# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

## ihype02

From what I have heard is that before the Greek colonization ancient Sicilians were much more Western shifted. My hypothesis was that Sicily is a diverse region with many different (ancient) populations (i.e natives, other Italians, Greeks, Phoenicans) but the Greek component was the greatest but not the absolute majority. 

While some members in Anthrogenica tend to propose that the vast majority of their ancestry comes from the Hellenes that may be true but I am not convinced so far.
So what's your opinion about this?

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> From what I have heard is that before the Greek colonization ancient Sicilians were much more Western shifted. My hypothesis was that Sicily is a diverse region with many different (ancient) populations (i.e natives, other Italians, Greeks, Phoenicans) but the Greek component was the greatest but not the absolute majority. 
> While some members in Anthrogenica tend to propose that the vast majority of their ancestry comes from the Hellenes that may be true but I am not convinced so far.
> So what's your opinion about this?


What is the deal at Anthrogenica with Sicily? Is their any region in Europe that doesn't have diversity in ancestry from different ancient populations? I think research sort of confirms this yes? As for the Western shifted before Greek colonization, hmmm questionable, but if what you mean is WHG then yes. The research is clear that Sicily before the Neolithic like all Western Europe was WHG predominate ancestry.

1) Mannino et al 2012, which was a team of Researchers from Max Plank, some from Universities in Spain, and mostly from Italy (Florence and Palermo) document a WHG civilization in Sicily during the Mesolithic. 
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0049802

2) Mathieson et al 2018 document the Sicilian-WHG and the surrounding Culture in Western Sicily that was researched in Mannino et al 2012 was Genetically part of the same WHG cluster that extended all over Western Europe. 
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

"We report Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic data from southern and western Europe17. Sicilian (I2158) and Croatian (I1875) individuals dating to approximately 12000 and 6100 BC cluster with previously reported WHG (Fig. 1b, d), including individuals from Loschbour23 (Luxembourg, 6100 BC), Bichon19 (Switzerland, 11700 BC), and Villabruna17 (Italy, 12000 BC). These results demonstrate that, for at least six thousand years, WHG populations23 were widely distributed from the Atlantic seaboard of Europe in the west, to Sicily in the south, and to the Balkan Peninsula in the southeast."

Today in Sicily and Southern Italy, WHG ancestry is still there, although not to the degree of EEF, CHG, etc, as documented by Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) but interestingly in higher amounts than Central and Northern Italy.

https://www.sciencemag.org/collectio...intcmp=adv_cov

Now I don't in anyway mean that the higher WHG in Sicily and the South means anything with respect to who is a modern Italian. I am not into that nonsense. Modern Italy is a wonderful country with each region having unique things to offer in terms of geography, music, architecture and food, although I do think the oldest and greatest architecture in modern Italy is in Sicily due to the Greeks and of course Rome. But I have no interest in some of the modern notions that all Southern Italians are "mezzo giorno" (peasants who work the land) or the notion of some in the South that all the Northerners are rude and who want to return to the Kingdom of Naples, both of which are minority opinions today, at least in my experience when I was in Italy last summer (but I only went as far North as Rome, which is technically Central Italy).

So my view is if you plot an admixture change over time in Sicily it would mirror what Antonio/Moots et al 2019 found in Rome (See Supplementary figure 12)

file:///C:/Users/12258/Downloads/NIH...Supplement.pdf

The general trend would be WHG then Neolithic transition to EEF (with WHG), then some Steppe ancestry (confirmed in the recent Fernandes et al 2020 paper) which brought in some Iran Neolithic and or CHG type ancestry as well. What do you know, you go back to Raveane et al 2019 and all that is present today. In the first millennium BC before any Phoenician sea ports on the Western Coast and Greek colonization, the 3 local tribes in Sicily that dominate are the Elymi in Trapani/Palermo, most likely a population from Liguria (Ligures), Sicani in the Center (maybe Iberia and Ligure?) and Center/East Sicels (Italic). Other Italic tribes include Morgante (South Italy) and Ausonians (Campania), etc. So how much did the Pheonicians due to DNA in Sicily, I don't think to much, Greek's, well given the strong Neolithic EEF ancestry already in Sicily did it really due that much? The Bell Beaker Civilization was well established in Sicily like the rest of Italy and the Sicilian Bell Beaker sample is Neolithic EEF predominate ancestry even before Greek colonization (Sicilian Bell Beaker dates to about 2200 BC).


Anyway, my take on it but still what is the story the Anthrogenica folks are trying to tell about Sicily?

----------


## ihype02

Most Carthaginians were driven out by the Romans. According to Wikipedia:
They failed, and Rome was even more unrelenting in its annihilation of the invaders this time; Roman consul M. Valerian told the Roman Senate in 210 BC that "no Carthaginian remains in Sicily".[36]

----------


## torzio

> Most Carthaginians were driven out by the Romans. According to Wikipedia:
> They failed, and Rome was even more unrelenting in its annihilation of the invaders this time; Roman consul M. Valerian told the Roman Senate in 210 BC that "no Carthaginian remains in Sicily".[36]


Carthage lasted from 800Bc to 146BC ...........where they were sent by the Romans in their empire is unknown ..............sicily was removed of carthagians by 160BC

When Carthage began they bought the land in Tunisia from the libyans , their neighbours to the west where the Numidians ( some say pre-berber)

