousand years.

​

 

[Francesco]

Well, regarding greeks and phoenicians, it's not a surprise they didn't leave a great mithocondrial legacy: the greek colonization was heavily male mediated, while the phoenician presence not only was male mediated, but pretty ephemeral as well, being largely due on merchant and seafarers.

I'm a bit surprised if the Sicani didn't leave a bigger maternal lineage behind them, though.
Here are the mt haplogroups from Sarno et al. 2014 for Sicily and Southern Italy ... they don't seem that different from the ones in the Sicani's group...

mtDNA	SSI	ITAS	SIC	ESIC	WSIC	TP	AG	EN	RGSR	CT	CS	MT	LE
313	115	198	116	82	40	42	40	39	37	40	36	39
L3	2 (0.64)	0 (0)	2 (1.01)	0 (0)	2 (2.44)	2 (5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
M1	4 (1.28)	0 (0)	4 (2.02)	0 (0)	4 (4.88)	3 (7.5)	1 (2.38)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
C	1 (0.32)	0 (0)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
D	1 (0.32)	0 (0)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
A	2 (0.64)	0 (0)	2 (1.01)	1 (0.86)	1 (1.22)	0 (0)	1 (2.38)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
N1	9 (2.88)	2 (1.74)	7 (3.54)	7 (6.03)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (10)	1 (2.56)	2 (5.41)	0 (0)	1 (2.78)	1 (2.56)
I	8 (2.56)	5 (4.35)	3 (1.52)	1 (0.86)	2 (2.44)	2 (5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.7)	0 (0)	1 (2.78)	4 (10.26)
W	3 (0.96)	1 (0.87)	2 (1.01)	1 (0.86)	1 (1.22)	0 (0)	1 (2.38)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
X	14 (4.47)	7 (6.09)	7 (3.54)	4 (3.45)	3 (3.66)	3 (7.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (7.69)	1 (2.7)	1 (2.5)	3 (8.33)	3 (7.69)
R	1 (0.32)	1 (0.87)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
R0	3 (0.96)	2 (1.74)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
HV	15 (4.79)	4 (3.48)	11 (5.56)	9 (7.76)	2 (2.44)	1 (2.5)	1 (2.38)	5 (12.5)	2 (5.13)	2 (5.41)	0 (0)	2 (5.56)	2 (5.13)
H	43 (13.74)	14 (12.17)	29 (14.65)	13 (11.21)	16 (19.51)	4 (10)	12 (28.57)	2 (5)	7 (17.95)	4 (10.81)	4 (10)	4 (11.11)	6 (15.38)
H1	34 (10.86)	12 (10.43)	22 (11.11)	13 (11.21)	9 (10.98)	5 (12.5)	4 (9.52)	2 (5)	7 (17.95)	4 (10.81)	4 (10)	5 (13.89)	3 (7.69)
H2	6 (1.92)	1 (0.87)	5 (2.53)	3 (2.59)	2 (2.44)	1 (2.5)	1 (2.38)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	2 (5.41)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)
H3	8 (2.56)	1 (0.87)	7 (3.54)	3 (2.59)	4 (4.88)	2 (5)	2 (4.76)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)	2 (5.41)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)
H4	2 (0.64)	0 (0)	2 (1.01)	2 (1.72)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
H5	10 (3.19)	4 (3.48)	6 (3.03)	4 (3.45)	2 (2.44)	1 (2.5)	1 (2.38)	3 (7.5)	1 (2.56)	0 (0)	3 (7.5)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
H6	1 (0.32)	0 (0)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
H7	5 (1.6)	1 (0.87)	4 (2.02)	1 (0.86)	3 (3.66)	0 (0)	3 (7.14)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
H8	4 (1.28)	1 (0.87)	3 (1.52)	3 (2.59)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	2 (5.41)	0 (0)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
H12	1 (0.32)	1 (0.87)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)
H13	5 (1.6)	2 (1.74)	3 (1.52)	1 (0.86)	2 (2.44)	0 (0)	2 (4.76)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
V	5 (1.6)	3 (2.61)	2 (1.01)	1 (0.86)	1 (1.22)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (5)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
T	2 (0.64)	0 (0)	2 (1.01)	1 (0.86)	1 (1.22)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
T1	11 (3.51)	4 (3.48)	7 (3.54)	6 (5.17)	1 (1.22)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (10.26)	2 (5.41)	1 (2.5)	2 (5.56)	1 (2.56)
T2	28 (8.95)	12 (10.43)	16 (8.08)	12 (10.34)	4 (4.88)	2 (5)	2 (4.76)	6 (15)	3 (7.69)	3 (8.11)	3 (7.5)	2 (5.56)	7 (17.95)
J1	16 (5.11)	5 (4.35)	11 (5.56)	8 (6.9)	3 (3.66)	2 (5)	1 (2.38)	4 (10)	2 (5.13)	2 (5.41)	2 (5)	2 (5.56)	1 (2.56)
J2	15 (4.79)	5 (4.35)	10 (5.05)	6 (5.17)	4 (4.88)	3 (7.5)	1 (2.38)	1 (2.5)	4 (10.26)	1 (2.7)	2 (5)	2 (5.56)	1 (2.56)
U	2 (0.64)	1 (0.87)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
U1	8 (2.56)	4 (3.48)	4 (2.02)	1 (0.86)	3 (3.66)	0 (0)	3 (7.14)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)	0 (0)	2 (5)	0 (0)	2 (5.13)
U2	4 (1.28)	1 (0.87)	3 (1.52)	1 (0.86)	2 (2.44)	0 (0)	2 (4.76)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.78)	0 (0)
U3	6 (1.92)	5 (4.35)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (10)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
U4	1 (0.32)	0 (0)	1 (0.51)	1 (0.86)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
U5	11 (3.51)	4 (3.48)	7 (3.54)	2 (1.72)	5 (6.1)	3 (7.5)	2 (4.76)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (5.41)	2 (5)	1 (2.78)	1 (2.56)
U6	2 (0.64)	2 (1.74)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
U7	4 (1.28)	2 (1.74)	2 (1.01)	0 (0)	2 (2.44)	2 (5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (5.56)	0 (0)
U8	3 (0.96)	3 (2.61)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (5)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
K	4 (1.28)	2 (1.74)	2 (1.01)	2 (1.72)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	1 (2.56)
K1	9 (2.88)	3 (2.61)	6 (3.03)	3 (2.59)	3 (3.66)	1 (2.5)	2 (4.76)	1 (2.5)	0 (0)	2 (5.41)	1 (2.5)	2 (5.56)	0 (0)
Abbreviations: SSI, Sicily and South-Italy; ITAS, South-Italy; SIC, Sicily; ESIC, East Sicily; WSIC, West Sicily; TP, Trapani; AG, Agrigento; EN, Enna; RGSR, Ragusa-Siracusa; CT, Catania; CS, Cosenza, MT, Matera; LE, Lecce

