The Mediterranean route into Europe (Paschou et al. 2014)

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,329
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Dienekes posted a link to this study, based on modern DNA distributions: The Mediterranean route into Europe (Paschou et al. 2014)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1320811111.abstract

The abstract:

The Neolithic populations, which colonized Europe approximately 9,000 y ago, presumably migrated from Near East to Anatolia and from there to Central Europe through Thrace and the Balkans. An alternative route would have been island hopping across the Southern European coast. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed genome-wide DNA polymorphisms on populations bordering the Mediterranean coast and from Anatolia and mainland Europe. We observe a striking structure correlating genes with geography around the Mediterranean Sea with characteristic east to west clines of gene flow. Using population network analysis, we also find that the gene flow from Anatolia to Europe was through Dodecanese, Crete, and the Southern European coast, compatible with the hypothesis that a maritime coastal route was mainly used for the migration of Neolithic farmers to Europe.


The supplementary data can be found here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1320811111.DCSupplemental/pnas.1320811111.sapp.pdf

Here is part of Dienekes' commentary:
"It is hard to imagine that there were ever any major impediments to gene flow between Anatolia and the Balkans as the Aegean islands and Hellespont are not formidable barriers to any culture with even rudimentary technology. Hopefully in the future it will become possible to look at ancient DNA from Greece and Anatolia and directly determine how the transfer of the Neolithic package into Europe took place and how much of the ancestry of modern populations stems from the Neolithic inhabitants vs. more recent shuffling of genes in either direction."
 
Genetic connections:
Genetic connections.JPG
 
Wow, so many Greek bros in that paper.

Democritus strong.
 

Very cool, isn't it? I tried to make a copy of the three dimensional PCA plot but it wasn't all that legible. It's nice that we have all these new samples from southern Europe, as well as ones from Yale which aren't very well known.
 
Very cool, isn't it? I tried to make a copy of the three dimensional PCA plot but it wasn't all that legible. It's nice that we have all these new samples from southern Europe, as well as ones from Yale which aren't very well known.

I think this one is clear enough.

689.jpg


As a side note, there perhaps should be more quality control with sampling. Lots of Chuvashes included in this PCA have clearly been russified to the extent they've become genetically Slavic. Finns appear to have done the same to one Dane.
 
I think this one is clear enough.

689.jpg


As a side note, there perhaps should be more quality control with sampling. Lots of Chuvashes included in this PCA have clearly been russified to the extent they've become genetically Slavic. Finns appear to have done the same to one Dane.
Wow, look at Sardinians, so separate and distant from others. They might be the purest ancient farmers in existence, left almost intact on the island for some reason.
 
Very cool, isn't it? I tried to make a copy of the three dimensional PCA plot but it wasn't all that legible. It's nice that we have all these new samples from southern Europe, as well as ones from Yale which aren't very well known.
Egypt has direct connections to Crete (also known from Minoan civilization records), but surprisingly to Sicily too. I know Egypt was producing lots of food for Rome. Perhaps Sicily was a shipping hub?

Equally surprising are the extensive connections from Palestine to Europe. It might be indication for the whole Near East. I would gladly want to see connections from Lebanon (old Phoenician), but they missed this important spot, and also Varna and Cucuteni cultures, coastal Bulgaria and Romania. A bit disappointing in sight selection.
 
I think this one is clear enough.

689.jpg


As a side note, there perhaps should be more quality control with sampling. Lots of Chuvashes included in this PCA have clearly been russified to the extent they've become genetically Slavic. Finns appear to have done the same to one Dane.

Thanks, Salbrox.
 
Sicily was also a granary for Rome; at the time, the climate was different, and the soil hadn't yet been worn out, so it was very fertile. I don't know if that explains it, though. I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily. Ido know that even up until the time of Cleopatra, the ships had to follow the winds and currents, and so it was almost impossible to sail directly from Egypt to Italy. Cleopatra's ships, when she went to Rome, had to sail east and then up along the coast of the Levant till they reached the outskirts of the Aegean, when they could turn west. Then, they either hugged the coastline of the peninsula up to Naples or Rome, or they headed for Sicily and, if they were going to the western Mediterranean, they made for the Straits of Messina, a dangerous passage at that time.

