Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

Blevins, you and your comrades have once again hi-jacked a thread which has nothing to do with them because of an obsession with Greeks. There are numerous threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, including one dedicated to "Balkan" Disputes. I'm sure you remember it.

If you must, post that kind of stuff there.
 
@Alichu

My speculation has been verified in this chart. Iranian Jews, do tend to have different autosomal genetics from the non-Jewish Iranian population. Some of which have non-trivial amounts of SSA:

Xx70hLo.png


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09103

The Fst values also confirmed that iranian jews are different from the other iranians. and they are probably further away from pre-medieval, certainly from pre-bronze age iranians than the iranian population at large. possible SSA in iranians doesn't seem to make a big difference here. but yes, iranian jews seem to have less. interestingly it seems to appear more in ashkenazis. how would you explain that? as for the exact amount in iranians it really matters which subpopulation we are looking at. sicilians do not represent whole italy either.
and maybe it is also wrong to model yoruba as 100% SSA. they are around 13% taforalt. which was partially dzudzuana according to another study.
 
Last edited:
Blevins, you and your comrades have once again hi-jacked a thread which has nothing to do with them because of an obsession with Greeks. There are numerous threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, including one dedicated to "Balkan" Disputes. I'm sure you remember it.

If you must, post that kind of stuff there.

My obsession is truth, I accept that my posts here are out of place. I will not post anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
You forgot that they managed to beat the snot out of the Persians in 490 to 480. Athens had a formidable navy.

BTW, is it a national sport in Albania and Northern Macedonia to discredit anything Greek and trying to claim Alexander the Great? Why don't you go pick a fight with the Romanian historians that think that Albanian originated somewhere in Western Romanian?
?

The guy you quoted is not Albanian, he put a derogatory nickname and the flag of Albania. He is a troll for sure.
 
Ailichu/ratchet fan: Since this thread is specifically about Sicilian DNA, I am going to maybe be a little more blunt, but hopefully in a respectful and civil manner and hope it is taken as such.

I think the statement that European and Near Eastern are not valid genetic groups is not entirely accurate. I think it is well known here on this site that West Eurasians were one group some 50,000 years ago, admixed with Neanderthals and then spread into various "distinct populations" but related in that they all stem from West Eurasians.

This first paper by Jones et al 2015 is one that I am aware of that measures the time of divergence among some of the populations that are discussed in the Lazaradis et al 2016 paper, which is also linked.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912


Lazaridis et al 2016 Figure 1 lays it out. The term "Middle Eastern" is to me a specific term for modern Arab-Islamic culture, Arab being a language pretty much that developed in the early part of the first millennium AD. The term "Near Eastern" is a broad term that captures, as Figure 1 indicates below, Anatolian Farmers, Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG), Iran-Neolithic (IN), Levant Neolithic, Natufians and would also capture, although not ploted in Figure 1, peoples from the Arabian peninsula (Bedouins) who were nomadic peoples living across the deserts of modern Saudi Arabia and into deserts in Assyria during ancient times. Best I can tell, I have never seen any ancient DNA from this area. I think it is clear that those ancient populations were distinct enough to cluster separately, but of course related enough to cluster relatively in the same area code. I don't think anyone here who is of Italian, Greek or of ancestry from other countries on the Balkan peninsula denies they have significant ancestry from Anatolian-Europeans (EEF).

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310

The well cited Raveane et al 2019 paper states clearly all modern Italian Regions have significant Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, ranging from 56% (SItaly1 sample) to 72% (NItaly4 sample). Other ancestries identified in that paper include Western Hunter Gather (WHG), Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG), Iran-Neolithic (IN), Eastern Hunter Gather (EHG) and some North African (likely from Phoenician period and again Saracen period) in Sicily. I think what some people take issue with, I am in this group, is that when "middle eastern" is used that means I am being told that I am ethnically "Arab-Bedoiun" or ethnically Levantine. I am not, not that those are all great civilizations, some of the greatest civilizations were in the Levant (ancient Pheonicians) and the nearby civilizations near the Euphrates (Summeria, etc) which is where the Levant's border ends. And for the record, just because the Normans ruled Sicily in middle ages and Vandals in 4th/5th century AD doesn't make me a Viking or German. I am neither of those as well.