 

[Angela]

Some mixed signals, yes?

The Sicani MtDna doesn't seem to come from Iberia, so the women, at least, were local. However, with no yDna it's impossible to know if there was a migration of "males" from Iberia.

Then they get to the modern era and see a complete "replacement" from the Bronze/Iron period, yet other studies have seen evidence of yDna continuity since the Bronze/Iron Ages to the present. So, if that's true, why were only the women replaced? That doesn't make sense to me. Sicily didn't get invaded by a bunch of Amazons. Did the men of Sicily "trade" for women from other places during the Roman and early medieval periods? I have to read the graphs carefully and see which mtDna was supposedly wiped out, and which was new, which might tell us the origin of this "new" mtDna.

Actually, how seriously are we supposed to take trends in mtDna when the authors make the point over and over again that there is incredible heterogeneity in the samples from Sicily. In places where that is the case, five areas spanning that whole time span doesn't seem enough.

Also, as always, I get annoyed when they only do the mtDna. You need the yDna too, because most often yDna can tell you about migration. Women aren't going to be the front line in a migration. They'll always come with the men, or the men will come alone. Without it you're always going to have these questions.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Some mixed signals, yes?

The Sicani MtDna doesn't seem to come from Iberia, so the women, at least, were local. However, with no yDna it's impossible to know if there was a migration of "males" from Iberia.

Then they get to the modern era and see a complete "replacement" from the Bronze/Iron period, yet other studies have seen evidence of yDna continuity since the Bronze/Iron Ages to the present. So, if that's true, why were only the women replaced? That doesn't make sense to me. Sicily didn't get invaded by a bunch of Amazons. Did the men of Sicily "trade" for women from other places during the Roman and early medieval periods? I have to read the graphs carefully and see which mtDna was supposedly wiped out, and which was new, which might tell us the origin of this "new" mtDna.

