DNA of Southern Italy and Greece: What we can tell from Sarno et al admixture chart.

[Sikeliot]

Like I did for Ireland and UK I actually wanted to type up a careful analysis, in hopes it can provide useful information. This is from a peer reviewed study, not from GEDmatch or commercial ancestry tests.

1. Italians, Greeks, Albanians, and Cypriots all owe the large majority of their ancestry to Neolithic Mediterranean people best proxied by modern Sardinians.

This means that the genetic base of all southern Italians, all Greeks, Albanians, and Cypriots is shared, and is indigenous to Southern Europe, tracing back to the early Neolithic wave of migration out of Anatolia. This component has also been referred to as EEF (Early European Farmer), representing pre-Indo European, pre-Caucasian migration. This component also ties them to Iberians, the French, and to indigenous North Africans, and was well-represented in Mycenaean samples.

2. European-like ancestry, proxied by North and Northeast Europeans, is significantly higher in Albanians and (mainland) Greeks than in southern Italians.

This component is possibly Indo-European, Yamnaya, or even to some extent carried by Slavs and Germanic people into southern and southeastern Europe. It is highest of all these samples in Northern Greece (which might be due to some degree of Slavic ancestry), then in Tosk Albanians and Peloponnesians, and then in Gheg Albanians and Central Greeks (who would be the least Slavic-influenced Balkanites). It is present but low in the Southern Italian and Aegean islands samples, and almost entirely absent in Cyprus. The exception is the Trapani sample from Sicily which may have this component higher than the rest of the island due to Norman input.

3. Caucasian DNA is slightly elevated in Cypriots and Dodecanese islanders (GRK_TUR_AEI), which could simply be due to geographic proximity.

However, it is worth noting that the Dodecanese has less Near Eastern input than Crete, and less than any of the southern Italian regions. This means that the Middle Eastern input in the Dodecanese is most likely overall of a Caucasian/Iranian source, and is not of Levantine origin.

4. Caucasian (yellow) and Near Eastern (red) input likely arrived in two or more separate migratory waves, as they are not correlated.

For instance, Dodecanese have more Caucasian input than Cyprus, but noticeably less Near Eastern. Additionally, all of the Southern Italian samples have more Near Eastern than the Dodecanese do, but less Caucasian. Finally, the Albanians and mainland Greeks have as much Caucasian as the southern Italians, but almost no Near Eastern. These two components are simply not correlated. My guess is that the Caucasian input represents a Neolithic migration centered on the Caucasus or Iran that makes up a significant part of the ancestry of all Italians and all Balkanites, as well as many other European groups, while the Near Eastern input could be a culmination of historical Levantines, Arabs, Berbers, and other groups who had a larger presence in southern Italy than in the Balkans.

5. Southern Italian samples are all similar to one another and to the Cretans, but with subtle differences. Sicily appears differentiated on a north to south basis, rather than east to west, with Trapani as an outlier. Norman input in Palermo is not borne out by the results, nor does any part of Sicily or southern Italy appear to have mainland Greek influence. There was at least one Near Eastern migration to southern Italy and the Aegean islands, and no region was unaffected by this.

a. European component is highest in Trapani as well as in Matera (Lucania), likely due to Norman input in the former and Greek input in the latter. On the other hand, it is almost absent in the Griko from Calabria, and is very low in both Calabrese samples (Cosenza and Reggio) as well as in Catania and Palermo in Sicily. This disproves significant Norman input in Palermo or significant mainland Greek input in Catania.

b. Catania (NE), Palermo (NW), and Enna (NC) in Sicily, despite stretching across a large portion of the island, have almost identical components to one another, the only difference being that Enna has a tiny bit more European and a tiny but less Near Eastern. These three areas have the highest Caucasian input in Sicily, and are very similar all around to both Calabrese samples. Near Eastern ancestry is well represented.

c. Agrigento (SW) and Ragusa (SE) in Sicily appear similar to one another, with slightly higher European and the lowest Caucasian on the island, with Near Eastern ancestry on par with Catania, Palermo, Enna as well as Calabria. This goes against conventional wisdom and the GEDMatch results I have seen that place some people from Ragusa closer to mainland Greeks -- clearly here, it is more similar to Agrigento. Syracuse was not sampled -- if it were, I suspect it would indeed shift toward mainland Greece.

d. Apulia (Lecce sample) is also closer to the rest of southern Italy and is not, in fact, shifted toward mainland Greece at all, contrary to many personal and individual results I have seen from this region. This could be due to poor sampling, or it could mean the results I have seen are not representative of Apulia.

e. Near Eastern ancestry is highest in Sicily and Calabria, but lower in Apulia and Lucania. On the other hand, Caucasian ancestry is nearly constant among them all. This suggests the Near Eastern input in Calabria and Sicily is NOT Neolithic, and has historical sources, such as Phoenician, Carthaginian, and even the Arab conquest, and that it impacted all of Sicily strongly, as well as Calabria, and then a lesser extent the rest of southern Italy. This could be due to people moving from one region to another, forced migration and displacement, or intermarriage.

f. Apulian Griko and Arbereshe samples appear similar to the ethnic Apulian sample (Lecce), not to the Albanians and mainland Greeks. The Calabrese Griko appear close to Cypriots, suggesting they may be a very ancient, almost untouched remnant of pre-Norman southern Italy, but not of significantly mainland Greek descent. Still, their distinct language and culture may have prevented them from mixing with other Italians or with Normans.

g. Crete is most similar to the Apulian sample from Lecce, and not to the Sicilians -- Sicilians and Calabrese have higher Near Eastern input than does Crete, even though they have roughly the same amount of European.

6. Trapani is an outlier for southern Italy, with the lowest Caucasian input and the highest European, though the Near Eastern is roughly in line with the rest of southern Italy, and higher than Greece or Albania has.

This supports, in my view, the idea that Trapani once was, significantly, the most Near Eastern part of southern Italy. Phoenician and Carthaginian input was most prominent there, and the area had a high Muslim population during the Arab rule. However, the Crusades and Norman conquest would have hit this area hardest, as it would have been the most, in their view, in need of intervention. The movement of people from northern Italy as well as some ethnic Normans, brought up the European input, and brought down what was once proportionally higher Near Eastern, Sardinian, and Caucasian. Palermo and Agrigento, by contrast, were too densely populated for repopulation to change the genetic structure, and Normans barely touched eastern and central Sicily.

A study comparing Guanche remains to modern Europeans that used a Trapanese and Syracusan sample had the Trapani sample having the same amount of Caucasian, but more Levantine, compared to Syracuse, so it is likely if sampled here, Syracuse would be even more of an outlier for Sicily and headed toward mainland Greeks or Albanians.

Left to right: Gheg, Tosk, North Greece, Central Greece, Peloponnese, Calabrese Arbereshe, Sicilian Arbereshe, Apulian Griko, Calabrese Griko 1, Calabrese Griko 2, Apulia, Lucania, Cosenza (Calabria), Reggio (Calabria), Catania, Ragusa, Enna, Agrigento, Palermo, Trapani, Crete, Dodecanese, Cyprus.

https://i.imgur.com/CpeMck5.png

[Kouros]

Good thread dude, subscribed.

[Sikeliot]

Good thread dude

What are your thoughts on it? Did anything surprise you here?

[Tauromachos]

My guess is that the Caucasian input represents a Neolithic migration centered on the Caucasus or Iran that makes up a significant part of the ancestry of all Italians
and Greeks

This is actually correct

For example studies on the DNA of Minoans revealed that they didn't have relations with the Levant and Egypt but with Ancient populations in Anatolia and North Iran,Caucasus and Armenian Highlands

[Sikeliot]

This is actually correct

For example studies on the DNA of Minoans revealed that they didn't have relations with the Levant and Egypt but with Ancient populations in Anatolia and North Iran,Caucasus and Armenian Highlands

So the way we could view this is, that the regions showing the highest combined Sardinian and Caucasian, and lowest Near Eastern and Indo-European, are those who have remained most consistent over the millennia and mixed the least with outsiders.

[Tauromachos]

So the way we could view this is, that the regions showing the highest combined Sardinian and Caucasian, and lowest Near Eastern and Indo-European, are those who have remained most consistent over the millennia and mixed the least with outsiders.

Probably

[Sikeliot]

Probably

What do you make of Central Greece having less "European" (which is likely a mixture of Indo European and Slavic) than the Peloponnese?

Also interesting that Apulia here is close to Crete.

[Tauromachos]

What do you make of Central Greece having less "European" (which is likely a mixture of Indo European and Slavic) than the Peloponnese?

Also interesting that Apulia here is close to Crete.

This means probably that Central Greece can't be closer to Balkans than to other Greek Island populations.

Also kleenex claims that Central Greece and Peloponnese are very close either way.
So Peloponnese should cluster with Central Greece,SE Sicily and perhabs Cyclade Islanders not with arbitrary Balkan populations.

[Kouros]

What are your thoughts on it? Did anything surprise you here?

I expected some things. For example, the reason that Gheg Albanians have the least steppe between (Tosk & other) Albanians + mainland Greeks is because they owe almost all of their steppe ancestry to pre-Slavic population, so this data is natural. Same reason they score the highest Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic (MDLP 22) in Eastern Europe. As for south Italy, we have Roman documentation of near Eastern settlements in south Italy that you've posted about which seems to be sufficient in explaining their near Eastern ancestry. And if that's not sufficient then we can simply just assume they're genetically the way they are because of their geography, which is perfectly fine.

A lot of this region or tribe specific stuff I actually did not know about, for example 4, 5, and 6, and I think you did a good job explaining it. I will read the actually study tomorrow since I find this stuff interesting.

Other than that I'm glad you touched on Albanians too for once, some people forget that Illyrians colonized the Italic peninsula themselves and influenced Roman culture too. And if these GEDmatch calculators are right, northern Albanians and Greek islanders are the closest to 'their' Italian region than is any other Greek or Albanian group.