In my experience there are 2 types of people who use "middle eastern" in ways that suggest agendas, 1) one is based on making themselves the I guess standard of Modern Europeans, those tend to be more of those with Nordicist views and argue Northern Europeans are the standard for who Europeans are. The other are again, in my experience, 2) use it to argue against strict border enforcement for illegal migrants from modern Middle East countries. The first one is nonsense. Europe is Europe, Northern Europeans can be Northern Europeans, Eastern Europeans can be Eastern Europeans, NW Europeans in the British Isles can be NW Europeans, Central Europeans can be Central Europeans and by damn Southern Europeans can be Southern Europeans. The 2nd point is more of a political issue that is one that I agree with, border controls are needed, immigration needs to be legal and be a 2 way street for both host country and immigrant. But that is a political issue that is more for the political board (Ailichu and I have had private conversations on this political issue).

Since this thread was about Sicilian DNA, that is what I am interested in. What explains how I got to be what I am and how Sicily got to be what it is and how it relates to other populations in Italy from other regions historically such as how close did the DNA source populations from Mesolithic to bronze age in Sicily mirror the same period in Southern Italy, in Rome/Lazio, Central to Northern Italian Alps (i.e. Otzi the Iceman, who I just found out via MTA Chroma analysis I share DNA segments with). So I personally want source populations correctly identified as to what they are and what they are not. Lumping all those populations documented in Lazaradis et al Figure 1 is just not correct.

That is my honest take on it, Cheers.

you can't genetically group europeans and near east into two different groups. sure, for example in europe the different ethnicities will form different clusters and so you could say those are different ethnic groups, but in the end the borders of those ethnic groups will be set by geography or political borders. they are not defined by genetics.
as for your 2 groups with agendas, group 1) i think they care more about a standart for "whiteness" and not for "europeaness" based on the believe that near east is a different race. i also believe they are more of an american phenomenon since americans have this idea of a white race more than europeans. group 2) i already told you elsewhere that i do not understand your logic here. if europeans believing to be genetically less different from near easterners or having recent near eastern ancestors would lead to more open borders towards near east then that would imply that borders were closed before because of europeans believing to be more different from near easterners. but if this was the case then border politics would be partially racist. if there was a group in near east that was genetically completely identical to an italian group you wouldn't be for opening the borders for them just because of their genetics while keeping them closed or less open for others or would you?
 