Romans moved every race who lost to them around the empire, and or enslaved them

----------


## ihype02

> Carthage lasted from 800Bc to 146BC ...........where they were sent by the Romans in their empire is unknown ..............sicily was removed of carthagians by 160BC
> 
> When Carthage began they bought the land in Tunisia from the libyans , their neighbours to the west where the Numidians ( some say pre-berber)
> 
> Romans moved every race who lost to them around the empire, and or enslaved them


Many Greek cities of Sicily were destroyed or abandoned before and during the Roman occupation.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Carthage lasted from 800Bc to 146BC ...........where they were sent by the Romans in their empire is unknown ..............sicily was removed of carthagians by 160BC
> 
> When Carthage began they bought the land in Tunisia from the libyans , their neighbours to the west where the Numidians ( some say pre-berber)
> 
> Romans moved every race who lost to them around the empire, and or enslaved them


When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians in Sicily in circa 240 BC (finally eliminated them), the Mediterranean was slowly becoming Roman and by the time they destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, the Mediterranean would be "Mare Nostrum" Rome's our Sea. The second punic war the Carthaginians went the land route attacking a pro-Roman city in Iberia, most of Iberia was allied with Carthage and advancing into Gaul where the Gauls allied with the Carthaginians and invaded Roman forces in the North. Battles were fought in Iberia, Gual, Southern Italy, Northern Italy, etc. and finally the 3rd Punic War was when Carthage was raised. So it wasn't like Rome and Carthage only fought in Sicily, that was largely in the First Punic War. By the start of the Second Punic War Sicily was effectively Roman, it was not required to pay Tribute and it had to, like other Italian regions, supply Troops to fight in Roman legions.

----------


## torzio

> When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians in Sicily in circa 240 BC (finally eliminated them), the Mediterranean was slowly becoming Roman and by the time they destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, the Mediterranean would be "Mare Nostrum" Rome's our Sea. The second punic war the Carthaginians went the land route attacking a pro-Roman city in Iberia, most of Iberia was allied with Carthage and advancing into Gaul where the Gauls allied with the Carthaginians and invaded Roman forces in the North. Battles were fought in Iberia, Gual, Southern Italy, Northern Italy, etc. and finally the 3rd Punic War was when Carthage was raised. So it wasn't like Rome and Carthage only fought in Sicily, that was largely in the First Punic War. By the start of the Second Punic War Sicily was effectively Roman, it was not required to pay Tribute and it had to, like other Italian regions, supply Troops to fight in Roman legions.


yes , I know

but for Sicily.....all I know is the original people where the sicel tribe (mixed with myceneans ) , the rest where Corinthian Greeks ( Sikani ) or Carthaginians (Elymoi )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> yes , I know
> 
> but for Sicily.....all I know is the original people where the sicel tribe (mixed with myceneans ) , the rest where Corinthian Greeks ( Sikani ) or Carthaginians (Elymoi )
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels


Are you sure the Elymians were Carthaginian. The Elymians were in Sicily before the Phoenicians got there, which was before the Carthaginians got to Western Sicily around 400 BC. The Elymians founded 3 cities for sure, Segesta, Entella and Erice. Alessandra Caputo whose book " Segesta: The Charm of a story spanning a millennia" is one of the official ones sold at the Segesta (Trapani) Archaeological park writes there are 2 legitimate ancient theories on who the Elymians are 1) from Thucydides stating the Elymians fled from Achaea (Ancient Greece) after the Trojan War or 2) Hellanicus who states the Elymians were Italic, either from Liguria or Puglia. He writes the bloodline of the Sicels left Italy...Two expeditions of Italics went into Sicly: The first was the Elymians pursued by the Oenotrians (of which the Sicels were part of, along with the Morgante who also settled in Sicily, not as large amounts as the Sicels.

This theory of Elymians is borne out as the river in Entella, an Elymian site in Sicily, bears the name of a Ligurian River. Earlier scholars held to the first theory, Elymians were Trojan Greeks, but modern Scholarship according to Caputo favor the Ligurian theory. The language of the Elymians, which has been thoroughly studied by academics in Sicily and broader Italy as well appears to be an Indo-European Language, not a Berber language which would support your Carthaginian theory. The Elymians used the Greek alphabet and combined it with their own language states Caputo.

The Ancient Ligurians were a territory that stretched from modern Liguria in NW Italy through coastal France and Iberia. The recent paper by Fernandes et al 2020 documenting some, Steppe ancestry entering Sicily in the period 2200-2400 BC from Iberia is consistent with the Elymians being a Ligurian type population which is in line with the Linguistic evidence that the Elymian language was in fact an "Indo European" language. The presence of Elymian as an Indo-European Language in Sicily might indicate one being there even before Latin in Lazio. This last statement of mine is purely conjecture on my part not a dogmatic statement of fact.

Consistent with what Alessandra Caputo wrote in her book, this article with several citations in the bottom is pointing to Elymian being an early Indo-European language or related to them, either Italic or Anatolian.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymian_language

----------


## Angela

We have Sicilian samples pre-Greek colonization. We've discussed them numerous times on other threads. What we need now are samples from Sicily right at the period of Greek colonization. 

Of course, we'll have to keep in mind that as with all these studies, the graves of the newly arriving elite will be the ones that survive the most, with attendant resurgence of "locals" later, but it should give us a much better idea. 