[Tauromachos]

I expected some things. For example, the reason that Gheg Albanians have the least steppe between (Tosk & other) Albanians + mainland Greeks is because they owe almost all of their steppe ancestry to pre-Slavic population, so this data is natural.

Ειρωνια

[Tauromachos]

hat do you make of Central Greece having less "European" (which is likely a mixture of Indo European and Slavic) than the Peloponnese?

Also interesting that Apulia here is close to Crete



Peloponnese can have up to 15% according to the official study of Stamoyannopoulo's team
but not everwhere since its only 1% in particular places.

Now if Central Greece has 0-1% Slavic

What can one make out of it?

[Ajeje Brazorf]

I expected some things. For example, the reason that Gheg Albanians have the least steppe between (Tosk & other) Albanians + mainland Greeks is because they owe almost all of their steppe ancestry to pre-Slavic population, so this data is natural. Same reason they score the highest Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic (MDLP 22) in Eastern Europe. As for south Italy, we have Roman documentation of near Eastern settlements in south Italy that you've posted about which seems to be sufficient in explaining their near Eastern ancestry. And if that's not sufficient then we can simply just assume they're genetically the way they are because of their geography, which is perfectly fine.

A lot of this region or tribe specific stuff I actually did not know about, for example 4, 5, and 6, and I think you did a good job explaining it. I will read the actually study tomorrow since I find this stuff interesting.

Other than that I'm glad you touched on Albanians too for once, some people forget that Illyrians colonized the Italic peninsula themselves and influenced Roman culture too. And if these GEDmatch calculators are right, northern Albanians and Greek islanders are the closest to 'their' Italian region than is any other Greek or Albanian group.

Sikeliot is trolling, the paper clearly says: "besides a predominant Neolithic background, we identify traces of Post-Neolithic Levantine- and Caucasus-related ancestries, compatible with maritime BRONZE-AGE MIGRATIONS."
Our affinity is ancient.

[Sikeliot]

Sikeliot is trolling, the paper clearly says: "besides a predominant Neolithic background, we identify traces of Post-Neolithic Levantine- and Caucasus-related ancestries, compatible with maritime BRONZE-AGE MIGRATIONS."
Our affinity is ancient.

The end of the Bronze Age would include the Phoenician and Carthaginian colonization of Sicily, so no, the paper's conclusion is not incompatible with what I am saying. But I definitely do believe that the Caucasus and Near Eastern components are not correlated and arrived separately.

[Sikeliot]

I expected some things. For example, the reason that Gheg Albanians have the least steppe between (Tosk & other) Albanians + mainland Greeks is because they owe almost all of their steppe ancestry to pre-Slavic population, so this data is natural. Same reason they score the highest Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic (MDLP 22) in Eastern Europe. As for south Italy, we have Roman documentation of near Eastern settlements in south Italy that you've posted about which seems to be sufficient in explaining their near Eastern ancestry. And if that's not sufficient then we can simply just assume they're genetically the way they are because of their geography, which is perfectly fine.

A lot of this region or tribe specific stuff I actually did not know about, for example 4, 5, and 6, and I think you did a good job explaining it. I will read the actually study tomorrow since I find this stuff interesting.

Other than that I'm glad you touched on Albanians too for once, some people forget that Illyrians colonized the Italic peninsula themselves and influenced Roman culture too. And if these GEDmatch calculators are right, northern Albanians and Greek islanders are the closest to 'their' Italian region than is any other Greek or Albanian group.

As far as Albanians go, I noticed here that the Peloponnese sample is the closest to the two Albanian samples and surprisingly the North Greece sample is further away (more north-shifting ancestry). Do you attribute this to Slavic input in northern Greece, or to something else entirely? All three mainland Greek samples have a tiny trace of Near Eastern, higher than the Albanians, but this could simply be because of being slightly further south and receiving the tail end of some migration. In Peloponnese it could also be due to the fact that after some Slavs were expelled -- those who refused to assimilate into Greek culture -- the Byzantines repopulated some areas with Greek-speaking Sicilians, Calabrese, Aegean islanders, and Anatolian Greeks.

It is interesting that this study contradicts GEDMatch results in that Cypriots here appear to be like one of the South Italian populations but without the European element and with slightly higher Near Eastern and Caucasus, rather than being like Levantines. GEDmatch usually puts Cypriots as somewhat closer to Levantines than to southern Italians, but here the opposite is the case.

As far as Sicilians on an east to west basis, the Arab conquest not only brought people from outside of Sicily into it, but it brought people from western Sicily across to the east of the island (Arabized Sicilians drove much of the conquest, not transplant Arabs or Berbers). So it is possible that the difference in the Near Eastern component from west to east was once more noticeable than today. It does seem, without doubt though, that Caucasian affinity is stronger in northern and central Sicily and smaller in Trapani and along the southern coast, though I have no historical explanation for why this would be. It is possible that in Catania it reflects Ionian (Anatolian) Greek input or from the Aegean islands, while in Palermo it could be due to Elymians, but the Palermo, Enna, and Catania samples are too similar for this to be said with certainty.

Trapani definitely shows evidence of repopulation from the mainland Italy or by Normans, their ratios do not conform with the other samples here.

[Teucer]

As far as Albanians go, I noticed here that the Peloponnese sample is the closest to the two Albanian samples and surprisingly the North Greece sample is further away (more north-shifting ancestry). Do you attribute this to Slavic input in northern Greece, or to something else entirely? All three mainland Greek samples have a tiny trace of Near Eastern, higher than the Albanians, but this could simply be because of being slightly further south and receiving the tail end of some migration. In Peloponnese it could also be due to the fact that after some Slavs were expelled -- those who refused to assimilate into Greek culture -- the Byzantines repopulated some areas with Greek-speaking Sicilians, Calabrese, Aegean islanders, and Anatolian Greeks.

It is interesting that this study contradicts GEDMatch results in that Cypriots here appear to be like one of the South Italian populations but without the European element and with slightly higher Near Eastern and Caucasus, rather than being like Levantines. GEDmatch usually puts Cypriots as somewhat closer to Levantines than to southern Italians, but here the opposite is the case.

As far as Sicilians on an east to west basis, the Arab conquest not only brought people from outside of Sicily into it, but it brought people from western Sicily across to the east of the island (Arabized Sicilians drove much of the conquest, not transplant Arabs or Berbers). So it is possible that the difference in the Near Eastern component from west to east was once more noticeable than today. It does seem, without doubt though, that Caucasian affinity is stronger in northern and central Sicily and smaller in Trapani and along the southern coast, though I have no historical explanation for why this would be. It is possible that in Catania it reflects Ionian (Anatolian) Greek input or from the Aegean islands, while in Palermo it could be due to Elymians, but the Palermo, Enna, and Catania samples are too similar for this to be said with certainty.

Trapani definitely shows evidence of repopulation from the mainland Italy or by Normans, their ratios do not conform with the other samples here.

What are we to think of Gedmatch if it contradicts a professional study?

Maybe Gedmatch isn't the problem but the sample size of Cypriots it uses

[Ajeje Brazorf]

The end of the Bronze Age would include the Phoenician and Carthaginian colonization of Sicily, so no, the paper's conclusion is not incompatible with what I am saying. But I definitely do believe that the Caucasus and Near Eastern components are not correlated and arrived separately.

Man you are a broken record. Phoenicians had something like 4 cities in Sicily, this cannot have huge influence. They had colonies in Sardinia and south Iberia as well. Why isn't this "Phoenician" influence showing in their populations? The same goes for Carthaginians. And it was not even a "colonization" of the island.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

As far as Albanians go, I noticed here that the Peloponnese sample is the closest to the two Albanian samples and surprisingly the North Greece sample is further away (more north-shifting ancestry). Do you attribute this to Slavic input in northern Greece, or to something else entirely? All three mainland Greek samples have a tiny trace of Near Eastern, higher than the Albanians, but this could simply be because of being slightly further south and receiving the tail end of some migration. In Peloponnese it could also be due to the fact that after some Slavs were expelled -- those who refused to assimilate into Greek culture -- the Byzantines repopulated some areas with Greek-speaking Sicilians, Calabrese, Aegean islanders, and Anatolian Greeks.

It is interesting that this study contradicts GEDMatch results in that Cypriots here appear to be like one of the South Italian populations but without the European element and with slightly higher Near Eastern and Caucasus, rather than being like Levantines. GEDmatch usually puts Cypriots as somewhat closer to Levantines than to southern Italians, but here the opposite is the case.

As far as Sicilians on an east to west basis, the Arab conquest not only brought people from outside of Sicily into it, but it brought people from western Sicily across to the east of the island (Arabized Sicilians drove much of the conquest, not transplant Arabs or Berbers). So it is possible that the difference in the Near Eastern component from west to east was once more noticeable than today. It does seem, without doubt though, that Caucasian affinity is stronger in northern and central Sicily and smaller in Trapani and along the southern coast, though I have no historical explanation for why this would be. It is possible that in Catania it reflects Ionian (Anatolian) Greek input or from the Aegean islands, while in Palermo it could be due to Elymians, but the Palermo, Enna, and Catania samples are too similar for this to be said with certainty.

Trapani definitely shows evidence of repopulation from the mainland Italy or by Normans, their ratios do not conform with the other samples here.

The reason why western Sicilians are shifted towards Sardinia or towards Abruzzo might be caused by their probable Ligurian origins, but we know little about their ancient counterparts, Lombard colonizers influenced them for sure. The Berbers also took 75 long years to conquer all of Sicily, and they stayed very little there. Calabria was never conquered by them for example.
The source on Wikipedia about southern Italians repopulating Peloponnese is very untrustworthy and to take with a grain of salt, just like most of ancient sources. It is more likely that the population of a city fled to the south and after a couple of generations they returned, things like "repopulations" happened in small numbers for sure.