Ailichu/ratchet fan: Since this thread is specifically about Sicilian DNA, I am going to maybe be a little more blunt, but hopefully in a respectful and civil manner and hope it is taken as such.
I think the statement that European and Near Eastern are not valid genetic groups is not entirely accurate. I think it is well known here on this site that West Eurasians were one group some 50,000 years ago, admixed with Neanderthals and then spread into various "distinct populations" but related in that they all stem from West Eurasians.
This first paper by Jones et al 2015 is one that I am aware of that measures the time of divergence among some of the populations that are discussed in the Lazaradis et al 2016 paper, which is also linked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912
Lazaridis et al 2016 Figure 1 lays it out. The term "Middle Eastern" is to me a specific term for modern Arab-Islamic culture, Arab being a language pretty much that developed in the early part of the first millennium AD. The term "Near Eastern" is a broad term that captures, as Figure 1 indicates below, Anatolian Farmers, Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG), Iran-Neolithic (IN), Levant Neolithic, Natufians and would also capture, although not ploted in Figure 1, peoples from the Arabian peninsula (Bedouins) who were nomadic peoples living across the deserts of modern Saudi Arabia and into deserts in Assyria during ancient times. Best I can tell, I have never seen any ancient DNA from this area. I think it is clear that those ancient populations were distinct enough to cluster separately, but of course related enough to cluster relatively in the same area code. I don't think anyone here who is of Italian, Greek or of ancestry from other countries on the Balkan peninsula denies they have significant ancestry from Anatolian-Europeans (EEF).
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310
The well cited Raveane et al 2019 paper states clearly all modern Italian Regions have significant Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, ranging from 56% (SItaly1 sample) to 72% (NItaly4 sample). Other ancestries identified in that paper include Western Hunter Gather (WHG), Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG), Iran-Neolithic (IN), Eastern Hunter Gather (EHG) and some North African (likely from Phoenician period and again Saracen period) in Sicily. I think what some people take issue with, I am in this group, is that when "middle eastern" is used that means I am being told that I am ethnically "Arab-Bedoiun" or ethnically Levantine. I am not, not that those are all great civilizations, some of the greatest civilizations were in the Levant (ancient Pheonicians) and the nearby civilizations near the Euphrates (Summeria, etc) which is where the Levant's border ends. And for the record, just because the Normans ruled Sicily in middle ages and Vandals in 4th/5th century AD doesn't make me a Viking or German. I am neither of those as well.
In my experience there are 2 types of people who use "middle eastern" in ways that suggest agendas, 1) one is based on making themselves the I guess standard of Modern Europeans, those tend to be more of those with Nordicist views and argue Northern Europeans are the standard for who Europeans are. The other are again, in my experience, 2) use it to argue against strict border enforcement for illegal migrants from modern Middle East countries. The first one is nonsense. Europe is Europe, Northern Europeans can be Northern Europeans, Eastern Europeans can be Eastern Europeans, NW Europeans in the British Isles can be NW Europeans, Central Europeans can be Central Europeans and by damn Southern Europeans can be Southern Europeans. The 2nd point is more of a political issue that is one that I agree with, border controls are needed, immigration needs to be legal and be a 2 way street for both host country and immigrant. But that is a political issue that is more for the political board (Ailichu and I have had private conversations on this political issue).
Since this thread was about Sicilian DNA, that is what I am interested in. What explains how I got to be what I am and how Sicily got to be what it is and how it relates to other populations in Italy from other regions historically such as how close did the DNA source populations from Mesolithic to bronze age in Sicily mirror the same period in Southern Italy, in Rome/Lazio, Central to Northern Italian Alps (i.e. Otzi the Iceman, who I just found out via MTA Chroma analysis I share DNA segments with). So I personally want source populations correctly identified as to what they are and what they are not. Lumping all those populations documented in Lazaradis et al Figure 1 is just not correct.
That is my honest take on it, Cheers.
I hope Lazardis's paper on Dzudzuana comes out soon. I think the findings that the Paleolithic Caucasians were similar to Anatolian_Neo, is quite illuminating. The title states that this is the core of West Eurasians, and the study shows they were augmented by mixing with other Paleolithic populations in each respective region.
I want to see a genetics calculator that uses these components to determine admixture
ED0qvth
 
I hope Lazardis's paper on Dzudzuana comes out soon. I think the findings that the Paleolithic Caucasians were similar to Anatolian_Neo, is quite illuminating. The title states that this is the core of West Eurasians, and the study shows they were augmented by mixing with other Paleolithic populations in each respective region.
I want to see a genetics calculator that uses these components to determine admixture
ED0qvth

Isn't it just the core of Southern Europeans and Anatolians? I would imagine Levant_Chl, Iran_Neo and ANE are very important for other regions.
 
Isn't it just the core of Southern Europeans and Anatolians? I would imagine Levant_Chl, Iran_Neo and ANE are very important for other regions.
Northern Europe and all the others too:

yIGats6.png


Every single West Eurasian can be modeled predominately as Paleo-Caucasian.
 
Last edited:
Northern Europe and all the others too:
https://imgur.com/a/ED0qvth
Every single West Eurasian can be modeled predominately as Paleo-Caucasian.

