Ancient Sicilian sample from 2500-1900 BC from Bell Beaker study: what does this imply?

[Sikeliot]

2500-1900 BC sample

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738.epdf?author_access_token=6O06zgcZvj0G_ 9i7HqfndNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MvCgRpafo1l7XRALArFgC O72dZ0aR2A79TDV1UBbnsnb7lH58k3HS202aOE5sgvLIL5n2D-7M0GfBq0hmKQSEw

See the PCA here. The Sicilian sample is noticeably Levant-shifted next to North Italy and the other Bell Beaker samples of that era, but further from the Levant than modern Sicilians would be, in my view.

This does not imply to me that the Near Eastern input in Sicily is all prehistoric, rather that some of it is due to a combination of Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Jews, and the Arab conquest, while SOME of it is ancient (as you can see here).

https://i.imgur.com/6nFJWHn.png
https://i.imgur.com/2ZpUunR.png

[Lisa]

Russians from Vologda(East part) and Mordovians similar to CWC

[Sikeliot]

I cannot tell without seeing where modern Sicilians would plot but it seems that ancient ones (this person would have been pre-Phoenician, pre-Greek, pre-Arab and pre-Norman) already had some noticeable shift rightward on the plot toward the Middle East, especially compared to other Bell Beaker samples.

[nightrider+]

Modern Sicilians are already there. See yellow circle:

https://i.imgur.com/xGloOwQ.jpg

This Ancient Sicilian sample is pretty much an Anatolian Neolithic sample.

[Sikeliot]

Modern Sicilians are already there. See yellow circle:

https://i.imgur.com/xGloOwQ.jpg

This Ancient Sicilian sample is pretty much an Anatolian Neolithic sample.


So the Sicilian sample falls in line more or less with Mycenaeans, if not slightly shifted toward Anatolia Neolithic.

[nightrider+]

So the Sicilian sample falls in line more or less with Mycenaeans, if not slightly shifted toward Anatolia Neolithic.

Let's say it's close to the two less Caucasus-shifted Mycenaeans but even less Caucasus-shifted. Also close to Minoans.

[Sikeliot]

Let's say it's close to the two less Caucasus-shifted Mycenaeans but even less Caucasus-shifted. Also close to Minoans.

It's not just a matter of Caucasian shift to me... the Sicilian sample has no Steppe according to the paper. The Mycenaeans had about 10%.

So really it could be Mycenaeans without Steppe input. It looks like Sicilians today are like this sample but more Caucasus-shifted.

[Tauromachos]

Let's say it's close to the two less Caucasus-shifted Mycenaeans but even less Caucasus-shifted. Also close to Minoans.

Minoans didn't have a Levantine shift

[Sikeliot]

Minoans didn't have a Levantine shift

They do relative to other Europeans of the era as does this Sicilian, but significant Levantine input by modern standards, no to both.

[Tauromachos]

They do relative to other Europeans of the era as does this Sicilian, but significant Levantine input by modern standards, no to both.

Anatolian not Levantine

[Longobarda]

I cannot tell without seeing where modern Sicilians would plot but it seems that ancient ones (this person would have been pre-Phoenician, pre-Greek, pre-Arab and pre-Norman) already had some noticeable shift rightward on the plot toward the Middle East, especially compared to other Bell Beaker samples.

Sorry but all you mention pheonicians came respectively before the VIII cent. in certain areas of Sicily, Greeks starting VIII cent. b.c.e. Arabs and Normands in medieval times.

Instead the samples you are talking about aree relevant to an era between neolithic and bronze age. So, as Sicilian history is very complicated, I annex here the history of Sicily that you can find complete only in italian.
On the right side you can go down into sicilian history.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preistoria_della_Sicilia

[Scar]

Well, it implies they didn't changed that much, perhaps only for some Steppe introgression and some small percentage of additional MENA. As I said in the thread about Longobards, I think it's much more likely that Northern Italians received recent influences from the North of Europe instead of Southern Italians receiving recent influences. History tells us of no large scale migration to the South, but about many to the North... So you can make your own case knowing this.

The samples from Collegno seem to confirm what I'm saying. But ofc we need more ancient DNA before being able to make more general assumptions.

[Leto]

Russians from Vologda(East part) and Mordovians similar to CWC
Get lost, you know literally nothing about genetics. :picard1:

[Leto]

This does not imply to me that the Near Eastern input in Sicily is all prehistoric, rather that some of it is due to a combination of Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Jews, and the Arab conquest, while SOME of it is ancient (as you can see here).

This may be the case, yes. Sicily has a rich history of invasions, colonies and conquests.

[Scar]

This may be the case, yes. Sicily has a rich history of invasions, colonies and conquests.

And most were temporary settlements and not really strong enough to change their genetics in a fundamental way. Read some history, chap.
Normans, e,g., ruled Sicily for centuries, but their input is minor.