[Sikeliot]

Man you are a broken record. Phoenicians had something like 4 cities in Sicily, this cannot have huge influence. They had colonies in Sardinia and south Iberia as well. Why isn't this "Phoenician" influence showing in their populations? The same goes for Carthaginians. And it was not even a "colonization" of the island.

Then how do you explain it and why is the component so much smaller in Greece and Albania but present in Cyprus and Crete? Rather than criticize how do you explain it?

[Sikeliot]

The reason why western Sicilians are shifted towards Sardinia or towards Abruzzo might be caused by their probable Ligurian origins, but we know little about their ancient counterparts, Lombard colonizers influenced them for sure. The Berbers also took 75 long years to conquer all of Sicily, and they stayed very little there. Calabria was never conquered by them for example.
The source on Wikipedia about southern Italians repopulating Peloponnese is very untrustworthy and to take with a grain of salt, just like most of ancient sources. It is more likely that the population of a city fled to the south and after a couple of generations they returned, things like "repopulations" happened in small numbers for sure.

I think Trapani differs because of the crusades, and Norman input, they aren't even like Agrigento or Palermo which are more like the rest of Sicily.

[Smitty]

The end of the Bronze Age would include the Phoenician and Carthaginian colonization of Sicily, so no, the paper's conclusion is not incompatible with what I am saying. But I definitely do believe that the Caucasus and Near Eastern components are not correlated and arrived separately.

I can believe Phoenician/Carthaginian influence in Sicily, but I find it a dubious claim to suggest that this accounts for this Near Eastern component in all of South Italy. More likely, in my opinion, either Calabria and Sicily received the most of whatever Bronze Age migration this was, or all of South Italy was once dominated by this people and those areas farther north (Basilicata, Apulia, perhaps Campania) later received more influences from North and Central Italy. If I'm not mistaken, the Near Eastern is found, in ever lessening degrees, all the way up to North Italy. Are we really to believe that the Phoenicians and/or the Arabs had such a wide-reaching and profound genetic effect?

[Sikeliot]

I can believe Phoenician/Carthaginian influence in Sicily, but I find it a dubious claim to suggest that this accounts for this Near Eastern component in all of South Italy. More likely, in my opinion, either Calabria and Sicily received the most of whatever Bronze Age migration this was, or all of South Italy was once dominated by this people and those areas farther north (Basilicata, Apulia, perhaps Campania) later received more influences from North and Central Italy. If I'm not mistaken, the Near Eastern is found, in ever lessening degrees, all the way up to North Italy. Are we really to believe that the Phoenicians and/or the Arabs had such a wide-reaching and profound genetic effect?


Well if you look at the frequencies, Calabria/Sicily have nearly double of the Near East component compared to Apulia (Lecce) -- this, rather than frequency of NE European type DNA, may be why Apulians shift toward mainland Greece, Albania, and the rest of Italy. It seems to me like the Near East component entered through Sicily and Calabria, which have had significant migration back and forth, and then dispersed into southern Italy otherwise. Without Tuscans or north Italians in the chart, I cannot say how much of that component they would score, but I imagine less than Apulia by quite a bit, not even mentioning Sicily.

I also assume the migration to be partially historical (Phoenician, Carthaginian, Arab) because of its smaller frequency in Crete/Dodecanese. If it was a Bronze Age migration, I see no reason how it seems to have missed the Dodecanese and skipped all the way to south Italy. Unless we assume that the Dodecanese have "normal" levels of the component and Sicily had theirs augmented by Phoenician and Arab, which means the difference in what Dodecanese have vs Sicilians may be the impact of the Arabs and Phoenicians, not the whole component.

But then, why do Griko Calabrese score so much? They have not mixed with anyone.

[wvwvw]

European-like ancestry, proxied by North and Northeast Europeans, is significantly higher in Albanians and Greeks than in southern Italians.

Depends what you define as Southern Italians. A specific part of Sicily or a larger geographical area. Out of 20 mlllion Southern Italians only 5 million are Sicilians.

[Sikeliot]

Depends what you define as Southern Italians. A specific part of Sicily or a larger geographical area. Out of 20 mlllion Southern Italians only 5 are Sicilians.

Well if you look at the chart, all of the regions sampled -- Sicily, Calabria, Basilicata/Lucania and even Apulia -- had less of the NE European/"European like" ancestry than did the Greeks. However, Apulia did have significantly the least Near Eastern of all the southern Italians.

[wvwvw]

Well if you look at the chart, all of the regions sampled -- Sicily, Calabria, Basilicata/Lucania and even Apulia -- had less of the NE European/"European like" ancestry than did the Greeks. However, Apulia did have significantly the least Near Eastern of all the southern Italians.

Didn’t they also have more Atlanto-med?

[Sikeliot]

Didn’t they also have more Atlanto-med?

Yes. But here I am discussing the study. Either way Apulians being consistently the least Near Eastern of all southern Italians seems to be confirmed.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes. But here I am discussing the study. Either way Apulians being consistently the least Near Eastern of all southern Italians seems to be confirmed.

Even compared to Abruzzo and Molise?

[Sikeliot]

Even compared to Abruzzo and Molise?

They were not part of the study, but from GEDmatch results I have seen... yes. Apulians have less Near Eastern than do Abruzzo or Molise.

[Tooting Carmen]

They were not part of the study, but from GEDmatch results I have seen... yes. Apulians have less Near Eastern than do Abruzzo or Molise.

How come? They are a lot more Southern and Med, surely?

[wvwvw]

They were not part of the study, but from GEDmatch results I have seen... yes. Apulians have less Near Eastern than do Abruzzo or Molise.

Could it have to do with the Tyrrhenians who settled in Italy after the Thera eruption, around 1628 BC.

[Sikeliot]

How come? They are a lot more Southern and Med, surely?

I don't know, honestly. But they are different from Sicily, Calabria, and other regions of their latitude.

[AK-47]

2. European-like ancestry, proxied by North and Northeast Europeans, is significantly higher in Albanians and Greeks than in southern Italians.
https://i.imgur.com/CpeMck5.png
If the distinction between Southern Italians is made, shouldn't the distinction for instance between Peloponnese Greeks and Greeks in Epirus be made?
There is a similar north/south genetic Cline in Greece as there is in Italy.
I would wager a Greek in the Peloponnese, is closer to a typical Sicilian genetically, than they're to a resident of Epirus/Thessaly or Thrace.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Depends what you define as Southern Italians. A specific part of Sicily or a larger geographical area. Out of 20 mlllion Southern Italians only 5 million are Sicilians.

Sikeliot's posts not always are realiable, he has a clear agenda and wants to depict Greeks as a heavily Slavic admixed people and southern Italians as Levantines in denial. Of course it is bullshit that Calabrians are 2x more Near Eastern than Apulians, I go to Apulia every summer and they do not look different from the other southerners. I even doubt he has ever set foot in Italy. Let's not forget that Apulians in antiquity were Iapygians, whose origins were possibly Illyrian Adriatic, that's why they may be more shfited to Greeks. Even today, central and northern Apulian dialects have the most diverging phonology and funniest accent of all southern Italian dialects, I mean those dialects whose almost all words end in /ə/.

In this plot we form a distinctive cluster:
https://i.imgur.com/2lYwpVs.png

In this one we plot with Aegeans:
https://i.imgur.com/cqU9vz2.png

The funny part is that trolls can't use the Berber/Arab/Turk domination as an excuse since we had nothing or very little of that, so they will turn this around saying that we are the product of Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Levantine slaves all happily crammed and sunbathing in southern Italy. On the contrary, there have been Ostrogothic, Lombard and Norman dominations. Needless to say they left nothing genetically, but following the same logic we should be all blonde and blue eyed people from the north.
It is also funny when they cut Sicily in something like 3 or 4 zones of influence, ignoring the fact that there have been many earthquakes and resettling of peoples coming from other parts of the island which experienced a shitload of internal migration, especially in the cities. They believe that if you move from Messina to Siracusa you'll find yourself in a completely different world hahaha.


Even compared to Abruzzo and Molise?

They are the same, ethnically speaking.

[Sikeliot]

If the distinction between Southern Italians is made, shouldn't the distinction for instance between Peloponnese Greeks and Greeks in Epirus be made?
There is a similar north/south genetic Cline in Greece as there is in Italy.
I would wager a Greek in the Peloponnese, is closer to a typical Sicilian genetically, than they're to a resident of Epirus/Thessaly or Thrace.

There is a north/south cline in Greece, but Peloponnesians still do not plot as far "south" as Sicilians or Cretans, even though they are south of Epirotes, Thessalians, and Thracians.

Even compared to Sicilians, the Peloponnesian cluster has more North European type DNA and less Near Eastern, though the amount of Caucasian and Sardinian/EEF is roughly the same.

[Sikeliot]

Sikeliot's posts not always are realiable, he has a clear agenda and wants to depict Greeks as a heavily Slavic admixed people and southern Italians as Levantines in denial. Of course it is bullshit that Calabrians are 2x more Near Eastern than Apulians, I go to Apulia every summer and they do not look different from the other southerners. I even doubt he has ever set foot in Italy. Let's not forget that Apulians in antiquity were Iapygians, whose origins were possibly Illyrian Adriatic, that's why they may be more shfited to Greeks. Even today, central and northern Apulian dialects have the most diverging phonology and funniest accent of all southern Italian dialects, I mean those dialects whose almost all words end in /ə/.

