Proof of Phoenician input in Spain, Malta and Sicily?

[Sikeliot]

The new study measuring Yamnaya input into Europe found that all European ethnicities' genes can be explained by population movements from prehistoric times, without recent input into Europe EXCEPT four: Spanish, Sicilians, Maltese and Ashkenazi Jews.

Does this suggest shared Phoenician ancestry between the former 3, keeping in mind that Sardinian, northern Spanish, Greeks, and other Southern ethnicities did not score the Bedouin component in high amount, a proxy for excess Near East DNA. The Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean centered around southern Spain, Sicily and Malta.

Here was the table. "Spanish" must mean southern since northern Spain was separate, and the Sicilian cluster is a mixture of Trapani and Syracuse at opposite ends of the island.

[Sikeliot]

This also would suggest that northern and southern Spain are not homogenous from north to south.

[welp]

The only thing that points to that is a study on PLOS that placed the timeframe of J and E between bronze and iron age on Sicily. (a mediterannean pot or something of the like, it was called) Someone mentioned something about J in pre roman spain as well but the above chart proves nothing of the like. It's baseless speculation.

Also, some of the countries in the chart have higher Yamnaya input and lower bedouin yet are placed in a nonsensical order from top to bottom.

[Sikeliot]

The only thing that points to that is a study on PLOS that placed the timeframe of J and E between bronze and iron age on Sicily. (a mediterannean pot or something of the like, it was called) Someone mentioned something about J in pre roman spain as well but the above chart proves nothing of the like. It's baseless speculation.

It is based on a new method of analyzing European admixture based on different admixture events linked with different migrations. What it suggests is southern Spain, Sicily, and Malta have too much Near Eastern admixture to have acquired it at the same time period as other Europeans, given the rates of admixture in the other populations, thus it must be recent.

[Tiberio]

Phoenicians colonize only the very western part of Sicily, i wonder how mainlander southern Italians can score for the definitive proof. Calabrians and Salentinis never have Phoenician colonies and they can be use as proof.
In Spain the most number of Phoenicians and Carthage influences are in the Balearic and in the Mediterranean coast.

[welp]

It is based on a new method of analyzing European admixture based on different admixture events linked with different migrations. What it suggests is southern Spain, Sicily, and Malta have too much Near Eastern admixture to have acquired it at the same time period as other Europeans, given the rates of admixture in the other populations, thus it must be recent.

What is up with the Bedouin component? South France has more of it than any other south european country combined while the southeast lacks it completely. The WHG and Yamnaya component make no sense either but I suppose that EN reflects neolithic farmers? (peaks in Sardinia)

Overall, one of the most weird charts I've ever seen.

[Sikeliot]

Phoenicians colonize only the very western part of Sicily, i wonder how mainlander southern Italians can score for the definitive proof. Calabrians and Salentinis never have Phoenician colonies and they can be use as proof.

They should have kept Trapani and Syracuse separate in the sample to compare. I have seen some calculators where, despite scoring higher North Euro input, western Sicilians score higher levels of exotic stuff -- up to 6% North African, up to 15% SW Asian and so on; eastern Sicilians are high in what most calculators call "Caucasus", which on the above falls into EN -- Early Neolithic, I am sure, and is considered European. The same is true for Crete.

I suspect Trapani pulls the average up. They should have had a mainland southern Italian sample, or a Cretan one.

[Sikeliot]

What is up with the Bedouin component? South France has more of it than any other south european country combined while the southeast lacks it completely. The WHG and Yamnaya component make no sense either but I suppose that EN reflects neolithic farmers? (peaks in Sardinia)

Overall, one of the most weird charts I've ever seen.

It's only weird because you are not reading it correctly. Anyway this study supported an older one, Lazaridis et al.

[Tiberio]

They should have kept Trapani and Syracuse separate in the sample to compare. I have seen some calculators where, despite scoring higher North Euro input, western Sicilians score higher levels of exotic stuff -- up to 6% North African, up to 15% SW Asian and so on; eastern Sicilians are high in what most calculators call "Caucasus", which on the above falls into EN -- Early Neolithic, I am sure, and is considered European. The same is true for Crete.

I suspect Trapani pulls the average up. They should have had a mainland southern Italian sample, or a Cretan one.

If there was significant differences between East and West they were reported in the study but it not happen and I think we are homogeneous.

[Sikeliot]

If there was significant differences between East and West they were reported in the study but it not happen and I think we are homogeneous.

So then we can assume 22% is correct, and that Maltese have double as much recent Near Eastern as Sicilians (or at least, the average of the samples. I bet Sciacca, Porto Empedocle and Mazara del Vallo might score more). Anyway, if this is correct, it shows that Sardinians and Greeks have probably changed the least since ancient times.