Neolithic Calabria DNA!

Has anyone yet figured out the specific branch of G2a present in Italy during the Bronze Age, i.e. as shown in the graphic? Is it a movement from near Hungary, and perhaps results from an incorporation of a particular G2a lineage by the steppe people?
 
Angela said:
Has anyone yet figured out the specific branch of G2a present in Italy during the Bronze Age, i.e. as shown in the graphic? Is it a movement from near Hungary, and perhaps results from an incorporation of a particular G2a lineage by the steppe people?
Click to expand...
Perhaps G-L497? I remember reading about it in a fb group and possible connections to the Etruscans, and seems to have had a migratory path from central Europe roughly around the time you describe. I'd assume it's represented in ancient samples.

Ah yes, one ancient Etruscan sample is shown here. I can't say for sure but I remember there being at least one other sample.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-L497/ancient
 
ChatGPT 4.0 summary:

The PDF document is a scientific report published in 2023, titled "Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:11978 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39250-y". Here is a summary of the key points:


1. The document discusses the findings from the analysis of a Neolithic individual, referred to as SLB, discovered in the Grotta di Pietra Sant’Angelo in Southern Italy.


2. The individual's Y-chromosome haplogroup was identified as G2a2a1, and the individual was confirmed to be male. The individual's mitochondrial lineage was found to be K1a + 195, similar to another Neolithic individual from the Czech Republic.


3. The individual was compared with ancient and modern populations using principal component analysis. The SLB individual falls into the variability of the Italian and Mediterranean Neolithic, near Peloponnesian and Anatolian Neolithic individuals.


4. The individual was also projected on a dataset of 737 modern Italians, and it was found that the Neolithic individual SLB does not fall within the variability of modern groups, within that of the modern inhabitants of San Lorenzo Bellizzi, nor within the genetic variability of the South.


5. The document also discusses the analysis of the individual's dental calculus, which revealed the presence of a variety of poorly diagnostic microremains, most of which were of plant origin. This suggests the consumption of starchy food and leafy crops.


6. Paleogenomic analysis was performed on dental calculus to define the ancient oral microbial community of SLB. Several host-associated bacteria have been identified in the dental calculus, among which different members of the genera Treponema, Prevotella, Streptococcus, and Methanobrevibacter are present.


7. The document also discusses the lifestyle of the individual, suggesting that a variety of repeated physical activities could have played a role in the individual's lifestyle. The analysis of the dental wear provides evidence for the use of the mouth for non-alimentary purposes, as a non-specific tool or "third hand".


8. The document concludes with a discussion on the presence of dental pathologies and the detection of amylases, which are perfectly in line with the consumption of a carbohydrate-rich, typically Neolithic, diet.


Please note that this is a high-level summary and the document contains more detailed information and specific data.
 
Robotnick said:
Perhaps G-L497? I remember reading about it in a fb group and possible connections to the Etruscans, and seems to have had a migratory path from central Europe roughly around the time you describe. I'd assume it's represented in ancient samples.
Ah yes, one ancient Etruscan sample is shown here. I can't say for sure but I remember there being at least one other sample.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-L497/ancient
Click to expand...
G-L497 is the main G ydna in Austria.............it is nearly 80% of all the G ydna