In this plot we form a distinctive cluster:
https://i.imgur.com/2lYwpVs.png

In this one we plot with Aegeans:
https://i.imgur.com/cqU9vz2.png

The funny part is that trolls can't use the Berber/Arab/Turk domination as an excuse since we had nothing or very little of that, so they will turn this around saying that we are the product of Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Levantine slaves all happily crammed and sunbathing in southern Italy. On the contrary, there have been Ostrogothic, Lombard and Norman dominations. Needless to say they left nothing genetically, but following the same logic we should be all blonde and blue eyed people from the north.
It is also funny when they cut Sicily in something like 3 or 4 zones of influence, ignoring the fact that there have been many earthquakes and resettling of peoples coming from other parts of the island which experienced a shitload of internal migration, especially in the cities. They believe that if you move from Messina to Siracusa you'll find yourself in a completely different world hahaha.



They are the same, ethnically speaking.

So how do you explain then the increased Near Eastern input in southern Italians and Aegean islanders compared to mainland Greece, Albania, and the rest of Italy? You have yet to provide an explanation as to when this migration occurred, where it came from, or why it completely bypassed the southern Balkans.

I can agree that stronger Illyrian and Greek input makes Apulia genetically differentiated from the rest of the south.

[AK-47]

There is a north/south cline in Greece, but Peloponnesians still do not plot as far "south" as Sicilians or Cretans, even though they are south of Epirotes, Thessalians, and Thracians.
My only point is that you tend to use the generic term "Greece" in your polls and data, but you are always careful to slice up Italy into Southern and Sicilian Italy.
Do you have an agenda, or is this an oversight?

[Sikeliot]

My only point is that you tend to use the generic term "Greece" in your polls and data, but you are always careful to slice up Italy into Southern and Sicilian Italy.
Do you have an agenda, or is this an oversight?

I don't consider myself to have an agenda given that what I am saying, and the distinctions I make, are backed up by the data. There is a mainland Greece/Albania cluster (and the Peloponnese is included in it) and an Aegean islands/South Italy one.

When I say "Greek" I usually mean mainland Greece, and apart from isolated zones like Mani, there is less of a genetic difference between northern Greece and the Peloponnese, and everything in between, than you think. However, I do specify Aegean islanders as being genetically separate from the mainland overall and you see this in my post and in more recent threads (see this for example: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235249 ).

So the shortcoming of my posts is that I really mean mainland Greeks when I just say Greece, and if I am speaking of Aegean islanders, I say so. Aegean islanders make up only 10% of Greece anyway, so the default for "Greek" should be mainlanders. Even in the study I mentioned, they do the same: they speak of Greeks as mainland, and group the Aegean islands with southern Italy.

In older threads I separated Italy but not Greece, but now that these studies have come out, I always specify when I am referring to mainland Greeks vs islanders. Mainland Greece is fairly homogenous north to south actually, except for slightly elevated Slavic/NE Euro/Indo European in the north. Peloponnesians in fact are closer to northern Greeks than to Cretans/Sicilians/South Italians overall, even if they are closer to the latter than northern Greeks are.

The southernmost Peloponnese, the Mani/Sparta area is somewhat more Sicilian-like due to some degree of migration from Crete, evident in surnames, given that Cretans and Sicilians are genetically very close to one another.

[Tauromachos]

My only point is that you tend to use the generic term "Greece" in your polls and data, but you are always careful to slice up Italy into Southern and Sicilian Italy.
Do you have an agenda, or is this an oversight?

He uses often also the generic term Mainland Greece

He also groups Mainland Greece with all of Balkan together as if they were identical and mentions only differences between Mainland Greece and
S.Italy or Mainland Greece and Greek Islands,Crete e.c.t

If you see his remarks in this study it simply says South Italy,Crete is different from Balkanites it doesn't even mention Greece as a distinct entity
but groups it together under the umbrella term Balkanites with countries like Romania,Serbia,Croatia and God not what else when these countries
should be at least the same different if not more to Mainland Greeks as Mainland Greeks are to Sicilians.

[Sikeliot]

He uses often also the generic term Mainland Greece

He also groups Mainland Greece with all of Balkan together as if they were identical and mentions only differences between Mainland Greece and
S.Italy or Mainland Greece and Greek Islands,Crete e.c.t

If you see his remarks in this study it simply says South Italy,Crete is different from Balkanites it doesn't even mention Greece as a distinct entity
but groups it together under the umbrella term Balkanites with countries like Romania,Serbia,Croatia and God not what else when these countries
should be at least the same different if not more to Mainland Greeks as Mainland Greeks are to Sicilians.

According to the study, Peloponnesians fall into the Albanian/Mainland Greek cluster, not into the Aegean islands/South Italy cluster. So yes, "mainland Greece" as a term is useful.

The study groups Albania and all mainland Greeks together, and Aegean islands with all south Italians. I think this is a meaningful, and accurate, distinction. The study does specify though, as I would do too, that the mainland Greeks/Albanians are intermediate between the South Italians/Aegean islanders and Balkan Slavs, due to a gradient of increasing NE European ancestry, which is almost absent in South Italians/Aegean islanders, present in mainland Greeks/Albanians, and makes up a larger part of Balkan Slavs.

I think this is a fair distinction to make.

[Tauromachos]

According to the study, Peloponnesians fall into the Albanian/Mainland Greek cluster, not into the Aegean islands/South Italy cluster. So yes, "mainland Greece" as a term is useful.

The study groups Albania and all mainland Greeks together, and Aegean islands with all south Italians. I think this is a meaningful, and accurate, distinction. The study does specify though, as I would do too, that the mainland Greeks/Albanians are intermediate between the South Italians/Aegean islanders and Balkan Slavs, due to a gradient of increasing NE European ancestry, which is almost absent in South Italians/Aegean islanders, present in mainland Greeks/Albanians, and makes up a larger part of Balkan Slavs.

I think this is a fair distinction to make.

Yeah but he makes a valid point when you often talk about NE in Mainland Greece you simply miss the fact that even in the Greek Mainland the NE
part varies region by region.

In Peloponnese it can be up to 15% in some regions and as low as 1% in other regions.

[Sikeliot]

Yeah but he makes a valid point when you often talk about NE in Mainland Greece you simply miss the fact that even in the Greek Mainland the NE
part varies region by region.

In Peloponnese it can be up to 15% in some regions and as low as 1% in other regions.


I am going by what the study here says and gives as an average. It looks close to 15%. Sicily-South Italy and Crete seems to have roughly half of that amount. Peloponnesians actually are not the least NE European shifted mainlanders... it is central Greeks who are (the sample here is from near Athens).

The 1% you give is for SLAVIC influence, not NE European. Peloponnesians would have other NE European type DNA from Dorians, Indo Europeans, proto-Greeks that predates Slavs.

[Tauromachos]

I am going by what the study here says and gives as an average. It looks close to 15%. Sicily-South Italy and Crete seems to have roughly half of that amount. Peloponnesians actually are not the least NE European shifted mainlanders... it is central Greeks who are (the sample here is from near Athens).

The 1% you give is for SLAVIC influence, not NE European. Peloponnesians would have other NE European type DNA from Dorians, Indo Europeans, proto-Greeks that predates Slavs.


The study is incomplete and doesn't draw a complete picture

Its understated that for example all Greeks are significantly far off from Slavic countries and not closer to them than to
S.Italians for sure.

Also it is focussed in Near Eastern input in Southern Italy and underrates the significance of Ancient Greek input.

Where are your Proofs that Dorians were NE?

[Sikeliot]

Where are your Proofs that Dorians were NE?

Well, the areas of South Italy with Doric Greek colonization as opposed to Ionian, have more NE European type DNA. But my point is that Peloponnesians will still have some NE European DNA even if not Slavic.. the 1% figure you gave only referred to ancestry that was said to be from the Slavic conquest of the Balkans.

All Europeans, except Sardinians, have at least some NE European DNA.

[wvwvw]

I am going by what the study here says and gives as an average. It looks close to 15%. Sicily-South Italy and Crete seems to have roughly half of that amount. Peloponnesians actually are not the least NE European shifted mainlanders... it is central Greeks who are (the sample here is from near Athens).

The 1% you give is for SLAVIC influence, not NE European. Peloponnesians would have other NE European type DNA from Dorians, Indo Europeans, proto-Greeks that predates Slavs.

The Central Greek sample is an Athenian sample with mainly Greeks from Smyrna and other Asia Minor Greeks, mixed with other Greeks.

[Sikeliot]

Its understated that for example all Greeks are significantly far off from Slavic countries and not closer to them than to
S.Italians for sure.

Also it is focussed in Near Eastern input in Southern Italy and underrates the significance of Ancient Greek input.


1. The study, and myself, do say that modern Greeks are closer to southern Italians than to Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc. This has never even been up for debate, of course even people in Thrace and Thessaly are closer to southern Italians. However, it is also clear that all mainland Greeks plot closer to Albanians, and both form an INTERMEDIATE cluster between Balkan Slavs and South Italians/Cretans.

2. The study's results address the ancient Greek issue as well: it says that mainland Greece and Albania, prior to the Slavic influence, would have been part of the cluster modern southern Italy and Crete are part of. I personally do not agree with their conclusion (because we still have high Near Eastern in the islands to contend with that the mainland could not have possibly had based on their modern ratios and proportions), but the study does address this and it is false if you claim it does not.

[Tauromachos]

Well, the areas of South Italy with Doric Greek colonization as opposed to Ionian, have more NE European type DNA. But my point is that Peloponnesians will still have some NE European DNA even if not Slavic.. the 1% figure you gave only referred to ancestry that was said to be from the Slavic conquest of the Balkans.

All Europeans, except Sardinians, have at least some NE European DNA.

So what does this proof that the Dorians were fully NE people or rather that they where a group of basic Greek people who got more kind
of that admixture?

Also who can tell exactly what was Dorian and what was not?

Dorians also settled in Crete"not only the Western part" and in the SE Aegean Islands.
Perhabs this subgroup of Dorians simply lacked the NE part when they left the Mainland"very early" which other Dorians aquired before they went to
Sicily?

Also not all Greeks in the ancient Mainland where Dorians

There were Dorians,Ionians,Aeolians

So the Mainland vs Island thing concerning NE can't be a Dorian vs Non Dorian thing.

