Something confusing about population replacement in SE Europe. How did this happen?

[Sikeliot]

Using Dodecad K12b because I like how they label the categories:

Bell Beaker Sicilian:
1 Atlantic_Med 42.97
2 Caucasus 35.18
3 Southwest_Asian 12.5
4 North_European 3.66
5 Northwest_African 3.37
6 Sub_Saharan 0.84
7 Gedrosia 0.74
8 Siberian 0.74

Modern day Sicilian average:
1 Caucasus 36.54
2 Atlantic_Med 30.03
3 Southwest_Asian 11.91
4 North_European 11.91
5 Gedrosia 4.50
6 Northwest_African 4.10
7 Siberian 0.74
8 East African 0.70
9 Sub_Saharan 0.30


How is it possible that the Caucasian, Southwest Asian, and North African have remained almost exactly the same in the last 5000 years, with only two categories changing in opposite directions by about 10% -- North European (which gained almost 10%) and Atlantic-Med (which lost almost 10%)?

The only explanation to me, is that for North European to increase, it would have come with migrations that would have decreased the Atlantic-Med, SW Asian, Caucasian, and North African, and then a later infusion of West Asian and North African that did not carry EEF/Sardinian in such high amounts had to come in to restore the MENA elements to their original levels.

So I do not think we can look at ancient samples and say "these numbers barely changed, so there was no recent migration" when obviously there must have been.

The exact same logic dictates why Cretans must have received a recent wave of Near Eastern that the Minoans did not have.

Minoan:
1 Caucasus 44.08
2 Atlantic_Med 43.52
3 Southwest_Asian 12.16
4 Northwest_African 0.24


Modern Cretans have the same amount of SW Asian as this Minoan, but lower Caucasus and Atlantic-Med. Their North European increased. So an additional wave of SW Asian had to come in to increase it back to original levels.

[Token]

Northern European increased with Italic migrations by the early Iron Age and possibly posterior Greek input. These are just suppositions anyway, as we don't have samples from Iron Age Italy.

[Sikeliot]

Northern European increased with Italic migrations by the early Iron Age and possibly posterior Greek input. These are just suppositions anyway, as we don't have samples from Iron Age Italy.

This I know.

But this means that there had to have been a MENA migration very early on (reflected in the Bell Beaker sample) and then another after the North European came, to bring the MENA to its original level.

[Token]

This I know.

But this means that there had to have been a MENA migration very early on (reflected in the Bell Beaker sample) and then another after the North European came, to bring the MENA to its original level.

Sicily, like Iberia, did received recent MENA input. You know it very well.

[Sikeliot]

Sicily, like Iberia, did received recent MENA input. You know it very well.

I am posting this because many people still think that all of the MENA in Southern Europe is ancient. We know from seeing ancient Iberian samples that they were Basque-like and lacked both MENA and Caucasian. But with Minoans, Sicilians, they did have it so people are likely to say it's Neolithic but it's not.

[Chaos One]

This I know.

But this means that there had to have been a MENA migration very early on (reflected in the Bell Beaker sample) and then another after the North European came, to bring the MENA to its original level.

This. I think that's the most logical calc.

[TheMaestro]

Very intresting.