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23948323/
 
Seems like this sample is actually not a good fit in a two-way analysis

Distance to:Jovialis
1.8783527571.20% Minoan_Lasithi + 28.80% Yamnaya
3.7523703672.00% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021 + 28.00% Yamnaya
4.9361177071.80% Minoan_Odigitria + 28.20% Yamnaya
8.0350722170.20% Minoan_Zakros:I14916 + 29.80% Yamnaya
9.9689082922.40% Yamnaya + 77.60% Isparta_BA
10.9949877070.00% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 30.00% Yamnaya
18.3142383526.20% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 73.80% Isparta_BA
19.1732105324.00% Minoan_Odigitria + 76.00% Isparta_BA
21.6402664470.40% Minoan_Odigitria + 29.60% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
21.9078328558.80% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 41.20% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
22.0328754829.60% Yamnaya + 70.40% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
22.9902128882.40% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021 + 17.60% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
23.0467169243.00% Minoan_Odigitria + 57.00% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021
23.0677836923.00% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 77.00% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021
23.1320909874.80% Minoan_Lasithi + 25.20% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
23.3693227726.80% Minoan_Zakros:I14916 + 73.20% Minoan_Odigitria
23.5213253746.60% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 53.40% Minoan_Zakros:I14916
23.6644003831.80% Minoan_Lasithi + 68.20% Minoan_Odigitria
23.9384546024.60% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 75.40% Minoan_Lasithi
25.4835223872.80% Minoan_Zakros:I14916 + 27.20% Sidon_BA_(n=5)

 
Jovialis said:
Seems like this sample is actually not a good fit in a two-way analysis

Distance to:Jovialis
1.8783527571.20% Minoan_Lasithi + 28.80% Yamnaya
3.7523703672.00% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021 + 28.00% Yamnaya
4.9361177071.80% Minoan_Odigitria + 28.20% Yamnaya
8.0350722170.20% Minoan_Zakros:I14916 + 29.80% Yamnaya
9.9689082922.40% Yamnaya + 77.60% Isparta_BA
10.9949877070.00% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 30.00% Yamnaya
18.3142383526.20% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 73.80% Isparta_BA
19.1732105324.00% Minoan_Odigitria + 76.00% Isparta_BA
21.6402664470.40% Minoan_Odigitria + 29.60% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
21.9078328558.80% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 41.20% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
22.0328754829.60% Yamnaya + 70.40% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
22.9902128882.40% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021 + 17.60% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
23.0467169243.00% Minoan_Odigitria + 57.00% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021
23.0677836923.00% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 77.00% Minoan_Petras:pta08:Clemente_2021
23.1320909874.80% Minoan_Lasithi + 25.20% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
23.3693227726.80% Minoan_Zakros:I14916 + 73.20% Minoan_Odigitria
23.5213253746.60% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 53.40% Minoan_Zakros:I14916
23.6644003831.80% Minoan_Lasithi + 68.20% Minoan_Odigitria
23.9384546024.60% S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria + 75.40% Minoan_Lasithi
25.4835223872.80% Minoan_Zakros:I14916 + 27.20% Sidon_BA_(n=5)
Click to expand...

I think what this shows is the the non-steppe CHG that ramped up in the EBA was essential to the ethnogenesis of Southern Italy. Southern Italian Neolithic seems to be less CHG.

3pZFm9W.png
 
Jovialis said:
I think what this shows is the the non-steppe CHG that ramped up in the EBA was essential to the ethnogenesis of Southern Italy. Southern Italian Neolithic seems to be less CHG.

3pZFm9W.png
Click to expand...

The pull toward CHG is demonstrated in Greece_N, with the Minoans being a testament to that. I believe the same dynamic happened with Southern Italian Neolithic.
 
Distance to:S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria
22.32688915Corsica_(n=12)
24.41432691Sephardi:(n=18)
24.56137443Calabria_(n=6)
24.97275777Sardinia_(n=28)
24.97402989Sicily_(n=37)
25.01280344Lazio_(n=5)
25.22166426Campania_(n=17)
25.42319119Umbria_(n=13)
25.95300182Tuscan_(n=28)
26.34915680Abruzzo_(n=19)
26.54347434TSI_(n=96)
26.59208870Basilicata_(n=9)
26.59530884Marche_(n=18)
26.73340420Molise_(n=2)
26.82833253Apulia_(n=230)
27.01712972Ashkenazi:(n=15)
27.90408700Lombardy_(n=17)
28.47451635Emilia-Romagna_(n=7)
28.98714845Cyclades_(n=8)
29.46714781Korinthia:KOR42_Kariotika_Korinthia
29.64707068Liguria:ALP099
29.74856467Laconia:LAK8_Neapoli_Laconia
30.03392978Kos_(n=9)
30.11231710Dodecanese_(n=7)
30.14539686Piedmont_(n=14)

 
vZqdn6o.png


Using a quick and simple model with the Copper Age Anatolian sample, we can see it improves the fit. I believe this demonstrates how the influx of non-steppe related CHG into the Mediterranean increased approaching the Bronze Age.