[Sikeliot]

So what does this proof that the Dorians were fully NE people or rather that they where a group of basic Greek people who got more kind
of that admixture?

Also who can tell who exactly what was Dorian and what was not?

Dorians also settled in Crete"not only the Western part" and in the SE Aegean Islands.
Perhabs this subgroup of Dorians simply lacked the NE part when they left the Mainland"very early" which other Dorians aquired before they went to
Sicily?

My opinion is that Dorians are descended from a wave of migration into Greece that carried more NE European type DNA than other Greek groups of their time, and they carried this to their Apulian and southeast Sicilian colonies. But I also believe that SE Sicily and Apulia received Greek migration all the way through to the Middle Ages, after which some Slavic input was accumulated, so they may have secondhand Slavic input.

Apulians have high IBD sharing with Eastern Europe, but I would need to find the source for this. I know I have read it.

[wvwvw]

The study is incomplete and doesn't draw a complete picture

Its understated that for example all Greeks are significantly far off from Slavic countries and not closer to them than to
S.Italians for sure.

Also it is focussed in Near Eastern input in Southern Italy and underrates the significance of Ancient Greek input.

Where are your Proofs that Dorians were NE?

Mainland Greeks are about equidistant to South Slavs and ”Central Greeks”. Me, sorcelow, kleenex and other peloponnesians all plot similarily.

https://i.imgur.com/oEgzuxn.png

[Sikeliot]

So what does this proof that the Dorians were fully NE people or rather that they where a group of basic Greek people who got more kind
of that admixture?

Also who can tell exactly what was Dorian and what was not?

Dorians also settled in Crete"not only the Western part" and in the SE Aegean Islands.
Perhabs this subgroup of Dorians simply lacked the NE part when they left the Mainland"very early" which other Dorians aquired before they went to
Sicily?


These are the clusters the study found. When it says "West Sicily-Apulian cluster" it means Trapani. Palermo/Agrigento here are considered central Sicily, not west, for whichever reason.

Dodecanese and Cretans fall into the Central/East Sicily-Calabria cluster mainly, but some also in the Apulia/West Sicily cluster. Mainland Greeks into the South Balkan one and some into Apulia/West Sicily.. The following is quoted from here: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-01802-4/MediaObjects/41598_2017_1802_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

i) a Southern Balkan cluster (cyan in Fig. 3) encompassing all the samples from Albania (Tosk and Gheg), Kosovo and Northern-Greece, most of individuals from Central-Greece and the Peloponnesus as well as several Albanian-speaking Arbereshe from Calabria (ARB_CAL);

ii) an Apulia/West Sicily cluster (AW-Sicily, purple in Fig. 3) frequent in the easternmost provinces of Southern Italy (i.e. Basilicata/Apulia, including Greek-speaking groups of Salento, GRI_SAL) and in the western part of Sicily (including Albanian-speaking Arbereshe from Sicily, ARB_SIC), and including also individuals from both continental and insular Greece;

iii) a Calabria/Central-East Sicily cluster (CE-Sicily, limegreen in Fig. 3) comprehensive of most of Central-Eastern Sicilian and Calabrian individuals, as well as of many Cretan and Anatolian/ Dodecanese Greeks;

iv) private Calabrian Greek (white in Fig. 3) and Cypriot (aquamarine in Fig. 3) clusters.

[Tauromachos]

Mainland Greeks are about equidistant to South Slavs and ”Central Greeks”. Me, sorcelow, kleenex and other peloponnesians all plot similarily.


Absolute Bullshit!

[wvwvw]

So what does this proof that the Dorians were fully NE people or rather that they where a group of basic Greek people who got more kind
of that admixture?

Also who can tell exactly what was Dorian and what was not?

Dorians also settled in Crete"not only the Western part" and in the SE Aegean Islands.
Perhabs this subgroup of Dorians simply lacked the NE part when they left the Mainland"very early" which other Dorians aquired before they went to
Sicily?

Also not all Greeks in the ancient Mainland where Dorians

There were Dorians,Ionians,Aeolians

So the Mainland vs Island thing concerning NE can't be a Dorian vs Non Dorian thing.

Or they have recent admixture from Cypriots.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

So how do you explain then the increased Near Eastern input in southern Italians and Aegean islanders compared to mainland Greece, Albania, and the rest of Italy? You have yet to provide an explanation as to when this migration occurred, where it came from, or why it completely bypassed the southern Balkans.

I can agree that stronger Illyrian and Greek input makes Apulia genetically differentiated from the rest of the south.

Before stating there has been an increase, WE NEED ANCIENT DNA, is this clear? Until there isn't any, please avoid saying BS like we are heavily admixed with foreigners. Apulia is not genetically "differentiated" from the rest of the south, Apulia is just shifted towards Molise and Abruzzo, compared to eastern Sicily and not towards the Greek mainland. In southern Italy the closest to Greece Mainland is Abruzzo I think, did Abruzzo ever have huge Greek settlements and colonization? No, it hadn't.
I will accept to be Norman, Arab or Martian admixed only when they will have analyzed a Oscan indifivdual from 500 BC.

[Tauromachos]

My opinion is that Dorians are descended from a wave of migration into Greece that carried more NE European type DNA than other Greek groups of their time, and they carried this to their Apulian and southeast Sicilian colonies. But I also believe that SE Sicily and Apulia received Greek migration all the way through to the Middle Ages, after which some Slavic input was accumulated, so they may have secondhand Slavic input.

Apulians have high IBD sharing with Eastern Europe, but I would need to find the source for this. I know I have read it.

Your opinion

Dorians didn't migrated into Greece from somewhere else but where one of the three classic Hellenic tribes

Also there is no archeological or genetic evidence that such a thing as Dorian Invasion happened.
Says Prof Traintafilidis
The so called NE admixture in Mainland Greece happened already before the so-called Dorians arrival.

[wvwvw]

Absolute Bullshit!

I showed you the PCO plot. Cretans don’t even come up in the top 20 results of mainland Greeks.

[Sikeliot]

Before stating there has been an increase, WE NEED ANCIENT DNA, is this clear? Until there isn't any, please avoid saying BS like we are heavily admixed with foreigners. Apulia is not genetically "differentiated" from the rest of the south, Apulia is just shifted towards Molise and Abruzzo, compared to eastern Sicily and not towards the Greek mainland. In southern Italy the closest to Greece Mainland is Abruzzo I think, did Abruzzo ever have huge Greek settlements and colonization? No, it hadn't.
I will accept to be Norman, Arab or Martian admixed only when they will have analyzed a Oscan indifivdual from 500 BC.

When I say increased I mean compared to mainland Greeks and Albanians, not over time within southern Italy. I mean Near Eastern input is higher in south Italy/Crete/Dodecanese islands compared to mainland Greece/Albania.

This implies to me not a Bronze Age migration, which would have surely affected all of them, but a more targeted historical one. This is just my opinion. We do need ancient samples to know for sure, but common sense also implies that something must have happened that skipped over mainland Greece and Albania.

[Sikeliot]

And actually now that I read more closely, the Apulia-West Sicily (Trapani/Arbereshe) cluster does capture some of both mainland and island Greeks, the more southern-plotting of the former, and the more northern-plotting of the latter. So I am incorrect in my initial post when I state that Apulia does not show additional Greek affinity, it does.

[wvwvw]

Your opinion

Dorians didn't migrated into Greece from somewhere else but where one of the three classic Hellenic tribes

Also there is no archeological or genetic evidence that such a thing as Dorian Invasion happened.
Says Prof Traintafilidis
The so called NE admixture in Mainland Greece happened already before the so-called Dorians arrival.

The Dorian invasion is well documented and it did happen. But the Dorians spoke Greek and it was Peloponnesus they invaded and they did not destroy the Mycenean and Minoan cultures. The Dorians inherited Sparta by right of decent form Herakles. The Myceneans assimilated they were not destroyed.

Before the arrival of the Dorians the Myceneans were mixed with the Minoans. But the Dorian-Mycenean civilization that came after them, was a different civilization. The Dorian-Pelasgi came to Greece in 2200 BC and later in 1900 BC the Ionians came along and put a wedge between those in the north and those in the Peloponnese. The Dorian-Pelasgi in North-Western Greece became Dorians. Those in the Peloponnese and Thessaly became Pelasgi. The Dorian's were nomadic whereas the Pelasgi were City Dwellers hence their name Polis-gi. Herodotus says that both the Dorians and Ionians were originally Pelasgians.

[Tauromachos]

The Dorian invasion is well documented and it did happen. But the Dorians spoke Greek

It didn't happen in the sense of an Invasion of foreign people from the North into Greece.
I repeat there is no archeological and genetic evidence.

Triantafilidis and other people both geneticists and archeologists have tested the hypothesis of such an Invasion vs the evidence they found
and concuded that it didn't happen.



they did not destroy the Mycenean and Minoan cultures. The Dorians inherited Sparta by right of decent form Herakles. The Myceneans assimilated they were not destroyed.

This is correct^



Herodotus says that both the Dorians and Ionians were originally Pelasgians. Herodotus and other Greek writers such as Stabo only concentred on the similarity between

Exactly this^^

[wvwvw]

It didn't happen in the sense of an Invasion of foreign people from the North into Greece.
I repeat there is no archeological and genetic evidence.

Triantafilidis and other people both geneticists and archeologists have tested the hypothesis of such an Invasion vs the evidence they found
and concuded that it didn't happen.



This is correct^

Exactly this^^

The R1 lineage that came to Greece from the Steppes probably from Iberia via the Balkans, did not originally speak Greek nor an Indo-European language. They were indo-europanized by the Ev13 and J2 linages who spoke a Greco-Anatolian language similar to proto-Greek. This language must have been spoken throughout the Balkans, Greece and Asia Minor before the arrival of the Steppe R1 lineage.