It may be the new Greek arrivals weren't that different from the locals anyway, given that some ancestry from the East was coming in during the Bronze Age, but even if they were, I am skeptical there was a "wipe out" of the locals. Even in the massively de-populated areas of Central Europe, and with a plague rampant, the steppe people are only 50% of the ancestry of the Bell Beakers. In Italy we can tell from the Parma Beakers that one barely had any steppe ancestry, and one had only a bit. Only in England would I apply that word, and also perhaps in the far northeast and north of Europe with Corded Ware, but that's because those places were inhospitable for the EEF neolithic package even as modified, so population levels were very low there. Plus, we can see that EEF like ancestry rebounded, so were they really annihilated even in those areas, or just absent from the archaeological record because they weren't given decent burials?

I don't understand the emphasis on the WHG in the larger scheme of things. They're a small part of any European's ancestry except to the far northeast and east, not west, unless they mean the Iberians have a bit more WHG than Italians and Greeks. So what? I don't see the significance. 

The preoccupations of the people at anthrogenica are a reflection of their world view. They're welcome to them. I'm only interested in debating these things with people who have some objectivity. When you lack it you can make huge errors, i.e. as they all made there with the Etruscans.

From my perspective, the ancestry that arrived from the east either directly or through the Greeks is just mainly the same old, same old. The new arrivals carried Anatolia Neolithic, which had been in Europe for 7,000 years already. It carried more Iran Neo/CHG, but some of that was part of the genesis of the Anatolia Neolithic in the first place, and more had been dribbling in since the Bronze Age. It was just the arrival of some long separated distant cousins. It's not like the Han Chinese suddenly migrated in, for heaven's sake. 

Some people want to obfuscate this fact and label these newcomers as "alien", somehow, not people very similar to whose who make up 40-50% of their own ancestry, but now alien "Middle Easterners" who would pollute their blood. Is it the additional Iran Neo which is so objectionable? Yet that makes no sense to me because it was extremely similar to the ancestry which formed 40-50% of the ancestry of the steppe people whom they so want to share ancestry with...

Maybe all the fuss is because of some minor amount of "Levant" Bronze Age ancestry which slipped in. Is antisemitism really still so virulent in some of these people, that and hatred of Middle Eastern refugees, that they'll distort history and population genetics to find it only in people in Europe they can label the "other". Just think what would happen if these kinds of people came into power again, and what a tool genetic testing would be for them.

I find it bizarre but not really surprising. 

There was population mixing throughout human history: Neanderthals and Denisovans with each other and with modern humans (and who knows how many other hominids), Levant Neolithic with Anatolia Neolithic, both with Iran Neolithic, Anatolia Neolithic with WHG, EHG with Iran Neo/CHG, steppe people with Middle Neolithic people, etc. all mixtures of far more different people from one another than any incoming Aegean like people with local inhabitants of the Italic peninsula and Sicily. That 's more akin to somebody saying the Danes were a brand new population from the Angles and Saxons, or even the Saxons from the Britons. These are just shades of difference.



Far more important to me than these minor genetic differences are what incoming people brought with them. Did they bring new crops, new innovation, architecture, art, literacy, or rape, rapine, the mass destruction of infrastructure, death and disease?

----------


## torzio

> Are you sure the Elymians were Carthaginian. The Elymians were in Sicily before the Phoenicians got there, which was before the Carthaginians got to Western Sicily around 400 BC. The Elymians founded 3 cities for sure, Segesta, Entella and Erice. Alessandra Caputo whose book " Segesta: The Charm of a story spanning a millennia" is one of the official ones sold at the Segesta (Trapani) Archaeological park writes there are 2 legitimate ancient theories on who the Elymians are 1) from Thucydides stating the Elymians fled from Achaea (Ancient Greece) after the Trojan War or 2) Hellanicus who states the Elymians were Italic, either from Liguria or Puglia. He writes the bloodline of the Sicels left Italy...Two expeditions of Italics went into Sicly: The first was the Elymians pursued by the Oenotrians (of which the Sicels were part of, along with the Morgante who also settled in Sicily, not as large amounts as the Sicels.
> 
> This theory of Elymians is borne out as the river in Entella, an Elymian site in Sicily, bears the name of a Ligurian River. Earlier scholars held to the first theory, Elymians were Trojan Greeks, but modern Scholarship according to Caputo favor the Ligurian theory. The language of the Elymians, which has been thoroughly studied by academics in Sicily and broader Italy as well appears to be an Indo-European Language, not a Berber language which would support your Carthaginian theory. The Elymians used the Greek alphabet and combined it with their own language states Caputo.
> 
> The Ancient Ligurians were a territory that stretched from modern Liguria in NW Italy through coastal France and Iberia. The recent paper by Fernandes et al 2020 documenting some, Steppe ancestry entering Sicily in the period 2200-2400 BC from Iberia is consistent with the Elymians being a Ligurian type population which is in line with the Linguistic evidence that the Elymian language was in fact an "Indo European" language. The presence of Elymian as an Indo-European Language in Sicily might indicate one being there even before Latin in Lazio. This last statement of mine is purely conjecture on my part not a dogmatic statement of fact.
> 
> Consistent with what Alessandra Caputo wrote in her book, this article with several citations in the bottom is pointing to Elymian being an early Indo-European language or related to them, either Italic or Anatolian.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymian_language


There is a terminology of Carthaginians which some use as per Phoenicians ............so, let us say , there was no Carthaginians pre circa 800BC , as there where none.....I will use the term Phoenicians ..................the Phoenicians came circa 1500BC in southern lebanon, scholars state and are unsure if they where under the Hittites then , as Hittites controlled northern lebanon until 1200BC and that area spoke Luwian until 600BC