Actually, how seriously are we supposed to take trends in mtDna when the authors make the point over and over again that there is incredible heterogeneity in the samples from Sicily. In places where that is the case, five areas spanning that whole time span doesn't seem enough.

Also, as always, I get annoyed when they only do the mtDna. You need the yDna too, because most often yDna can tell you about migration. Women aren't going to be the front line in a migration. They'll always come with the men, or the men will come alone. Without it you're always going to have these questions.

The study was done on mtDNA (Ancient DNA) most likely because in Italy laboratories (as in many other countries) can still only analyse mtDNA, and for autosomal DNA and Y-DNA they have to send ancient samples abroad to be analysed.

 

[Francesco]

Then they get to the modern era and see a complete "replacement" from the Bronze/Iron period, yet other studies have seen evidence of yDna continuity since the Bronze/Iron Ages to the present. So, if that's true, why were only the women replaced?

Other studies has not only found continuity in sicilina yDNA lineage, but in mtDNA as well and even from more ancient time.

The Sarno at al study I mentioned above (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005757/), in particular, explicitly states that while the yDNA in Sicily can be traced back to the bronze age, the mtDNA is even older:

"Differently from Y-chromosome results, TMRCA estimates for the most frequent mtDNA haplogroups of Sicily and Southern Italy (Table 1) date back to pre-Neolithic times and could be mainly classified in lineages pre-dating the Last Glacial Maximum - LGM (∼32,200 YBP for HV; ∼31,100 YBP for J2; ∼28,900 and ∼28,600 YBP for T1 and T2; ∼27,300 for U5; and ∼25,000 YBP for J1) or dating immediately after it (∼16,700 YBP for H5 and ∼15,700 YBP for H1)."

 

[Pax Augusta]

Other studies has not only found continuity in sicilina yDNA lineage, but in mtDNA as well and even from more ancient time.

The Sarno et al. study I mentioned above (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005757/), explicitly states that while the yDNA in Sicily can be traced back to the bronze age, the mtDNA is even older:

"Differently from Y-chromosome results, TMRCA estimates for the most frequent mtDNA haplogroups of Sicily and Southern Italy (Table 1) date back to pre-Neolithic times and could be mainly classified in lineages pre-dating the Last Glacial Maximum - LGM (∼32,200 YBP for HV; ∼31,100 YBP for J2; ∼28,900 and ∼28,600 YBP for T1 and T2; ∼27,300 for U5; and ∼25,000 YBP for J1) or dating immediately after it (∼16,700 YBP for H5 and ∼15,700 YBP for H1)."

Regardless of whether she is right or wrong, studies like Sarno's are not really based on comparisons between ancient and modern samples, but more on theoretical estimates based on hypothetical times of formation of uniparental markers.

 

[Francesco]

Regardless of whether she is right or wrong, studies like Sarno's are not really based on comparisons between ancient and modern samples, but more on theoretical estimates based on hypothetical times of formation of uniparental markers.

yes, you're right. Anyway, the perplexity still stands: a migration of women seems unlikely.

 

[ihype02]

The Greek colonization was heavily concentrated in coastal zones. So Syracuse could've had a greater population than a geographically bigger region of Sicily with no Greek genetic influence. I am not sure how they will be able the estimate the overall Greek impact as modern Sicilians are more eastern than both Iron Age Sicilians and Ancient Greeks.


As for the Anatolian admixture (and from other Eastern regions) that Imperial Romans had, being brought heavily by Greeks. Wouldn't it make more sense for Greeks to mix with native Italians (similarly how they assimilated Carians in West Anatolia) instead of coming themselves as Hellenized Anatolians? This is one of reason I believe that Anatolian admixture came though the rise of the Roman Empire itself.

I can't wait to see how Magna Greacians looked like genetically. The recent studies regarding Italy have all been really promising in the sample size from Daunians, Romans, Etruscans and there are over 100 samples of Iron Age Campania coming. I think if there is any study regarding the Magna Greacia coming up the sample size is going to be big so we might investigate the Y-DNA there too better than with actual studies from Balkans.

 

[Francesco]

As for the Anatolian admixture (and from other Eastern regions) that Imperial Romans had, being brought heavily by Greeks. Wouldn't it make sense for Greeks to mix with native Italians (similarly how they assimilated Carians in West Anatolia) instead of coming themselves as Hellenized Anatolians? This is one of reason I believe that Anatolians admixture came though the rise of the Roman Empire itself.