The R1 linage probbaly arrived from Iberia to Balkans, and eventually split into the Hellenes, Illyrians and Celto-Italics about 5000 years ago. After its arrival the Greco-Anatolian language split. Greece was affected by these new arrival and proto Greek was born, while the Hittites and others were not affected by the arrival of the Steppe people.

[Tauromachos]

https://www.scribd.com/document/273212681/Dorian-Invasion


(https://www.scribd.com/document/273212681/Dorian-Invasion)
Despite nearly 200 years of investigation, the actual-ity of the Dorian invasion has never been established.The meaning of the concept has become to some degree amorphous. The work done on it has mainly served torule out various speculations. The possibility of a realDorian invasion remains open. Likewise, there have beenattempts to link them or their victims with the emergenceof the equally mysterious Sea Peoples

:lol:

[Dibran]

I expected some things. For example, the reason that Gheg Albanians have the least steppe between (Tosk & other) Albanians + mainland Greeks is because they owe almost all of their steppe ancestry to pre-Slavic population, so this data is natural. Same reason they score the highest Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic (MDLP 22) in Eastern Europe. As for south Italy, we have Roman documentation of near Eastern settlements in south Italy that you've posted about which seems to be sufficient in explaining their near Eastern ancestry. And if that's not sufficient then we can simply just assume they're genetically the way they are because of their geography, which is perfectly fine.

A lot of this region or tribe specific stuff I actually did not know about, for example 4, 5, and 6, and I think you did a good job explaining it. I will read the actually study tomorrow since I find this stuff interesting.

Other than that I'm glad you touched on Albanians too for once, some people forget that Illyrians colonized the Italic peninsula themselves and influenced Roman culture too. And if these GEDmatch calculators are right, northern Albanians and Greek islanders are the closest to 'their' Italian region than is any other Greek or Albanian group.

Yup. I have it really high. Even uses the base Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic for 4-way mix.

Me:


# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic 39.90
2 North-East-European 28.22
3 West-Asian 18.16
4 Near_East 12.70


Finished reading population data. 276 populations found.
22 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian-North_derived @ 6.662528
2 Greek_North_derived @ 7.298111
3 Greek_South_derived @ 7.374866

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++
1 Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic_ancestral + North-East-European_ancestral + Greek_Cretan_derived + Jew_Georgia_derived @ 1.021047

My Father:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic 36.38
2 North-East-European 27.90
3 West-Asian 19.58
4 Near_East 13.86


Finished reading population data. 276 populations found.
22 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Greek_North_derived @ 4.125747
2 Greek_South_derived @ 4.370026
3 Ashkenazim_V_derived @ 6.237672

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
1 Croatian_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Italian-South_derived @ 0.940743

Mother:


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic 38.06
2 North-East-European 29.37
3 West-Asian 17.81
4 Near_East 13.15


Finished reading population data. 276 populations found.
22 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Greek_South_derived @ 6.889325
2 Greek_North_derived @ 6.961690
3 Ashkenazim_V_derived @ 7.547880


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
1 Italian-South_derived + Italian-South_derived + Montenegrin_derived + Montenegrin_derived @ 0.887342

[Tauromachos]

Mainland Greeks are about equidistant to South Slavs and ”Central Greeks”. Me, sorcelow, kleenex and other peloponnesians all plot similarily.


kleenexe's Dodecad k12b single Oracle


MIne:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 O_Italian (Dodecad) 5.73
2 Greek (Dodecad) 6.46
3 C_Italian (Dodecad) 7.93
4 Tuscan (HGDP) 9.95
5 TSI30 (Metspalu) 10.58
6 Sicilian (Dodecad) 11.59
7 S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad) 11.62
8 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 12.52
9 Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar) 12.57
10 Ashkenazi (Dodecad) 12.71
11 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 12.8
12 Romanians (Behar) 13.72
13 N_Italian (Dodecad) 14.49
14 North_Italian (HGDP) 16.68
15 Sephardic_Jews (Behar) 18.23
16 Morocco_Jews (Behar) 19.96
17 Turkish (Dodecad) 24.66
18 Baleares (1000Genomes) 25.14
19 Cypriots (Behar) 25.63
20 Galicia (1000Genomes) 26.11

[Sikeliot]

Compared to northern Greece, Peloponnesians do on average plot slightly "southern" (closer to Sicilians/Cretans) but north Greeks/Peloponnese are closer to one another than either to Sicilians/Cretans overall, if this makes sense.

[Wrong]

Like I did for Ireland and UK I actually wanted to type up a careful analysis, in hopes it can provide useful information. This is from a peer reviewed study, not from GEDmatch or commercial ancestry tests.

1. Italians, Greeks, Albanians, and Cypriots all owe the large majority of their ancestry to Neolithic Mediterranean people best proxied by modern Sardinians.

This means that the genetic base of all southern Italians, all Greeks, Albanians, and Cypriots is shared, and is indigenous to Southern Europe, tracing back to the early Neolithic wave of migration out of Anatolia. This component has also been referred to as EEF (Early European Farmer), representing pre-Indo European, pre-Caucasian migration. This component also ties them to Iberians, the French, and to indigenous North Africans, and was well-represented in Mycenaean samples.

2. European-like ancestry, proxied by North and Northeast Europeans, is significantly higher in Albanians and (mainland) Greeks than in southern Italians.

This component is possibly Indo-European, Yamnaya, or even to some extent carried by Slavs and Germanic people into southern and southeastern Europe. It is highest of all these samples in Northern Greece (which might be due to some degree of Slavic ancestry), then in Tosk Albanians and Peloponnesians, and then in Gheg Albanians and Central Greeks (who would be the least Slavic-influenced Balkanites). It is present but low in the Southern Italian and Aegean islands samples, and almost entirely absent in Cyprus. The exception is the Trapani sample from Sicily which may have this component higher than the rest of the island due to Norman input.

3. Caucasian DNA is slightly elevated in Cypriots and Dodecanese islanders (GRK_TUR_AEI), which could simply be due to geographic proximity.

However, it is worth noting that the Dodecanese has less Near Eastern input than Crete, and less than any of the southern Italian regions. This means that the Middle Eastern input in the Dodecanese is most likely overall of a Caucasian/Iranian source, and is not of Levantine origin.

4. Caucasian (yellow) and Near Eastern (red) input likely arrived in two or more separate migratory waves, as they are not correlated.

For instance, Dodecanese have more Caucasian input than Cyprus, but noticeably less Near Eastern. Additionally, all of the Southern Italian samples have more Near Eastern than the Dodecanese do, but less Caucasian. Finally, the Albanians and mainland Greeks have as much Caucasian as the southern Italians, but almost no Near Eastern. These two components are simply not correlated. My guess is that the Caucasian input represents a Neolithic migration centered on the Caucasus or Iran that makes up a significant part of the ancestry of all Italians and all Balkanites, as well as many other European groups, while the Near Eastern input could be a culmination of historical Levantines, Arabs, Berbers, and other groups who had a larger presence in southern Italy than in the Balkans.

5. Southern Italian samples are all similar to one another and to the Cretans, but with subtle differences. Sicily appears differentiated on a north to south basis, rather than east to west, with Trapani as an outlier. Norman input in Palermo is not borne out by the results, nor does any part of Sicily or southern Italy appear to have mainland Greek influence. There was at least one Near Eastern migration to southern Italy and the Aegean islands, and no region was unaffected by this.

a. European component is highest in Trapani as well as in Matera (Lucania), likely due to Norman input in the former and Greek input in the latter. On the other hand, it is almost absent in the Griko from Calabria, and is very low in both Calabrese samples (Cosenza and Reggio) as well as in Catania and Palermo in Sicily. This disproves significant Norman input in Palermo or significant mainland Greek input in Catania.

b. Catania (NE), Palermo (NW), and Enna (NC) in Sicily, despite stretching across a large portion of the island, have almost identical components to one another, the only difference being that Enna has a tiny bit more European and a tiny but less Near Eastern. These three areas have the highest Caucasian input in Sicily, and are very similar all around to both Calabrese samples. Near Eastern ancestry is well represented.

c. Agrigento (SW) and Ragusa (SE) in Sicily appear similar to one another, with slightly higher European and the lowest Caucasian on the island, with Near Eastern ancestry on par with Catania, Palermo, Enna as well as Calabria. This goes against conventional wisdom and the GEDMatch results I have seen that place some people from Ragusa closer to mainland Greeks -- clearly here, it is more similar to Agrigento. Syracuse was not sampled -- if it were, I suspect it would indeed shift toward mainland Greece.

d. Apulia (Lecce sample) is also closer to the rest of southern Italy and is not, in fact, shifted toward mainland Greece at all, contrary to many personal and individual results I have seen from this region. This could be due to poor sampling, or it could mean the results I have seen are not representative of Apulia.

e. Near Eastern ancestry is highest in Sicily and Calabria, but lower in Apulia and Lucania. On the other hand, Caucasian ancestry is nearly constant among them all. This suggests the Near Eastern input in Calabria and Sicily is NOT Neolithic, and has historical sources, such as Phoenician, Carthaginian, and even the Arab conquest, and that it impacted all of Sicily strongly, as well as Calabria, and then a lesser extent the rest of southern Italy. This could be due to people moving from one region to another, forced migration and displacement, or intermarriage.

f. Apulian Griko and Arbereshe samples appear similar to the ethnic Apulian sample (Lecce), not to the Albanians and mainland Greeks. The Calabrese Griko appear close to Cypriots, suggesting they may be a very ancient, almost untouched remnant of pre-Norman southern Italy, but not of significantly mainland Greek descent. Still, their distinct language and culture may have prevented them from mixing with other Italians or with Normans.

g. Crete is most similar to the Apulian sample from Lecce, and not to the Sicilians -- Sicilians and Calabrese have higher Near Eastern input than does Crete, even though they have roughly the same amount of European.