So, I ask you did the phoenicians settle in Elymian lands .....................you say Trojan ( they spoke a form/branch of luwian ) ................Hittite language did not cover all of Hittite lands, by 1400Bc , luwian was replacing Hittite language in Hittite cities .....................Hittite and Hatti language as some scholars state are the same or similar

as I was reading mycenean trading in Siclily up to 1400BC ....I came across this iron-age on Elymians
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...sed_tablewares

----------


## Palermo Trapani

That doesn't change the fact that the Elymians were not Phoenicians either. The Hittites were from Anatolia for the record and there territory did stretch down to what is Modern Syria or Lebanon. The Hittite language, if you want to argue the Elymians were Anatolians with some Northern Levant admixture (may be true, so freaking what) would then indicate that the Elymian language is from the oldest known Indo-European language. Is that what you want to argue, I have a strong suspicion that it is not what you want to argue as the Hittites were not Nordic. Regardless, the linguistic evidence points to the Elymans having an Indo-European language. Yes the Pheonicians settled in The Elymian lands around 900 BC or there abouts, the Greeks starting arriving around 750 BC

The Elymians and Sicani from an archaeological record, are not distinguishable based on evidence dating back to 1100 BC, which predates the Pheonicians arrival by 100 years if you date the Pheonicians founding sea ports as early as 1000 BC. Scholarly research on the Sicilian language indicates the Elymian's arrived in Sicily as early as 1200 BC which it a minimum 200 years before the Pheonicians and maybe 300 years earlier (Phoenician arrival 1000BC-900 BC). So if the Anatolian origin of the Elymians is true (Trojans, as Trojan War is dated to 1260 BC to 1180 BC) then a connection to the Hittite civilization might be true and the Elymian language, which is an Indo-European type language would indeed be related to the Ancient Hittite language, which as I already noted above is the oldest extant Indo-European language. As for Trojan origin, that was not me, it is what ancient Scholars saw about the Elymians, some argue Trojans, some Italics (Ligurians or ancient from Puglia).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymians

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/research...php3-c=178.htm


So with respect to my own DNA history, again autosonal, not Haplogroup, I do show some affinity to the ancient Hittites along with the Bell Beaker Sicilian. What that means, well likely that most of my ancestry is Neolithic type Early European Farmer ancestry but I think you probably already know that.



Timeline1_MTA.jpgTimeline2_MTA.jpgTimeline3_MTA.jpg

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Torzio: I don't dispute Mycenaean's setting up trade with Sicily in 1400 BC in fact they were trading with the Southern Mainland at that time (modern Puglia) and had set up trade with Iberia as well. But Greek colonization in Sicily did not happen till 750 BC but at that same time, Greek's were founding colonies in Puglia, Calabria and Campania, Naples being a city they founded. So why is it that Sicily seems to be the "brunt of your interest"?

With respect to the article you linked regarding Iron Age Elymians, in light of the trade with the Myceneans, it is not surprising that when the Greek colonization took place in 750 BC, the Elymians and Sicani easily adjusted to the Greek civilization as they had been engaging in commerce with the Greeks long before. Pheonicians set up trade centers on the coast yes, but did not colonize maybe due to several reasons, but one would be they for the most part were not interested in colonization but were Sea Peoples for the most part. There territories largely consisted of Coastal towns with sea ports. The Elymian towns of Segesta and Entellina (what is ancient Entellina) are in the area of 20-25 miles inland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

----------


## ihype02

When I said western I was actually talking about Sardinia. I don't know which time frame exactly where they taken, expect they are from Bronze Age. 


From a cultural prespective I find the Greek colonization of Italy to be a, very, good thing. And they surely left a large genetic input in Southern Italians. Now how they treated the locals that's something else. I do believe that this narrative viewing Sicilians as nearly nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks is partly ifluenced by a Greaco-centric view, i.e due to the attractive Greek civilization, so the idea of being some lost ancient Mediterranean Spartan brothers or something like that.

They tend to miminize anything comes from north or anything that isn't Greek or MENA.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> When I said western I was actually talking about Sardinia. I don't know which time frame exactly where they taken, expect they are from Bronze Age. 
> 
> 
> From a cultural prespective I find the Greek colonization of Italy to be a, very, good thing. And they surely left a large genetic input in Southern Italians. Now how they treated the locals that's something else. I do believe that this narrative viewing Sicilians as nearly nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks is partly ifluenced by a Greaco-centric view, i.e due to the attractive Greek civilization, so the idea of being some lost ancient Mediterranean Spartan brothers or something like that.
> 
> They tend to miminize anything comes from north or anything that isn't Greek or MENA.


Ok, well that is clearer. From National Geographic DNA test (measures ancestry 500 to 10000 years back), I get 14% West-Med, which they define as Sardinia, Corsica, NW Italy and coastal France into Iberia, but Sardinia being the best example of this ancestry (I think that it is correct). So the link between Bell_Beaker Sicily, ancient Greek, and Roman samples in the plot you posted is representative of my own MTA timeline I plotted above and my NAT Geo DNA test with the 14% West Med. So that graph is totally in line with my own DNA ancestry and "ALL" of my ancestors immigrated from Sicily to the USA between 1890 and 1903 from town in Trapani, Palermo and Agrigento as well (1 Great Grandfather was born there in a mountain town over 5,000 feet high).

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Oh and I have no problem with Greek civilization in Sicily, that along with Southern Italy is the place where in my opinion, the greatest 2 ancient civilizations meet on Land and is seen in the architecture, language, food, and people themselves. 