That make sense but we should keep in mind that some mycenaeans already had some sort of anatolian bronze age admixture, so it's difficult to say if the latter came to Italy with imperial "romans" (hellenized anatolians), iron age greeks or even before, with mycenaeans (these three hypothesis aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). If it came with imperial romans, however, it should be present in all of the peninsula and in other part of the empire as well.

However, I agree with you, the upcoming samples from magna Grecia will be very interesting and important in order to asses that.

 

[ihype02]

That make sense but we should keep in mind that some mycenaeans already had some sort of anatolian bronze age admixture, so it's difficult to say if the latter came to Italy with imperial "romans" (hellenized anatolians), iron age greeks or even before, with mycenaeans (this three hypothesis aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). If it came with imperial romans, however, it should be present in all of the peninsula and in other part of the empire as well.

However, I agree with you, the upcoming samples from magna Grecia will be very interesting and important in order to asses that.

EBA or pre-EBA Anatolian people of Greece were mixed out of existence in the actual Mycenaean samples we have. If you are talking LBA or IA Anatolian admixed Greek people I think they were more likely to be found in the more Eastern islands. But I still believe most colonists were like the Empuries samples.

 

[Francesco]

EBA or pre-EBA Anatolian people of Greece were mixed out of existence in the actual Mycenaean samples we have. If you are talking LBA or IA Anatolian admixed Greek people I think they were more likely to be found in the more Eastern islands. But I still believe most colonists were like the Empuries samples.

I wasn't very clear, sorry. I meant that some mycenean were more anatolian shifted, others were a bit more levant_PPN admixed, so there was some variation.

 

[Angela]

EBA or pre-EBA Anatolian people of Greece were mixed out of existence in the actual Mycenaean samples we have. If you are talking LBA or IA Anatolian admixed Greek people I think they were more likely to be found in the more Eastern islands. But I still believe most colonists were like the Empuries samples.

Calling the EBA or pre-EBA people of Greece "Anatolians" is just going to confusing everyone. It's bad terminology.

What they were is EEF like, as were the people in Albania and other places in the Balkans, and Italy and the EEF like people in Central Europe whom the steppe people encountered, and admixed with, that is those who weren't killed by violence or plague. Now, WHG admixture might differ from place to place, but they were basically the same group, as I said, and present in Europe for thousands of years, regardless of where all EEF originated, and we shouldn't muddy the waters by calling them Anatolians.

Now, thousands of years later, Bronze Age Anatolians, different from the early Anatolian farmers, and different as well from the Europeans farmers because they were more admixed with CHG/Iran Neo, went to Greece and added their genes, as did the Yamnaya people, perhaps unmixed with EEF when they arrived, but carrying their own chunk of CHG.

This admixture created the Mycenaeans. We know that a trader in Spain quite a bit later was still Mycenaean like, but a Greek found in Marathon is even more Iran Neo like and perhaps carries a bit of Levant Bronze Age.

We don't yet have autosomal analyses of the Greek migrants of the first millennium B.C., so I don't understand all this certainty.

This isn't one of the Albanian threads where people fight to the death over hypotheses for which none of them have any proof. When we get the results for the Greek colonizers we'll at least have some basis for conjecture. I'd point out, however, that the leaks about the Campania paper indicate that a very early Greek sample was ABA heavy.

 

[Hawk]

No Y-DNA results from the study, that's below the radar for 2022. Would have been interesting to compare the lineages.

 

[ihype02]

Calling the EBA or pre-EBA people of Greece "Anatolians" is just going to confusing everyone. It's bad terminology.

What they were is EEF like, as were the people in Albania and other places in the Balkans, and Italy and the EEF like people in Central Europe whom the steppe people encountered, and admixed with, that is those who weren't killed by violence or plague. Now, WHG admixture might differ from place to place, but they were basically the same group, as I said, and present in Europe for thousands of years, regardless of where all EEF originated, and we shouldn't muddy the waters by calling them Anatolians.

Now, thousands of years later, Bronze Age Anatolians, different from the early Anatolian farmers, and different as well from the Europeans farmers because they were more admixed with CHG/Iran Neo, went to Greece and added their genes, as did the Yamnaya people, perhaps unmixed with EEF when they arrived, but carrying their own chunk of CHG.