I think this explains the point made in the paper that the Mediterranean actually acted as a barrier to gene flow for much of history; the northern Mediterranean coast was not directly influenced very much by the southern Mediterranean coast. It was usually mediated through the Levant or Gibraltar. I've been saying that for five years too, not that anyone was paying any attention. :) Sailing obviously improved, of course, because by the time of the Saracen invasions, they did sail from Tunisia to Sicily. However, the Saracens who raided the northern Mediterranean coast of southern France and nearby Liguria didn't come from North Africa directly; they were from Spain, which had already been subjugated by the Saracens who had crossed into Spain by way of the Straits of Gibralter.

So, I don't know what to make of it. Sicily had, as a granary, many large latifundia manned by slave labor, but I'm not aware of any mass enslavement of Egyptians. Their rulers, including Cleopatra, were too smart to take Rome on directly, and their farmers were far too valuable right where they were, producing grain for Rome. Also, while, since the time of Cleopatra, there had been a large Roman colony in Egypt, which had intermarried with the locals, and might have taken spouses home, why only to Sicily? Even if the gene flow went the other way, you would expect it in Toscana, for example, as well.

As for Crete, whatever influence there was (the thickness/thinness of the lines is important, I think) must have been male mediated, if this paper is correct, although I don't know what specific yDNA clades we'd be talking about. E-V13 was already a player in the Neolithic.

See: A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete (Paschou is also a contributor to that study, btw)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/full/ncomms2871.html

Also interesting in this regard is that there's no line from Egypt to the Druse, despite all the talk that there must be an Egyptian influence in the Druse since their religion partly has Egyptian origins.

Equally surprising are the extensive connections from Palestine to Europe. It might be indication for the whole Near East. I would gladly want to see connections from Lebanon (old Phoenician), but they missed this important spot, and also Varna and Cucuteni cultures, coastal Bulgaria and Romania. A bit disappointing in sight selection.

I think that's probably old, shared, Neolithic ancestry, don't you think? Despite the fact that the Palestinians have been influenced by subsequent movements from the Sinai and the Arabian peninsula, and have absorbed additional SSA, I'm sure a large component is very old and local to the area. As for the Phoenicians in Lebanon, we're taking about an area that's right in the neighborhood. I wonder how easy it would be to distinguish a Phoenicans from one of those early farmers anyway. Would they have gotten any ANE yet?

It's very true that there's a big hole in terms of the samples from the Balkans.

I don't yet have it very clear how the Anatolian Neolithic fits into all of this. Did the farmers first go to Cappadoccia? or were the people there very similar to the more coastal farmers anyway? When and from direction did Thessaly get its Neolithic?

I'll have to read it again tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep. :)
 
Wow, look at Sardinians, so separate and distant from others. They might be the purest ancient farmers in existence, left almost intact on the island for some reason.

The Sardinians don't stand out in the 2d PCA below, but cluster with Cretans and Sicilians, so we can say the third eigenvector is a "Sardinian factor". It's hard to make out their opposite, it's either South Moroccans or Chuvash. The first two eigenvectors are more obvious.



2ai3tcg.jpg
 
The Sardinians don't stand out in the 2d PCA below, but cluster with Cretans and Sicilians, so we can say the third eigenvector is a "Sardinian factor". It's hard to make out their opposite, it's either South Moroccans or Chuvash. The first two eigenvectors are more obvious.





2ai3tcg.jpg

If I remember correctly, the Skogland paper found a high correlation in certain analyses between Gok 4 and the Cypriots. Sicily showed up in terms of Otzi, I believe, although Sardinia was closest.

It all seems to tie in with the findings of this paper.
 
Since we don't have any ancient DNA to support what an ancient Cappadocian looked like or even a Cretan, we cannot reasonably compare an ancient population with recent ones - unless I have missed something in the data and there are ancient samples. The PCA plot shows us basically what we always see when we look at all the "Eurasian" players all at once in the same dataset... Nothing new here.
 