Now who these "they are" you are referring to, I have no idea.

----------


## ihype02

> Oh and I have no problem with Greek civilization in Sicily, that along with Southern Italy is the place where in my opinion, the greatest 2 ancient civilizations meet on Land and is seen in the architecture, language, food, and people themselves. 
> 
> Now who these "they are" you are referring to, I have no idea.


I was talking about Anthrogenica.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> I was talking about Anthrogenica.


Ok, well I have not in the beginning, now, or ever shall be, associated with that group.

----------


## torzio

> That doesn't change the fact that the Elymians were not Phoenicians either. The Hittites were from Anatolia for the record and there territory did stretch down to what is Modern Syria or Lebanon. The Hittite language, if you want to argue the Elymians were Anatolians with some Northern Levant admixture (may be true, so freaking what) would then indicate that the Elymian language is from the oldest known Indo-European language. Is that what you want to argue, I have a strong suspicion that it is not what you want to argue as the Hittites were not Nordic. Regardless, the linguistic evidence points to the Elymans having an Indo-European language. Yes the Pheonicians settled in The Elymian lands around 900 BC or there abouts, the Greeks starting arriving around 750 BC
> 
> The Elymians and Sicani from an archaeological record, are not distinguishable based on evidence dating back to 1100 BC, which predates the Pheonicians arrival by 100 years if you date the Pheonicians founding sea ports as early as 1000 BC. Scholarly research on the Sicilian language indicates the Elymian's arrived in Sicily as early as 1200 BC which it a minimum 200 years before the Pheonicians and maybe 300 years earlier (Phoenician arrival 1000BC-900 BC). So if the Anatolian origin of the Elymians is true (Trojans, as Trojan War is dated to 1260 BC to 1180 BC) then a connection to the Hittite civilization might be true and the Elymian language, which is an Indo-European type language would indeed be related to the Ancient Hittite language, which as I already noted above is the oldest extant Indo-European language. As for Trojan origin, that was not me, it is what ancient Scholars saw about the Elymians, some argue Trojans, some Italics (Ligurians or ancient from Puglia).
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymians
> 
> http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/research...php3-c=178.htm
> 
> ...


Who cares , what the Hittites are, they arrived via the south-caucasus and where related to the Hatti ............the bulk of Anatolia spoke Luwian by Luwian people, ..............clearly the myceaneans who stopped trading in sicily at 1400BC , where clearly trading way before , most likely from middle bronze age , they where in Sicily even before the Phoenicians where around ........
Mycenaeans where even in istria in bronze age....................when you have a fleet , you can go anywhere in the med

I do not know what you are upset about

You need to stop searching your ancestors before early medieval times.......trying to find any before this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack............be it roamn empire times or later barbarian invasion, people where displaced and moved around far too much ...............just save yourself some headaches and only go back to the medieval times

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Who cares , what the Hittites are, they arrived via the south-caucasus and where related to the Hatti ............the bulk of Anatolia spoke Luwian by Luwian people, ..............clearly the myceaneans who stopped trading in sicily at 1400BC , where clearly trading way before , most likely from middle bronze age , they where in Sicily even before the Phoenicians where around ........
> Mycenaeans where even in istria in bronze age....................when you have a fleet , you can go anywhere in the med
> 
> I do not know what you are upset about
> 
> You need to stop searching your ancestors before early medieval times.......trying to find any before this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack............be it roamn empire times or later barbarian invasion, people where displaced and moved around far too much ...............just save yourself some headaches and only go back to the medieval times


I am not upset at anyone in particular more the "anthrongenica mentality" that started this thread, and not upset at the poster who started the thread. The entire premise of the thread was based on what is said about Sicily and genetics over at anthrogenica. So it is more I am pissed off at this implicit, some case explicit, that the standard of what is someone from Europe is Nordic Scandanavians or people with significant Steppe ancestry or whatever. You live in Australia, I dealt with these WASP country club "bleepers" growing up as if the standard of what it means to European is WASPISH culture, looks, etc, etc. And for the record, I have no issue with England, USA and it are historically close, fought 2 World Wars together last century, and are close NATO allies. But it is the mentality of a segment of the Country club WASP types here in the USA and the Nordic types over at Anthrogenica that I am more ticked off with. Europe is broad continent, I don't need the affirmation from Nordicist as to what is European. My ancestors are from Europe, specifically, Southern Europe overwhelmingly for the most part, and more so tied to Southern Italy and Sicily.

As for looking for ancient ancestors, well I have been on You tube forums where lectures sponsored by the University of California UCTV (recent one had Mathieson on ancient Europe, I think Jonathan Key on Neanderthals) and invariably the discussion in the comments on videos like these, and others like the ones I used as an example from UCTV, always has the Nordicist POS who starts with who are the standard of who is European, and of course they always define themselves as the "standard". So when I as a poor old 2nd/3rd generation American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry can show a genetic continuity between Me in 2020, and thus all my immediate ancestors, back to the two greatest European Civilizations (Ancient Greece and Rome) a side of my Sicilian temper pops up and I "allegorically like to shove in their faces".

So if you want to know why I do what I do, that is why I do what I do. Everybody has their thing, yours appears to be the Y-DNA clade analysis, mine is what I described above.