6. Trapani is an outlier for southern Italy, with the lowest Caucasian input and the highest European, though the Near Eastern is roughly in line with the rest of southern Italy, and higher than Greece or Albania has.

This supports, in my view, the idea that Trapani once was, significantly, the most Near Eastern part of southern Italy. Phoenician and Carthaginian input was most prominent there, and the area had a high Muslim population during the Arab rule. However, the Crusades and Norman conquest would have hit this area hardest, as it would have been the most, in their view, in need of intervention. The movement of people from northern Italy as well as some ethnic Normans, brought up the European input, and brought down what was once proportionally higher Near Eastern, Sardinian, and Caucasian. Palermo and Agrigento, by contrast, were too densely populated for repopulation to change the genetic structure, and Normans barely touched eastern and central Sicily.

A study comparing Guanche remains to modern Europeans that used a Trapanese and Syracusan sample had the Trapani sample having the same amount of Caucasian, but more Levantine, compared to Syracuse, so it is likely if sampled here, Syracuse would be even more of an outlier for Sicily and headed toward mainland Greeks or Albanians.

Left to right: Gheg, Tosk, North Greece, Central Greece, Peloponnese, Calabrese Arbereshe, Sicilian Arbereshe, Apulian Griko, Calabrese Griko 1, Calabrese Griko 2, Apulia, Lucania, Cosenza (Calabria), Reggio (Calabria), Catania, Ragusa, Enna, Agrigento, Palermo, Trapani, Crete, Dodecanese, Cyprus.

https://i.imgur.com/CpeMck5.png
Yeah. Sardinian-like is EEF + WHG. While European-like is North Eastern European admixture, peaks in the Baltics IIRC.

[wvwvw]

kleenexe's Dodecad k12b single Oracle

Well Central Italians plot even closer to South Slavs or are similarly equidistant from South Slavs and Sicilians, in terms of how Northern they are.

Mainland Greeks are a more east version of Central-south Italians. Look where me or kleenex are on the pco plot.

[Tauromachos]

Compared to northern Greece, Peloponnesians do on average plot slightly "southern" (closer to Sicilians/Cretans) but north Greeks/Peloponnese are closer to one another than either to Sicilians/Cretans overall, if this makes sense.

No Greek who comes from native Greek background 3 or 5 generations of ethnic Greek parents wether North or South is closer
to a Balkan Slavs"with the exception of Bulgarians" than to South-Central.Italy if that makes sense.

[Tauromachos]

Well Central Italians plot even closer to South Slavs or are similarly equidistant from South Slavs and Sicilians, in terms of how Northern they are.

Mainland Greeks are a more east version of Central-south Italians. Look where me or kleenex are on the pco plot.

He gets 2 times Sicily before any South Slavic thing.

The only South Slavic thing that pops up is Bulgarian at place 8 after the Sicilian.

1)The Mainland Greek results i have seen only got Bulgarian sometimes and occasionaly Serbian but never in their top 5 or 10
but sometimes at place 17...


I showed you the PCO plot. Cretans don’t even come up in the top 20 results of mainland Greeks.

2) Cretans can also get Serbian in their top 20 and they often get Mainland Greeks things in their top 10 or top 20

Even if Mainlanders don't get Cretan they get Greek Cypriot in their top 20.

3) And Southern Mainlanders"at least" get Sicilian more often than any Balkan Slavic some get also Sicily before anything
Albanian


Mainland Greeks are about equidistant to South Slavs and ”Central Greeks”.

4)Also as for Peloponnesians they get Central Greek as one of the most often and closest things also often before Albanian"leave alone Balkan Slavic"+

How can Peloponnesians be equidistant to Balkan Slavs and Central Greeks.?:crazy:

They are closer to Central Greeks

Hands down!

[brennus dux gallorum]

So, the ranking is:
1cyprus
2Sicily West
3Sicily East
4Dodecansese
5Crete East
6Crete West
7cyclades/NorthAegean/South Peloponnese
8Rest of Peloponnese/Central Greece/Central Italy
9Thessaly/Macedonia
10epirus
11Balkans?

[Smitty]

Well if you look at the frequencies, Calabria/Sicily have nearly double of the Near East component compared to Apulia (Lecce) -- this, rather than frequency of NE European type DNA, may be why Apulians shift toward mainland Greece, Albania, and the rest of Italy. It seems to me like the Near East component entered through Sicily and Calabria, which have had significant migration back and forth, and then dispersed into southern Italy otherwise. Without Tuscans or north Italians in the chart, I cannot say how much of that component they would score, but I imagine less than Apulia by quite a bit, not even mentioning Sicily.

I also assume the migration to be partially historical (Phoenician, Carthaginian, Arab) because of its smaller frequency in Crete/Dodecanese. If it was a Bronze Age migration, I see no reason how it seems to have missed the Dodecanese and skipped all the way to south Italy. Unless we assume that the Dodecanese have "normal" levels of the component and Sicily had theirs augmented by Phoenician and Arab, which means the difference in what Dodecanese have vs Sicilians may be the impact of the Arabs and Phoenicians, not the whole component.

But then, why do Griko Calabrese score so much? They have not mixed with anyone.

Ultimately, my issue with your theory is the improbability of Carthaginian and Arab settlement having had such a large impact on mainland Southern Italy. It would have had to be enough to change Sicily, completely remake Calabria - touching the Grikos in the process, as you say - and extend beyond to the rest of the South and probably the North, as well, even if only slightly. That seems highly improbable. And even if only Calabria were in question, is there documented migration sufficient to make it a genetic extension of Sicily? A simpler explanation is that they were like that already, rather than trying to stretch two uniquely Sicilian phenomena - the Carthaginian colonies in West Sicily and the Arab invasion - to Calabria as well.

Alternatively, could these historic settlements have increased these components in Sicily? Yes, but other "northern" influences could have reached the Greek islands (and mainland South Italy) too. Who can say?

[Tauromachos]

.. but other "northern" influences could have reached the Greek islands

Indeed its very unikely that they did not







https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235950-Does-thiis-Italian-woman-look-more-Albanian-or-Near-Eastern

[brennus dux gallorum]

Indeed its very unikely that they did not

why not? Even dodecanese which is the most exotic part of greece and almost overlaps sicily, has some extra NE and NW admixture

[Tauromachos]

why not? Even dodecanese which is the most exotic part of greece and almost overlaps sicily, has some extra NE and NW admixture

This is exactly what i meant

[brennus dux gallorum]

This is exactly what i meant

i read likely sorry :speechless-smiley-0

[Teucer]

I showed you the PCO plot. Cretans don’t even come up in the top 20 results of mainland Greeks.

Wait, Cretan doesn't come up but Cypriot does? How does that work?

[Teucer]

I'd especially like to know Sikeliot's thoughts since he thinks Cypriots have very little Greek ancestry to begin with

[Tauromachos]

I'd especially like to know Sikeliot's thoughts since he thinks Cypriots have very little Greek ancestry to begin with

Which is wrong if you ask me.

But the thing is he is so obsessed with proving that S.Italians,Cretans,Greeks Islanders are that different from Mainland Greek natives that in order to establish
this he is forced to make it seem that Cypriots are not Greek at all or have very little Greek ancestry

[Teucer]

Which is wrong if you ask me.

But the thing is he is so obsessed with proving that S.Italians,Cretans,Greeks Islanders are that different from Mainland Greek natives that in order to establish
this has make seem Cypriots to be not Greek at all

As far as I remember he said Cretans are pretty much the same as Peloponnesian Greeks. If that is so Sikeliot why are Cypriots coming up before Cretans?

[Tauromachos]

As far as I remember he said Cretans are pretty much the same as Peloponnesian Greeks. If that is so Sikeliot why are Cypriots coming up before Cretans?

One time he says this another time he says that

It only shows how reliable his statements are alltogether

They change like the winds"anemoi" in the Aegean Sea


I think his main focus is to prove that Southern Italians are more similar to Jews or even Near Easterners than to Greeks

[Teucer]

One time he says this another time he says that

It only shows how reliable his statements are alltogether

They change like the winds"anemoi" in the Aegean Sea


I think his main focus is to prove that Southern Italians are more similar to Jews or even Near Easterners than to Greeks

And that Cypriots have no Greek ancestry at all

[wvwvw]

Which is wrong if you ask me.

But the thing is he is so obsessed with proving that S.Italians,Cretans,Greeks Islanders are that different from Mainland Greek natives that in order to establish
this he is forced to make it seem that Cypriots are not Greek at all or have very little Greek ancestry

Sicilians and Calabrians are more similar to Cretans and Greek islanders but the rest of S.Italians are more similar to mainland Greeks more or less.

S.Italians and mainland Greeks are more Northern than Sicilians, Cretans etc

[Tauromachos]

And that Cypriots have no Greek ancestry at all

In order to drift Sicilians more towards Near East he is forced to claim that.

Or in other words he implies it.

But sometimes he says that Sicilians and Cypriots are the closet to each other.

And he somehow admits that Sicilian have a large amount of Ancient Greek ancestry.

Which would mean in that case that Cypriots also do

[Teucer]

In order to drift Sicilians more towards Near East he is forced to claim that.

Or in other words he implies it.

But sometimes he says that Sicilians and Cypriots are the closet to each other.

And he somehow admits that Sicilian have a large amount of Ancient Greek ancestry.

Which what mean in that case that Cypriots also do

When I have raised that with him before he only counts SE Sicilians to be more like Greeks and the NE Sicilians and Calabrese (who are the most like Cypriots) not like Greeks.

This is funny to me since West Sicilians have Phoenician roots but Cypriots are still closer to Calabrese :rolleyes:

[Tauromachos]

Sicilians and Calabrians are more similar to Cretans and Greek islanders but the rest of S.Italians are more similar to mainland Greeks more or less.