This admixture created the Mycenaeans. We know that a trader in Spain quite a bit later was still Mycenaean like, but a Greek found in Marathon is even more Iran Neo like and perhaps carries a bit of Levant Bronze Age.

We don't yet have autosomal analyses of the Greek migrants of the first millennium B.C., so I don't understand all this certainty.

This isn't one of the Albanian threads where people fight to the death over hypotheses for which none of them have any proof. When we get the results for the Greek colonizers we'll at least have some basis for conjecture. I'd point out, however, that the leaks about the Campania paper indicate that a very early Greek sample was ABA heavy.

Greeks of Attica (including Marathon) likely were mixed with a new wave of Anatolians after the spread of the Macedonian Empire.

2 Mycenaeans from Attica were not similar to the Marathon Roman sample. And Classical Greek samples from the leaked paper in the Jovialis thread were mostly in the Mycenaean cluster.

That is why I believe the colonists of Sicily were mostly Aegean BA-like.

 

[Vallicanus]

When is the Campanian paper coming out?

 

[ihype02]

Deleted. Double post.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Pax Augusta: Thanks for the link to the paper. My quick thoughts and a few quesitons.

1) Interesting samples. In particular the Sicanian ones. Would have been good to have some clearly defined Elymians and Sicels as well.

2) Mtnda analysis only, not going to cut it these days. I suspect that is why despite having a really interesting set of ancient DNA samples, it was not published in a higher level journal. Again interesting but really does not tell us what is going on and any conclusions from mtdna only highly, highly, speculative.

3) Regarding why only mtdna analysis was done given the lack of Lab resources in Italy, is there anyway of knowing whether the Italian geneticist on this study have enough coverage to do both A) full autosomal dna analysis and B) Y-dna analysis. Can that be determined in the supplements or maybe there is information available in Italy that you all can get to confirm one way or the other that the samples are of quality enough to do full genome/y-dna analysis as well. I would assume at least the Y-dna at a minimum.

The recent paper by Yu et al 2022 "Genomic and dietary discontinuitiesduring the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Sicily" I noticed had several researchers affiliated with Max Plank. My hope is that the Italian academics in this study are planning to partner with the Max Plank group and do full genome analysis along with Y-Dna.

 

[Angela]

Greeks of Attica (including Marathon) likely were mixed with a new wave of Anatolians after the spread of the Macedonian Empire.

2 Mycenaeans from Attica were not similar to the Marathon Roman sample. And Classical Greek samples from the leaked paper in the Jovialis thread were mostly in the Mycenaean cluster.

That is why I believe the colonists of Sicily were mostly Aegean BA-like.

All I see in your posts is conjecture and speculation which lead right back to your biases.

Believe what you want, so long as it doesn't color your interpretation of the data when we finally get it.

 

[Ralphie Boy]

The Greek colonization was heavily concentrated in coastal zones. So Syracuse could've had a greater population than a geographically bigger region of Sicily with no Greek genetic influence. I am not sure how they will be able the estimate the overall Greek impact as modern Sicilians are more eastern than both Iron Age Sicilians and Ancient Greeks.
As for the Anatolian admixture (and from other Eastern regions) that Imperial Romans had, being brought heavily by Greeks. Wouldn't it make more sense for Greeks to mix with native Italians (similarly how they assimilated Carians in West Anatolia) instead of coming themselves as Hellenized Anatolians? This is one of reason I believe that Anatolian admixture came though the rise of the Roman Empire itself.
I can't wait to see how Magna Greacians looked like genetically. The recent studies regarding Italy have all been really promising in the sample size from Daunians, Romans, Etruscans and there are over 100 samples of Iron Age Campania coming. I think if there is any study regarding the Magna Greacia coming up the sample size is going to be big so we might investigate the Y-DNA there too better than with actual studies from Balkans.

I think that both in the Southern Arc paper (supplementals) and Reich statements elsewhere, the argument is that the Roman Imperial change came from Anatolia. According to the available evidence, Levantine admixture grew substantially in the Hellenistic period, in southwest Anatolia. Wondering if the sudden appearance of Y DNA J2a-L25 is a signal of this Levantine admixture, because the oldest sample in Halicarnassus was very heavily Levantine.

 

[billyh]

I am a bit confused. They say they are only doing mtDNA but then have a section dedicated to Fst distances? Are they talking only about the Fst distances of the Mitochondrial DNA? They don't seem to suggest so. Are there full samples behind these mtDNA samples or did they just look for mtDNA?