----------


## Angela

> When I said western I was actually talking about Sardinia. I don't know which time frame exactly where they taken, expect they are from Bronze Age. 
> 
> 
> From a cultural prespective I find the Greek colonization of Italy to be a, very, good thing. And they surely left a large genetic input in Southern Italians. Now how they treated the locals that's something else. I do believe that this narrative viewing Sicilians as nearly nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks is partly ifluenced by a Greaco-centric view, i.e due to the attractive Greek civilization, so the idea of being some lost ancient Mediterranean Spartan brothers or something like that.
> 
> They tend to miminize anything comes from north or anything that isn't Greek or MENA.


What Italian, or at least what Italian knowing anything about Italian archaeology and history would see Sicilians, or Southern Italians, for that matter, as nothing more than Italian speaking Greeks?

If you're speaking of anthrogenica, you must not realize that there are no actual Italians there to my knowledge. Sickeliot, under whatever sock name he's now using there is not Italian. First he was Portuguese Princess and other Iberian sock names, who t-rolled Southern Italians and Sicilians mercilessly from theapricity, forumbiodiversity, even here. When he was attacked for that he suddenly pronounced publicly that he was half Sicilian/half Portuguese from Cape Verde, I think, and he hadn't been t-rolling, he had been "celebrating". What he wasn't so eager for people to know is that he is a known anti-Semite infamous on his college campus, and a known apologist and enthusiast for the "Arab" cause. His politics and his biases totally distort whatever "analysis" he does, which is actually usually a distortion of things I said on 23andme. 

In his latest incarnation he announced online that he was half Sicilian/one quarter Polish and one quarter Portuguese. He has sent me links to e-mail accounts, pictures supposedly from his travels in Sicily (which were obviously photo-shopped) and numerous fake accounts to prove he wasn't who I knew him to be. How can anyone take the pronouncements of such an obviously disturbed young man seriously? 

Needless to say, like everyone else at anthrogenica he was completely and utterly wrong about the Etruscans, he (and they) was wrong in saying Remedello would be highly steppe admixed, as would be the Italian Beakers, he, and they, and eurogenes ridiculed me when I said Iran Neo started arriving in Italy at least by the early Bronze, and, to cap it off he, and they, said it was ludicrous to believe the ancient Greeks would turn out to be pretty close to modern Sicilians and Southern Italians. In fact, he used to tell me that the Greeks had no influence on Italy, and the similarities were from Italian migration TO Greece. :)

How times have changed, thanks to ancient dna. Of course, some of us had pieced it together before we had the ancient dna.

So, forgive me, but how they see these things is of no interest to me, and should be of no interest to anyone. They have been wrong each and every time.

Perhaps there are a few there who have some Italian American ancestry, and have been fooled by charlatans like thim. That would explain there complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Cramming some facts from Wiki are not enough. 

Anyway, anthrogenica is the last place I would look for a take on how "Italians" view all of this, and absolutely NOT as a source for Italian academic perspectives on it. Heck, they didn't even read the ANGLO world scholarship on the Etruscans, much less the Italian one.

Btw, whose PCA is this? It looks odd.

----------


## Joey37

I was named after my great-grandfather, a first generation Sicilian-American (his parents were from Palazzo Adriano), and am proud of my Sicilian heritage, a drop of olive oil in my otherwise glass of milk DNA, but I do not match many Greco-Roman samples, I'm afraid; the addition of Mediterranean DNA into the 60% majority British Isles DNA merely makes me plot closer to my West German ancestors than to my English or Irish forbears. Most of my samples at MTA are Franks or Celts, and many French people today are descended from Romanized Franks and Celts, so there's that. I frequent Anthrogenica but my area of interest is the haplogroups, and most of the guys there are fellow Americans interested in their roots and not interested in racialist theory, although I can't speak of everyone.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> I was named after my great-grandfather, a first generation Sicilian-American (his parents were from Palazzo Adriano), and am proud of my Sicilian heritage, a drop of olive oil in my otherwise glass of milk DNA, but I do not match many Greco-Roman samples, I'm afraid; the addition of Mediterranean DNA into the 60% majority British Isles DNA merely makes me plot closer to my West German ancestors than to my English or Irish forbears. Most of my samples at MTA are Franks or Celts, and many French people today are descended from Romanized Franks and Celts, so there's that. I frequent Anthrogenica but my area of interest is the haplogroups, and most of the guys there are fellow Americans interested in their roots and not interested in racialist theory, although I can't speak of everyone.


Palazzo Adriano is a neat place, it sits about 3,000 feet in the mountains. In the piazza there is a water fountain on on the left side looking directly at the fountain, is the Church of SS Marie Del Lume (Roman/Latin Catholic) and on the right is Church of SS Marie Assunte (Byzantine Catholic). There is a museum right next to the Municipal office that documents the making of the movie Cinema Paradiso. I visited the town last summer and found my Mother's Father (My Grandfather's birth record) and his Father's Wedding document. Her Father's family were all in the Roman Catholic tradition. I had already found my Mother's Mother's Father's birth record through ancestry (he was baptized in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Beautiful town to visit.