Sicily was also a granary for Rome; at the time, the climate was different, and the soil hadn't yet been worn out, so it was very fertile. I don't know if that explains it, though. I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily. Ido know that even up until the time of Cleopatra, the ships had to follow the winds and currents, and so it was almost impossible to sail directly from Egypt to Italy. Cleopatra's ships, when she went to Rome, had to sail east and then up along the coast of the Levant till they reached the outskirts of the Aegean, when they could turn west. Then, they either hugged the coastline of the peninsula up to Naples or Rome, or they headed for Sicily and, if they were going to the western Mediterranean, they made for the Straits of Messina, a dangerous passage at that time.

I think this explains the point made in the paper that the Mediterranean actually acted as a barrier to gene flow for much of history; the northern Mediterranean coast was not directly influenced very much by the southern Mediterranean coast. It was usually mediated through the Levant or Gibraltar. I've been saying that for five years too, not that anyone was paying any attention. :) Sailing obviously improved, of course, because by the time of the Saracen invasions, they did sail from Tunisia to Sicily. However, the Saracens who raided the northern Mediterranean coast of southern France and nearby Liguria didn't come from North Africa directly; they were from Spain, which had already been subjugated by the Saracens who had crossed into Spain by way of the Straits of Gibralter.

There hardly were such impediments of travel between Egypt and Italy during Roman times:

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/transprt/shiptrav.htm

"One of the most heavily frequented trade routes lay between the Egyptian city of Alexandria and the Ostia, the port city that served Rome. As her empire grew, it became increasingly obvious that locally grown grain was insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. Rich and productive though the Campanian farms were, their output was still insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. The Province of Egypt could seemingly provide an endless supply of high quality wheat. Year after year, the grain ships made their way between the two cities, carrying their precious cargoes upon which the life of the empire itself depended. Indeed, the importance of the North African grain supply was not lost on the military mind. If a rebellious general or provincial governor wished to claim the imperial throne for his own, he need only control or even seriously threaten the grain supply ships. The prospect of mass starvation in the Eternal City would usually bring either an imperial general to the rescue or the end of an emperor’s reign in fairly short order."

So, I don't know what to make of it. Sicily had, as a granary, many large latifundia manned by slave labor, but I'm not aware of any mass enslavement of Egyptians. Their rulers, including Cleopatra, were too smart to take Rome on directly, and their farmers were far too valuable right where they were, producing grain for Rome. Also, while, since the time of Cleopatra, there had been a large Roman colony in Egypt, which had intermarried with the locals, and might have taken spouses home, why only to Sicily? Even if the gene flow went the other way, you would expect it in Toscana, for example, as well.

Not "massive" but certainly there were many from Egypt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=T5...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"With territorial acquisitions in ASIA MINOR, many of the slaves came from the East and were Syrian, Jew, Greek, and even Egyptian." - Page 508

There also were the communities of free citizens from Egypt and their descendants living in Rome:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6Q...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Most foreigners living in Rome did not form distinct ethno-national communities. There were no distinct residential areas for foreigners and interaction among co-nationals was largely related to shared kinship or commercial interests. Shrines or temples linked to foreign religious cults sometimes also served as point of contact among co-nationals and as links to their ancestral home. Egyptian cults such as the one devoted to Isis had shrines and priests in Rome, but it is important to note that the worshipers were not exclusively Egyptian and included some upper class Romans. Thus, such shrines were not exclusive ethno-national centers. There were also quite a few shrines devoted to deities from Syrian cities in Rome. While sometimes these attracted non-Syrians, for the most part worshipers had some connection with Syria. Thus worshipers at the Palmyrene shrine included temporary visitors from Palmyra, recent immigrants from Palmyra, and residents of Palmyrene ancestry." - Page 184
 