[Leto]

This study says the following:

The presence or absence of genetic heterogeneity in Sicily has long been debated. Through the analysis of the variation of Y-chromosome lineages, using the combination of haplogroups and short tandem repeats from several areas of Sicily, we show that traces of genetic flows occurred in the island, due to ancient Greek colonization and to northern African contributions, are still visible on the basis of the distribution of some lineages. The genetic contribution of Greek chromosomes to the Sicilian gene pool is estimated to be about 37% whereas the contribution of North African populations is estimated to be around 6%.

In particular, the presence of a modal haplotype coming from the southern Balkan Peninsula and of its one-step derivates associated to E3b1a2-V13, supports a common genetic heritage between Sicilians and Greeks. The estimate of Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor is about 2380 years before present, which broadly agrees with the archaeological traces of the Greek classic era. The Eastern and Western part of Sicily appear to be significantly different by the χ2-analysis, although the extent of such differentiation is not very high according to an analysis of molecular variance. The presence of a high number of different haplogroups in the island makes its gene diversity to reach about 0.9. The general heterogeneous composition of haplogroups in our Sicilian data is similar to the patterns observed in other major islands of the Mediterranean, reflecting the complex histories of settlements in Sicily.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2008120
Though they studied only the male contribution.

[Longobarda]

Well, it implies they didn't changed that much, perhaps only for some Steppe introgression and some small percentage of additional MENA. As I said in the thread about Longobards, I think it's much more likely that Northern Italians received recent influences from the North of Europe instead of Southern Italians receiving recent influences. History tells us of no large scale migration to the South, but about many to the North... So you can make your own case knowing this.

The samples from Collegno seem to confirm what I'm saying. But ofc we need more ancient DNA before being able to make more general assumptions.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=72778&d=1519397043
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=72779&d=1519397043

[Longobarda]

The genetic contribution of Greek chromosomes to the Sicilian gene pool is estimated to be about 37% whereas the contribution of North African populations is estimated to be around 6% (this last minor than northern Spain whose Cantabria has the highest of Europe, i.e. 18%, or Whole Spain itself which has 7% North african contribution as a Whole)

[Sikeliot]

Well, it implies they didn't changed that much, perhaps only for some Steppe introgression and some small percentage of additional MENA. As I said in the thread about Longobards, I think it's much more likely that Northern Italians received recent influences from the North of Europe instead of Southern Italians receiving recent influences. History tells us of no large scale migration to the South, but about many to the North... So you can make your own case knowing this.

The samples from Collegno seem to confirm what I'm saying. But ofc we need more ancient DNA before being able to make more general assumptions.


It seems to me like the main change is minor steppe and more Caucasus but the rest is unchanged.

I hope we get this sample on gedmatch.

[Sikeliot]

Others?

[Petalpusher]

This would need more than one sample so we can have better hints on the progression, but looks like they were MN/CA like everybody else, their starting point in the late neolithic, early BA was probably close to Czech MN or even Hungary CA which at this time were still close, then got more and more bronze age "southern IE", something caucasus.

[nightrider+]

This would need more than one sample so we can have better hints on the progression, but looks like they were MN/CA like everybody else, their starting point in the late neolithic, early BA was probably close to Czech MN or even Hungary CA which at this time were still close, then got more and more bronze age "southern IE", something caucasus.

This is going to be available on March 22 apparently: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?206129-Mesolithic-central-eastern-Mediterranean-was-already-quot-Neolithic-farmer-quot-like

Sicily could have been like that from the start of the Neolithic or even earlier, then got some northern influence to end up where this sample plots.

[Petalpusher]

This is going to be available on March 22 apparently: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?206129-Mesolithic-central-eastern-Mediterranean-was-already-quot-Neolithic-farmer-quot-like

Sicily could have been like that from the start of the Neolithic or even earlier, then got some northern influence to end up where this sample plots.

I think there was a paper with mesolithic Sicily or S.Italy and they were normal WHG, that study with the Iron gate samples but maybe they had different neolithic, that's why one sample is not enough, we don't see any direction. The alternative scenario is that their neolithic was modern levant like then just got northern influence, but seeing their present admixture, i don't think it works very well, also because it would likely have impacted Sardinia in the same way, and it's not the case.

[Sikeliot]

I think there was a paper with mesolithic Sicily or S.Italy and they were normal WHG, that study with the Iron gate samples but maybe they had different neolithic, that's why one sample is not enough, we don't see any direction. The alternative scenario is that their neolithic was modern levant like then just got northern influence, but seeing their present admixture, i don't think it works very well, also because it would likely have impacted Sardinia in the same way, and it's not the case.

It looks to me like the key difference to modern Sicilians is about 10% more Steppe today and maybe 10% more Caucasian. But I see the shift to the Levant already in their plotting, that's what pulls them rightward there.

[Token]

The Northern Italian beaker sample would be how Proto-Italic speakers genetically looked like right after entering Italy. Also, apparently the genetic profile of Sicilians wasn't just established after later NE migrations, Italy was probably uniformly Sicilian->SI->Tuscan-like before Longobard migrations and it makes perfect sense, considering that Italy is the country with highest regional differences in terms of genome. I'm inclined to say that Sicilian received little to no input from later NE settlements.