----------


## Salento

> Torzio: I don't dispute Mycenaean's setting up trade with Sicily in 1400 BC in fact they were trading with the Southern Mainland at that time (modern Puglia) and had set up trade with Iberia as well. But Greek colonization in Sicily did not happen till 750 BC but at that same time, Greek's were founding colonies in Puglia, Calabria and Campania, Naples being a city they founded. So why is it that Sicily seems to be the "brunt of your interest"?
> 
> With respect to the article you linked regarding Iron Age Elymians, in light of the trade with the Myceneans, it is not surprising that when the Greek colonization took place in 750 BC, the Elymians and Sicani easily adjusted to the Greek civilization as they had been engaging in commerce with the Greeks long before. Pheonicians set up trade centers on the coast yes, but did not colonize maybe due to several reasons, but one would be they for the most part were not interested in colonization but were Sea Peoples for the most part. There territories largely consisted of Coastal towns with sea ports. The Elymian towns of Segesta and Entellina (what is ancient Entellina) are in the area of 20-25 miles inland.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia


... ‘cause you mentioned Puglia and National Geographic, ...and “Grecìa Salentina” is in Salento :) 








MTA’s Ancient Ancestry Map matches NatGeo’s results:

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: I appreciate the explanation why you put your NAT Geno in but no need to, you can post to me anytime. If I saw something goofy, which I try to avoid, fraternal correction is welcomed. I get the same 2 reference populations you get at NAT Geno and my MTA map is similar to yours. I think the MTA Timeline I posted above confirms that.

Cheers.

----------


## Salento

> Salento: I appreciate the explanation why you put your NAT Geno in but no need to, you can post to me anytime. If I saw something goofy, which I try to avoid, fraternal correction is welcomed. I get the same 2 reference populations you get at NAT Geno and my MTA map is similar to yours. I think the MTA Timeline I posted above confirms that.
> 
> Cheers.


... it’s not about you, 
a lot of people don't know who we really are, but they like to write a lot ... about us, your Region, mine and others ...

Many of the “experts “ who write endlessly about our Regions and Ancestry, are not motivated by a genuine academic interest or curiosity, each of them has their reasons ... (God bless their heart) ... :) 

They think they know a lot about us, but they don't ...

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> The Romans came about when people carrying Y-DNA R1b migrated from central Europe/north of the Alps into Italy, and mixed with earlier populations, largely replacing earlier male lineages.
> 
> Another way of putting this is that 'some steppe ancestry magically appeared in everyone's genomes, along with a new set of Y-DNA lineages'.


I don't dispute Steppe admixture came into Italy around circa 2500-2000 BC, etc, but my point is it never resulted in Romans genetically being shifted to your neck of the woods or Scandanavia. Anyone still pushing that theory is well? Modern Latium is only 29% R1b, heck Sicily is 26% R1b, so I don't doubt those Y-DNA Haplogroups came in to Rome, as other parts of Italy. But Y-DNA does not tell the entire story, wouldn't you agree. All of my ancestors immigrated to the USA from Sicily between 1890 and 1903. I am Y-DNA I-M223, I think we all agree Y-DNA I and its sub-clades I1, I2 were all related to Mesolithic WHG pre and post Ice age, but I am not WHG dominate in terms of admixture. In fact, 2 of the 3 Mesolithic WHG in Antonio et al 2019 were I-M223 (which I am), and all 3 were I. Rome became Rome in 8th Century, so the peoples who were in Rome by then reflect the ancestry that Antonio et al 2019 Documents in Figure 2. Look where Steppe plots relative to Central Italy (Latium) and look which peoples plot closer towards Steppe. The 11 Iron Age Romans are plotting, 8 of them in area between N.Italy, Tuscany and West towards Southern France and Iberia. 3 of them Central Italy to Southern Italy. So did the R1b lineages totally replace earlier Neolithic ones?

Sometimes when the ancient Romans are discussed, I feel like I am a kid again listening to all the country club Episcopalians and Presbyterians in the 1970's when I was growing up (American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry and Catholic boy) telling me Romans sounded like Laurence Olivier as Crassus and all the English Actors on the BBC show I Cladius, both of which were great shows, well acted, and well done.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> I don't dispute Steppe admixture came into Europe, but my point is it never resulted in Romans genetically being shifted to your neck of the woods or Scandanavia. Anyone still pushing that theory is well? Modern Latium is only 29% R1b, heck Sicily is 26% R1b, so I don't doubt those Y-DNA Haplogroups came in to Rome, as other parts of Italy. But Y-DNA does not tell the entire story, wouldn't you agree. All of my ancestors immigrated to the USA from Sicily between 1890 and 1903. I am Y-DNA I-M223, I think we all agree Y-DNA I and its sub-clades I1, I2 were all related to Mesolithic WHG pre and post Ice age, but I am not WHG dominate in terms of admixture. In fact, 2 of the 3 Mesolithic WHG in Antonio et al 2019 were I-M223 (which I am), and all 3 were I. Rome became Rome in 8th Century, so the peoples who were in Rome by then reflect the ancestry that Antonio et al 2019 Documents in Figure 2. Look where Steppe pots relative to Central Italy (Latium) and look which peoples plot closer towards Steppe. The 11 Iron Age Romans are plotting, 8 of them in area between N.Italy, Tuscany and West towards Southern France and Iberia. 3 of them Central Italy to Southern Italy. So did the R1b lineages totally replace earlier Neolithic ones?
> 
> Sometimes when the ancient Romans are discussed, I feel like I am a kid again listening to all the country club Episcopalians and Presbyterians in the 1970's when I was growing up (American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry and Catholic boy) telling me Romans sounded like Laurence Olivier as Crassus and all the English Actors on the BBC show I Cladius, both of which were great shows, well acted, and well done.