I haven't had time to read the paper yet, but looking at the network analysis (fig.4) it gives the impression that Neolithic farmers spread from continental Italy to France, then to the Basque region/Pyrénées, and then only to Sardinia. This is interesting because I had always assumed that the diffusion progressed from east to west, and that farmers had reached Sardinia directly from the Italian peninsula via Corsica or Sicily/Tunisia. It actually would make sense if the Neolithic colonists had first reached Iberia and migrated by boat from the Balearic islands to Sardinia following the sea currents. After all, the currents go eastward in that part of the Mediterranean, so navigation on primitive boats would have been near impossible from Sicily to Sardinia. From Corsica the currents flow north, so not an option either. The only route is from Iberia.

current.GIF


This is very important because it could mean that Sardinian I2a1a could have come from Iberia in Neolithic times, rather than being a Mesolithic remnant. It would also explain the similarity between the Basques and Sardinians.
 
The currents show modern sea levels. If the sea level was lower the currents might be different and those land bridges would be handy in crossing during low tides. Neolithic Era about 10,200 BCE (12,200 years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ike
There hardly were such impediments of travel between Egypt and Italy during Roman times:

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/transprt/shiptrav.htm

"One of the most heavily frequented trade routes lay between the Egyptian city of Alexandria and the Ostia, the port city that served Rome. As her empire grew, it became increasingly obvious that locally grown grain was insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. Rich and productive though the Campanian farms were, their output was still insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. The Province of Egypt could seemingly provide an endless supply of high quality wheat. Year after year, the grain ships made their way between the two cities, carrying their precious cargoes upon which the life of the empire itself depended. Indeed, the importance of the North African grain supply was not lost on the military mind. If a rebellious general or provincial governor wished to claim the imperial throne for his own, he need only control or even seriously threaten the grain supply ships. The prospect of mass starvation in the Eternal City would usually bring either an imperial general to the rescue or the end of an emperor’s reign in fairly short order."



Not "massive" but certainly there were many from Egypt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=T5...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"With territorial acquisitions in ASIA MINOR, many of the slaves came from the East and were Syrian, Jew, Greek, and even Egyptian." - Page 508

There also were the communities of free citizens from Egypt and their descendants living in Rome:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6Q...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Most foreigners living in Rome did not form distinct ethno-national communities. There were no distinct residential areas for foreigners and interaction among co-nationals was largely related to shared kinship or commercial interests. Shrines or temples linked to foreign religious cults sometimes also served as point of contact among co-nationals and as links to their ancestral home. Egyptian cults such as the one devoted to Isis had shrines and priests in Rome, but it is important to note that the worshipers were not exclusively Egyptian and included some upper class Romans. Thus, such shrines were not exclusive ethno-national centers. There were also quite a few shrines devoted to deities from Syrian cities in Rome. While sometimes these attracted non-Syrians, for the most part worshipers had some connection with Syria. Thus worshipers at the Palmyrene shrine included temporary visitors from Palmyra, recent immigrants from Palmyra, and residents of Palmyrene ancestry." - Page 184


The question was in regard to why there would be a line going directly from Egypt to Sicily, (and Crete for that matter) but not to other parts of Italy. The fact that Egyptian galleys regularly supplied Rome with grain through the port of Ostia was a given. (See Post #10..."I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily.") My speculation was that perhaps those galleys sometimes stopped in Sicily for additional grain, with Sicily acting as a sort of hub, although I have read nothing to that effect.

None of that has anything to do with the route those galleys had to take, which it is very well documented was not a route directly from Egypt to Italy. The wind and sea currents and the nature of navigation at that time precluded that route. Those same water and wind currents affected sea navigation far back into prehistory.

As to slavery, it is indeed true that there were some Egyptian slaves, and Egyptians living in Rome, and Romans living in Egypt, and as a result undoutedly some admixture. My point was that I don't see anything that is Sicily specific, the way that there is with documented Egyptian influence in Crete.
 
The currents show modern sea levels. If the sea level was lower the currents might be different and those land bridges would be handy in crossing during low tides. Neolithic Era about 10,200 BCE (12,200 years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

the estimation is that water level was 2 metres lower ..........which is due to findings in the Adriatic-refrugium

I can only think that the current direction would still be the same
 

This thread has been viewed 67146 times.

Back
Top