[Sikeliot]

The Northern Italian beaker sample would be how Proto-Italic speakers genetically looked like right after entering Italy. Also, apparently the genetic profile of Sicilians wasn't just established after later NE migrations, Italy was probably uniformly Sicilian->SI->Tuscan-like before Longobard migrations and it makes perfect sense, considering that Italy is the country with highest regional differences in terms of genome. I'm inclined to say that Sicilian received little to no input from later NE settlements.


So you think all Italians plotted in the outlying position of that Sicilian, and then the northern Italians received northern-like admixture? What do you think, then, shifts modern Sicilians upward on the plot?

We do know Sicilians have since received around 10% Steppe admixture, since the paper states that the Sicilian Bell Beakers had 0% Steppe (therefore, regardless of the languages they spoke, they had no Indo-European genetic input at all).

[nightrider+]

I think there was a paper with mesolithic Sicily or S.Italy and they were normal WHG, that study with the Iron gate samples but maybe they had different neolithic, that's why one sample is not enough, we don't see any direction. The alternative scenario is that their neolithic was modern levant like then just got northern influence, but seeing their present admixture, i don't think it works very well, also because it would likely have impacted Sardinia in the same way, and it's not the case.

Sardinia is a long way to the west but yeah I remember the paper you are referring to. It's also possible that genetically different populations co-existed, the samples are all from far to the norhtwest and some are even on different smaller islands, though they could have been connected back then.

https://i.imgur.com/jt3vK2A.jpg

[Token]

So you think all Italians plotted in the outlying position of that Sicilian, and then the northern Italians received northern-like admixture? What do you think, then, shifts modern Sicilians upward on the plot?

We do know Sicilians have since received around 10% Steppe admixture, since the paper states that the Sicilian Bell Beakers had 0% Steppe (therefore, regardless of the languages they spoke, they had no Indo-European genetic input at all).

Not really, rather between modern Sicilians, Southern Italians and Tuscans. This Sicilian Beaker is clearly a outlier, and considering his dating he was probably alive right when Indo-European speaking Beakers started entering the peninsula en masse. Probably a local adopting the Beaker package similar to maritime Beakers from Iberia.

[Sikeliot]

Not really, rather between modern Sicilians, Southern Italians and Tuscans. This Sicilian Beaker is clearly a outlier, and considering his dating he was probably alive right when Indo-European speaking Beakers started entering the peninsula en masse. Probably a local adopting the Beaker package similar to maritime Beakers from Iberia.

So when do you think Sicilians acquired their genetic shift toward West Asia? At this time, or later?

[Token]

So when do you think Sicilians acquired their genetic shift toward West Asia? At this time, or later?
Somewhere between the Neolithic and the early Bronze Age. We can also deduce that ENF didn't mixed much with WHG in Sicily during the agricultural revolution, this explains their abnormal shift towards Neolithic Anatolia compared to Neolithic Iberia, for example.

[Aren]

This would need more than one sample so we can have better hints on the progression, but looks like they were MN/CA like everybody else, their starting point in the late neolithic, early BA was probably close to Czech MN or even Hungary CA which at this time were still close, then got more and more bronze age "southern IE", something caucasus.

I think that individual already had some low levels of CHG.
72826

[Graham]

2500-1900 BC sample

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738.epdf?author_access_token=6O06zgcZvj0G_ 9i7HqfndNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MvCgRpafo1l7XRALArFgC O72dZ0aR2A79TDV1UBbnsnb7lH58k3HS202aOE5sgvLIL5n2D-7M0GfBq0hmKQSEw

See the PCA here. The Sicilian sample is noticeably Levant-shifted next to North Italy and the other Bell Beaker samples of that era, but further from the Levant than modern Sicilians would be, in my view.

This does not imply to me that the Near Eastern input in Sicily is all prehistoric, rather that some of it is due to a combination of Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Jews, and the Arab conquest, while SOME of it is ancient (as you can see here).

If this is how i see it with this pca you have. Havent kept up with it enough recently. Then that Sicilian bell beaker looks like early neolithic mixed with that corded influenced bronze age bell beaker( not as much as mainland Europe. Basically missed the mid neolithic stage on mainland, but bronze age influenced. :P

https://image.ibb.co/msJgqx/image.png

Modern Sicily has some other Eastern influence. Forgive my lines if not too accurate but close enough.
https://image.ibb.co/mspbOH/image.png

[Petalpusher]

I think that individual already had some low levels of CHG.
72826

That's normal, you can never catch exactly the right moment of an era in a sample since you get what is available and exploitable on the field of random individuals, and actually at the beginning you tend to find more mixed individuals until the mixes spread and stabilize in a population. In the same way, even if it's a bit anecdotic, you would find as much mixed remains if not more in America a few hundreds years ago with not mixed people at all living alongside, while now it's already more or less stabilized at 0.x% in every regions for all long time colonials. If we were seeing this process sampled in the last 400 years on a pca, it would look like it goes counter timewise.

We also always think or model using CHG, but we have to keep in mind CHG is much older than Iran neolithic and everything else, it's late paleo, so the model works that way but in reality chronologically it doesn't make much sense, it's just something "CHG rich", carrying high Iran neolithic or more realistically something similar to modern SW Asian that came there.