Very cool. I guess I believed all the models saying there was ridiculous amounts of East Eurasian in ANE, CHG, Iran_Neo and WHG. Doesn't look to be true. I'm also surprised at how little Villabruna related ancestry there is even in the most Northern of populations. Too bad. I always though WHG were really cool.
 
if europeans believing to be genetically less different from near easterners or having recent near eastern ancestors would lead to more open borders towards near east then that would imply that borders were closed before because of europeans believing to be more different from near easterners. but if this was the case then border politics would be partially racist. if there was a group in near east that was genetically completely identical to an italian group you wouldn't be for opening the borders for them just because of their genetics while keeping them closed or less open for others or would you?

If this thing matters, don't worry about Iran, as you read here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53048719 "Annual population growth has dropped below 1% and, if no action is taken, Iran could become one of the world's oldest countries in the next 30 years."

But I wonder why you don't talk about the real problem, why does Iran want to build nuclear bombs, why Europeans and Americans try hard to prevent it and China and other eastern countries don't care? Scholars who talk about cultural and genetic similarities between Iranians and Westerners are being arrested in Iran but terrorists who want to kill Westerners are being supported!
 
Northern Europe and all the others too:

yIGats6.png


Every single West Eurasian can be modeled predominately as Paleo-Caucasian.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Paleo-Caucasian includes some level of basal eurasian though right?

I'd like to see a graph which separates out the Basal element and also separates out the ENA from the Villabrana and AG3 components.
 
I wonder why you don't talk about the real problem, why does Iran want to build nuclear bombs, why Europeans and Americans try hard to prevent it and China and other eastern countries don't care? Scholars who talk about cultural and genetic similarities between Iranians and Westerners are being arrested in Iran but terrorists who want to kill Westerners are being supported!

Why do you think all of that is happening?

Iranians and Westerners/Europeans have deep cultural and ancestral connections, but don't forget the English Germans fought two world wars against the German Germans.
 
you can't genetically group europeans and near east into two different groups. sure, for example in europe the different ethnicities will form different clusters and so you could say those are different ethnic groups, but in the end the borders of those ethnic groups will be set by geography or political borders. they are not defined by genetics.
as for your 2 groups with agendas, group 1) i think they care more about a standard for "whiteness" and not for "Europeans" based on the believe that near east is a different race. i also believe they are more of an american phenomenon since Americans have this idea of a white race more than Europeans. group 2) i already told you elsewhere that i do not understand your logic here. if europeans believing to be genetically less different from near easterners or having recent near eastern ancestors would lead to more open borders towards near east then that would imply that borders were closed before because of Europeans believing to be more different from near easterners. but if this was the case then border politics would be partially racist. if there was a group in near east that was genetically completely identical to an italian group you wouldn't be for opening the borders for them just because of their genetics while keeping them closed or less open for others or would you?

I stand by what I wrote in post 213. You will never understand my logic about what I think about borders because we have different world views. That is my view. If you disagree with my view, that is 1) Your right, 2)your view and 3) your problem. Not mine. You and I will never agree on border and immigration policy. I have made my points more clear with more detail to you in a private conversation. I will not all of them repeat them here. The thread is about Sicilian DNA Pre-Greek colonization. I prefer to live it in that realm and in my own personal view, said enough about the political stuff.
 
Last edited:
I hope Lazardis's paper on Dzudzuana comes out soon. I think the findings that the Paleolithic Caucasians were similar to Anatolian_Neo, is quite illuminating. The title states that this is the core of West Eurasians, and the study shows they were augmented by mixing with other Paleolithic populations in each respective region.
I want to see a genetics calculator that uses these components to determine admixture
ED0qvth

Jovialis: Interesting. That sounds like a neat paper. Is the 2nd link the pre-print of the paper you are referring to, seems very close.? So what Lazaridis study is examining is basically the model laid out by Jones et al 2015 Figure 2? I am getting quota limits on posting images so here is the paper. But as most here know it lays out the WHG/CHG split in the Paleolithic period in Europe and around 25,000 BC, the CHG and EEF split which is what you are saying Lazaridis is finding in his paper.