I wasn't aware there R1b frequencies so low in some parts of Western Europe. So the situation was more akin to a place like Armenia/Iran/Anatolia where Indo-European R1 didn't obliterate the local lineages rather assimilated in than a place like Northern Europe/Central Asia where the Indo-European lineages had a large majority and largely replaced local lineages. It makes sense given population densities.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

ratchet_fan. Sicily and Lazio are relatively close in terms of R1b, as are Campania (26%), Calabria (26.5%), Apulia (27.5%). Umbria which borders Lazio in Central Italy is 38% and Molise and Marche are 24% and 34%, respectively, both in Central Italy. Y-DNA I and sub-clades are 7.5% in Sicily (Me as I am I-M223) but there really isn't one Y-DNA Haplogroup anywhere in Italy that dominates like some other countries as I will note below, 

Here are the Y-DNA Haplogroups for all 20 Italian Political Regions. Nowhere in Italy is R1b1 > 60% and only 4 regions are above 50%. 

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

Interestingly, Sicily has 4.5% R1a which is higher than most other regions in Italy (highest in Poland at 58%), as for R1b, the highest frequencies are in the British Isles, England 69%, Scotland 72%, Wales 74% and Ireland 81% (per Maciamo's article here at Eupedia dated June 2017) . Spain also has 69% R1b and given the clustering of some of the Iron Age Romans between Tuscany/Northern Italy and Spain, there may be some close connection between the Steppe ancestry that entered Italy and what entered Spain. I think the plot in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 is consistent with that statement. There may be 1 or 2 countries that are around 60%, or maybe regions in Countries that rival the British Isles and Spain.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/europ...logroups.shtml



Cheers.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> ratchet_fan. Sicily and Lazio are relatively close in terms of R1b, as are Campania (26%), Calabria (26.5%), Apulia (27.5%). Umbria which borders Lazio in Central Italy is 38% and Molise and Marche are 24% and 34%, respectively, both in Central Italy. Y-DNA I and sub-clades are 7.5% in Sicily (Me as I am I-M223) but there really isn't one Y-DNA Haplogroup anywhere in Italy that dominates like some other countries as I will note below, 
> 
> Here are the Y-DNA Haplogroups for all 20 Italian Political Regions. Nowhere in Italy is R1b1 > 60% and only 4 regions are above 50%. 
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
> 
> Interestingly, Sicily has 4.5% R1a which is higher than most other regions in Italy (highest in Poland at 58%), as for R1b, the highest frequencies are in the British Isles, England 69%, Scotland 72%, Wales 74% and Ireland 81% (per Maciamo's article here at Eupedia dated June 2017) . Spain also has 69% R1b and given the clustering of some of the Iron Age Romans between Tuscany/Northern Italy and Spain, there may be some close connection between the Steppe ancestry that entered Italy and what entered Spain. I think the plot in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 is consistent with that statement. There may be 1 or 2 countries that are around 60%, or maybe regions in Countries that rival the British Isles and Spain.
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/europe/europ...logroups.shtml
> ...


Thank you. Your posts are very informative. Scandinavian countries have high combined R1a + R1b frequencies probably rivaling NW Europe.

----------


## Angela

Actually, that data is a bit outdated, and so it is incorrect in terms of some sub-regions of Italy.

*The highest frequency of R1b is found in Garfagnana (76.2%) in Tuscany and in the Bergamo Valleys (80.8%) in Lombardy, Northern regions.[25][26]* This percentage lowers at the south of Italy in Calabria (26.5%).[27] On the other hand, the majority of the Sardinians belong to Mesolithic European haplogroup I2a1a.[28]

My father's Parma valleys are undoubtedly as high, and there are other areas where the total goes way above 60%. 

The percentages in the following recent paper are pretty informative. Many places in the north are above 60%,
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...me_perspective

Not that I understand the point of this in terms of Sicily pre-Greek-colonization.

----------


## ihype02

Syracuse -> Corinth
Casmenai -> Syracuse -> Corinth
Kamarina -> Syracuse -> Corinth
Megara Hyblaea -> Megara
Selinunte -> Megara Hyblaea -> Megara
Heraclea Minoa -> ?
Gela -> Rhodes and Crete
Akragas -> Gela -> Rhodes and Crete

Ionic colonies of Sicily:
Zancle -> Euboea
Himaera -> Zancle -> Euboea
Calacte -> Zancle -> Euboea
Naxos -> Euboea
Catania -> Euboea
Leoniti -> Naxos -> Euboea

Italian wiki places overall 20 cities in Sicily while the English wiki around 13/14. Found it on Anthrogenica.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Actually, that data is a bit outdated, and so it is incorrect in terms of some sub-regions of Italy.
> 
> *The highest frequency of R1b is found in Garfagnana (76.2%) in Tuscany and in the Bergamo Valleys (80.8%) in Lombardy, Northern regions.[25][26]* This percentage lowers at the south of Italy in Calabria (26.5%).[27] On the other hand, the majority of the Sardinians belong to Mesolithic European haplogroup I2a1a.[28]
> 
> My father's Parma valleys are undoubtedly as high, and there are other areas where the total goes way above 60%. 
> 
> The percentages in the following recent paper are pretty informative. Many places in the north are above 60%,
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...me_perspective
> 
> Not that I understand the point of this in terms of Sicily pre-Greek-colonization.


I think there was a question about R1b being so low in parts of Italy or maybe an earlier discussion on Steppe Herder into Italy?. Not sure the reason it came up. I was just answering the question based on the what I thought was the most recent data on Italian Y-DNA. I was not aware of that paper and I appreciate you mentioning it. I need to track it down, does it have complete samples for regions and wasn't aware the data in the Eupedia article was outdated. The high I2a1a in Sardinia is interesting, not to far from my neck of the woods.

----------