I think once we get Southern Italian ChL, and non-IE Southern Italian BA samples, we will see an increase of CHG. Just as we did with Neolithic Greece on towards Minoans.
 
Salento: Thanks for the coordinates. Outstanding!. Here are the distances for S_Italy_NeolithicSLB_Calabria vs. other Neolithic Italian samples that have been published (to my knowledge). I thought it would be an interesting to take a look. Of course those Neolithic samples cover different periods within the Neolithic (i.e. Early, Middle, Late). For Otzi, the UT4561244 is the Gedmatch Kit # that was used to estimate coordinates.

Distance to:S_Italy_N:SLB_Calabria
5.95004202Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
6.00395703Yu_etal_2022_UZZ075_Italy_Sicily_N_Stentinello
6.99528413Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R10_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
7.04244276Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R8_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
8.20346268Fernandes_etal_2020:I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
8.20727726Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R3_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
8.52203614Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R2_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
8.63905666Yu_etal_2022_UZZ074_Italy_Sicily_N_Stentinello
9.76561826Yu_etal_2022_UZZ033_Italy_Sicily_N_Stentinello
9.98854844Fernandes_etal_2020:I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
12.18871609Yu_etal_2022_UZZ034_Italy_Sicily_N_Stentinello
12.87029914Yu_etal_2022_UZZ077_Italy_Sicily_EN
12.88461098Yu_etal_2022_UZZ087_Italy_Sicily_N_Stentinello
13.19899996Fernandes_etal_2020:I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
13.29209163Fernandes_etal_2020:I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
16.91391143Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R4_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza
17.21830131Otzi_Sikora_etal_2014_Neolithic_Italian[UT4561244]
18.83993631Antionio_etal_2019:Sardinian/Neolithic_C2:R104_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
19.55074423Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R5_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza
26.61469143Fernandes_etal_2020:I15945_Sardinia_Neolithic_Anghelu_Ruju
28.10204441Fernandes_etal_2020:I15944_Sardinia_Neolithic_contam_Anghelu_Ruju
28.15224858Fernandes_etal_2020:I15946_Sardinia_Neolithic_Anghelu_Ruju
31.46981252Antonio_etal_2019:Neolithic_C2:R6_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
33.84716827Fernandes_etal_2020:I15943_Sardinia_Neolithic_Anghelu_Ruju
 
Last edited:
Apparently the Neolithic revolution in Sicily was introduced from Sardinia

"Using samples from five groups in Italy, we inferred the earliest dates of gene flow of ~6100 BCE, and within the millennium, the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry spread from Sardinia to Sicily (Figure 2). "
https://elifesciences.org/articles/77625

So Sicilian Neolithic DNA could be different from that of Calabria for this reason?[emoji848]
 
Jovialis said:
I think what this shows is the the non-steppe CHG that ramped up in the EBA was essential to the ethnogenesis of Southern Italy. Southern Italian Neolithic seems to be less CHG.

3pZFm9W.png
Click to expand...
The type of ancestry you're referring to is probably neolithic Armenian rather than CHG just due to the time frames but I agree with you that the ethnogenesis of modern S. Italians was mediated through a Caucasian heavy population such as bronze and iron age Greeks & Anatolians. Neolithic S. Italy seems to move in a directly line towards the aegean on PCAs and the relative admixture ratios of moderns reflect this as well.

Compared to CHG, Neolithic Armenia seems to have more Dzudzuana related ancestry but otherwise the two are similar. Neolithic Armenian ancestry influx is also responsible for all or nearly all of the genetic changes we see between neolithic and bronze age anatolia.



Anatolia Copper and Bronze age neolithic sources extended.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 5342 times.

Back
Top