Jones et al 2015 study "Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians"


https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1
 
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. :)

Did they have Central Italian aDNA samples back then from the Neolithic up to the modern era? I guess they didn't, so they were just guesstimating based on their biases. This is clearly not my case, and I'd really like you to not put me in the same basket of those "usual suspects" just because in this very specific topic I happen to agree with them not based on any preconceived idea I have, but based on what phylogeny and autosomal DNA clearly suggests. What you can do, if you want to, is to give an alternative and presumably better explanation for what's being picked up in all models of genetic ancestry and is clearly shown when you compare the genetic distances between East Mediterranean populations and the ancient vs. modern samples from Sicily (and I must add it's a bit intriguing to me that you and other forum members of Italian ancestry are totally willing to consider that Eastern Mediterranean flow as long as it stops right at the Greek Aegean islands and the western Anatolian coast at the furthest, not anywhere east or, God forbid, southeast of that).
 
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%?
2xPE1Cb.png

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

Well, I don't want to sound annoying (I don't know why, but implying any non-negligible amount of genetic replacement in some areas seems to bother some forumers if it happened any later than the LBA), but from the PCA chart you present as well as other evidences I have seen, and taking into account that after the BA we're talking about much more mixed and therefore less genetically distant populations all over the Mediterranean basin, I think it's clear that both Crete and Sicily did have large-scale population replacement, though that only means a significant external gene flow into them, not a majority of a new component replacing the former. Keep in mind we're talking about populations that were much closer to each other than before the BA, so even a significant, but not massive, post-BA change will not have pushed the populations of those areas much further apart from where they were in the LBA.
 
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).

Are you sure that's what the table of genetic models you posted with your text really indicate? I'm not sure, but it looks like it's simply describing all the various admixture models that the authors tried, but from the data I can't establish which is the actual best-fitting model among them. The models have as target samples the very sample groupings (Sicily_EN, Sicily_MN) just changing the 2 or 3 source populations used as proxies.

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.

Whatever changes happened in Sicily after the MLBA caused not the arrival of entirely new components that had never been there before, but just the comparative increase of some at the relative expense of others. That seems to have been the case with Yamnaya-related and Natufian-related admixtures. However, Natufian-related admixture must've been very minor and scattered before the MLBA, I think so.

After all, we need to remember this: we're not talking about gene flows/migrations from extremely different and distant places and totally exotic populations. They were populations genetically related and increasingly closer to each other due to progressive admixture events since the EN.

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.
I'm using G25 coordinates.

I agree more Sicilian BB and especially Sicilian Iron Age samples would be really useful to understand the diachronic genetic structure of the region better.
 
Ygorcs: Thanks for the G25 information. I don't have my G25 coordinates so I have never been able run that on my own so when I see a plot like that I have to remember what it is.

As for the models I posted from the VandeLoosdrecht et al 2020 pre-print, I think those are the models the authors identified as the best fits to model the three distinct periods. So it is how I interpreted their statements, but I could have misinterpreted what they wrote in the text. Here is a direct quote from the paper with respect to the most recent group of Ancient Sicilians from the Grotta Del Uzzo site.

"The third and most recent genetic group, which we labelled as Sicily Early Neolithic (Sicily EN, n=7), contains seven individuals dated to ~5,460-5,220 calBCE. In PCA, 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) (17, 38, 39, 54). All the individuals in the Sicily EN group, with sufficient coverage for genome reconstruction, carried mitogenome haplogroups characteristic for European early farmers: U8b1b1 (n=2), K1a2 (n=1), N1a1a1 (n=1), J1c5 (n=1) and H (n=1) (55)."

So it seems the Sicilian_EN samples were in essence Early European Farmer like peoples, with some residual HG ancestry which was almost replaced. A couple of quotes about Sicilian_EM

"The Sicilian early farmers contain almost entirely early farmer ancestry, indicating an almost complete ancestry replacement during the Early Neolithic."

"The Sicily EN ancestry can also be adequately modelled using a non-local HG ancestry source in addition to early farmer ancestry as approximated by a combination Anatolia EN Barcin and Iran EN Ganj Dareh."


I agree with you about the transition from Mesolithic to bronze age did not result in totally exotic population replacements. I always look at the word "replacement" with critical lens. So my guess is that I would think think Sicilian Bell Beaker as late as 2,200 BC would be pretty similar to these Sicilian_EN samples from Grotta Del Uzzo, Trapani that are documented as being almost totally Neolithic Early European Farmer type ancestry. Does that sound correct. But still by the Late Bronze Age, as you noted (I think correctly), the new components that came in where not ones that had not been present in Sicily already. I agree the admixture ratios among the same source populations may have varied during from period to period but they all seem to be in Sicily by about 2,000 BC.

It Would be interesting to see how the new Grotta Del Uzzo samples plot in your G25 plot. Out of curiosity, where does the Favignana Sicilian HG and the ancient Sicilian Samples (the ones with first inflow of Steppe ancestry) from Fernandes et al 2020 plot in your graph in 277. My off the cuff guess would be in general slightly NW for the Samples from Fernandes et al 2020 and the Favignana HG obviously more West/NW.area dode.So as you noted, and I agree, we are not talking about huge population movements that are substantially different. That is why I always look at the word "Replacement" with very critical lens. The PC you have in post 277 sort of illustrates that.

So based on what I have seen in all the research on WHG/EEF/Steppe-ANE/ and now Caucus HG/Iran Neolithic, Before Neolithic period, Sicily was Western HG, which as I noted, would plot to the West of your G25 plot and slightly NW. Then the Neolithic EEF pulled it towards Anatolia as evidenced by Sicilian Bell Beaker, then the Steppe ancestry that comes in documented by Fernandes et al 2020 probably moved them slightly back West towards Iberia, and a little North, since that is where that paper documented the Steppe ancestry into Sicily came from. But then, the Phoenician (Levant) moved it towards East as well as did the Greek Colonization. The Mycenaean's, which have an estimated 4 to 16% Steppe are very close to modern Sicilians per your chart and I personally get some reasonable distances on some of the calculators (Share DNA segments with 2 per MTA). Just my guess.

So unanswered research questions for Sicily to me.

1) Samples from post 2,000 BC but pre 1,000 BC from archaeological sites that are clearly Elymian and Sicani. I think it is clear the Sicels are an Italian Tribe, along with the Morgante and Italic Tribes from Campania were in Sicily in the 100 years before the First Punic war. That is the only way to determine who those 2 ancient tribes were most closely related to.

2) How did the Phoenician sea ports/cities on NW coast and Greek Colonization impact Sicily? So we need DNA from 1,000 to about 800 BC from NW Sicily, to accurately measure Phoenician impact, and then DNA from 750 BC to the Roman times around 350-300 BC.

3) Samples from Roman times from late Republican Rome to Imperial period.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't want to sound annoying (I don't know why, but implying any non-negligible amount of genetic replacement in some areas seems to bother some forumers if it happened any later than the LBA), but from the PCA chart you present as well as other evidences I have seen, and taking into account that after the BA we're talking about much more mixed and therefore less genetically distant populations all over the Mediterranean basin, I think it's clear that both Crete and Sicily did have large-scale population replacement, though that only means a significant external gene flow into them, not a majority of a new component replacing the former. Keep in mind we're talking about populations that were much closer to each other than before the BA, so even a significant, but not massive, post-BA change will not have pushed the populations of those areas much further apart from where they were in the LBA.

It does not bother me at all. It's just that if Cretans have a substantial Minoan ancestry then it's very likely that Sicilians have a substanial pre-900BC Sicilian ancestry given the ratio shown in the PCA. Why no one mentioned a large replacement in Minoan Crete?
A nearly complete replacement means that Sicilians have little to very little native ancestry, which is what I disagree with.

A large replacement does not necessarily mean a nearly complete replacement. Modern Sicilians might still have 25% to 30% native ancestry. Some people try to inflate the impact of their favorite ancient civilisations.
 

This thread has been viewed 87877 times.

Back
Top