S.Italians and mainland Greeks are more Northern than Sicilians, Cretans etc

More Northern doesn't mean

1)That they are very different
2)That they are closer to Balkan Slavs


Also these things are averages but Northern and Near Eastern admixture can vary for indivduals

As there are Cretans that are more Northern than Sicilians and on the same level with Mainlanders and
there are Cretans who are more Southern.

[Tauromachos]

When I have raised that with him before he only counts SE Sicilians to be more like Greeks and the NE Sicilians and Calabrese (who are the most like Cypriots) not like Greeks.

This is funny to me since West Sicilians have Phoenician roots but Cypriots are still closer to Calabrese :rolleyes:

I think extra Northern or Near Eastern admixture is a bad measure to determine how much Native Greek someone is

[wvwvw]

When I have raised that with him before he only counts SE Sicilians to be more like Greeks and the NE Sicilians and Calabrese (who are the most like Cypriots) not like Greeks.

This is funny to me since West Sicilians have Phoenician roots but Cypriots are still closer to Calabrese :rolleyes:

Sicilians are not closer to Cypriots than to Greece. Look at my PCA plot in the previous page and see where East/West Sicilians plot and where Cypriots plot.

[Teucer]

Sicilians are not closer to Cypriots than to Greece. Look at my PCA plot in the previous page and see where East/West Sicilians plot and where Cypriots plot.

I'm not the one saying that. Sikeliot says that about certain Sicilians from specific places.

[Tauromachos]

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235950-Does-this-Italian-woman-look-more-Albanian-or-Near-Eastern

(https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235950-Does-this-Italian-woman-look-more-Albanian-or-Near-Eastern)https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235383-Does-this-man-pass-better-in-Cyprus-or-in-Poland



Also take a look at this threads

You may find the outcomes and comments interesting especially if you compare the different threads
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235268-Sicilian-or-not-Sicilian-looking-quot-Part-2-quot


(https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235268-Sicilian-or-not-Sicilian-looking-quot-Part-2-quot)https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235398-Sicilian-or-not-Sicilian-looking-quot-Part-4-quot

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235444-Sicilian-or-not-Sicilian-looking-quot-Part-5-quot

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Sicilians are not closer to Cypriots than to Greece. Look at my PCA plot in the previous page and see where East/West Sicilians plot and where Cypriots plot.

https://i.imgur.com/XMyMd4l.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/cpxoMK0.png

I added some Greek users as well.

[Tauromachos]

I'm not the one saying that. Sikeliot says that about certain Sicilians from specific places.

In the thread below which you have also visited"i think" i posted an Arvanite Greek Mainlander

and he replied this
He fits better in Cyprus but doesn't look nearly as Levantine as most Cypriots. He fits fine in Sicily.

Atypical for Greece but passable.


(http://ttps://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235383-Does-this-man-pass-better-in-Cyprus-or-in-Poland)https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235383-Does-this-man-pass-better-in-Cyprus-or-in-Poland

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Well Central Italians plot even closer to South Slavs or are similarly equidistant from South Slavs and Sicilians, in terms of how Northern they are.

Mainland Greeks are a more east version of Central-south Italians. Look where me or kleenex are on the pco plot.

They indeed exaggerate Slavic influence in Greeks. The maximum they can plot is eastern of south Tuscany or Latium, I think this is due to the additional Balkan influence in the Middle Ages. Of course there were Slavic influences, but as I said before, they are exaggerated

[Tauromachos]

They indeed exaggerate Slavic influence in Greeks. The maximum they can plot is eastern of south Tuscany or Latium, I think this is due to the additional Balkan influence in the Middle Ages. Of course there were Slavic influences, but as I said before, they are exaggerated

But some additional Balkan influences in the Middle Ages does not make them be equidistant to Balkan Slavs and South Italians

They are further away from Balkan Slavs than from Italians

[Teucer]

In the thread below which you have also visited"i think" i posted an Arvanite Greek Mainlander

and he replied this


(http://ttps://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235383-Does-this-man-pass-better-in-Cyprus-or-in-Poland)https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?235383-Does-this-man-pass-better-in-Cyprus-or-in-Poland

:picard1::rofl:

[brennus dux gallorum]

They indeed exaggerate Slavic influence in Greeks. The maximum they can plot is eastern of south Tuscany or Latium, I think this is due to the additional Balkan influence in the Middle Ages. Of course there were Slavic influences, but as I said before, they are exaggerated

there was no Balkan influence, on contrary there was slavic, from central Europe

[Tauromachos]

there was no Balkan influence, on contrary there was slavic, from central Europe

Neither alot

And Central European is more in Italy than in Greece.

General Italians have more of it and according to Triandafilidis they are the bridge between Greece and Central Europe

[Sikeliot]

Sicilians and Calabrians are more similar to Cretans and Greek islanders but the rest of S.Italians are more similar to mainland Greeks more or less.

S.Italians and mainland Greeks are more Northern than Sicilians, Cretans etc

This is my opinion but I'll amswer everyone else when I'm on the computer and not a phone.

[Sikeliot]

:picard1::rofl:

What's your sudden issue with me? Anyway to clarify:

1. West Sicily has more Phoenician than southeast Sicily does which shifts toward mainland Greece but the lack of Norman input in Calabria makes Calabria closer to Cyprus: still Sicily and Calabria overall plot not that far from Cyprus and no part of the Greek mainland is closer to Cyprus than Sicily to Cyprus.

2. Sicilians and calabrese are somewhere in between Greek mainland and Cyprus but Aegean islands and Crete are closer to south Italians than anyone else is.

3. Sicilians and Aegean islands have some mainland Greek and/or italic input otherwise they might plot like Cyprus, too.

4. Cypriots may have some degree of Greek DNA but these Greeks wouldn't have been similar to modern mainlanders.

5. In general Sicilians and Aegean islands have comparable MENA input, while Cypriots have more and mainland Greeks have less.

6. SE Sicily and Apulia are close as is Trapani, while the rest of Sicily and Calabria are the more exotic. The tail end of both mainland Greece and Aegean plot with Apulia while most Aegean islands plot like Sicily as s whole and Calabria, while most mainland Greeks are closer to Albania and intermediate between Bulgarians and Sicilians/Aegean islanders.

[Sikeliot]

When I have raised that with him before he only counts SE Sicilians to be more like Greeks and the NE Sicilians and Calabrese (who are the most like Cypriots) not like Greeks.

This is funny to me since West Sicilians have Phoenician roots but Cypriots are still closer to Calabrese :rolleyes:

Correct. But West Sicily and Calabria plot close even still, differences are small.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

there was no Balkan influence, on contrary there was slavic, from central Europe

I do know, but I mean when they started to settle in Greece, they were admixed with Balkan peoples.

[Tauromachos]

3. Sicilians and Aegean islands have some mainland Greek and/or italic input otherwise they might plot like Cyprus, too.

-1

[Sikeliot]

-1

Why don't you think that last comment is true?

[Tauromachos]

I do know, but I mean when they started to settle in Greece, they were admixed with Balkan peoples.

Yeah true

But admixed or not Greece was not filled with them they left just a minor input

[Tauromachos]

Why don't you think that last comment is true?

Some Mainland ?

What does this mean?

Are you serious?

All Mainland Greeks and Aegean Islanders have a predominant part of 70% ancestry from ancient Greek people

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Yeah true

But admixed or not Greece was not filled with them they left just a minor input

Obviously.

[wvwvw]

there was no Balkan influence, on contrary there was slavic, from central Europe

I score no Slavic. When in fact the Tuscan samples did score Slavic, strange as it might sound.

[brennus dux gallorum]

What's your sudden issue with me? Anyway to clarify:

1. West Sicily has more Phoenician than southeast Sicily does which shifts toward mainland Greece but the lack of Norman input in Calabria makes Calabria closer to Cyprus: still Sicily and Calabria overall plot not that far from Cyprus and no part of the Greek mainland is closer to Cyprus than Sicily to Cyprus.

2. Sicilians and calabrese are somewhere in between Greek mainland and Cyprus but Aegean islands and Crete are closer to south Italians than anyone else is.

3. Sicilians and Aegean islands have some mainland Greek and/or italic input otherwise they might plot like Cyprus, too.

4. Cypriots may have some degree of Greek DNA but these Greeks wouldn't have been similar to modern mainlanders.

5. In general Sicilians and Aegean islands have comparable MENA input, while Cypriots have more and mainland Greeks have less.

6. SE Sicily and Apulia are close as is Trapani, while the rest of Sicily and Calabria are the more exotic. The tail end of both mainland Greece and Aegean plot with Apulia while most Aegean islands plot like Sicily as s whole and Calabria, while most mainland Greeks are closer to Albania and intermediate between Bulgarians and Sicilians/Aegean islanders.

I agree, if by Aegean islands you don't mean something more than Dodecanese

[Tauromachos]

I agree, if by Aegean islands you don't mean something more than Dodecanese

I disagree because the center of the Aegean are Cyclades,Sporades,Samos,Chios
e.c.t

Dodecanese is just at the South Eastern Corner and not the majority of the Aegean Islands by far.

And this is the reason why i think this guy is dishonest.

If he means Dodecanese,Crete and Cyprus triangle only he could say South East Aegean

[Sikeliot]

I mean Dodecanese and Crete mostly.

[Tauromachos]

I mean Dodecanese and Crete mostly.

This would be SE Aegean

[Teucer]

What's your sudden issue with me? Anyway to clarify:

1. West Sicily has more Phoenician than southeast Sicily does which shifts toward mainland Greece but the lack of Norman input in Calabria makes Calabria closer to Cyprus: still Sicily and Calabria overall plot not that far from Cyprus and no part of the Greek mainland is closer to Cyprus than Sicily to Cyprus.

2. Sicilians and calabrese are somewhere in between Greek mainland and Cyprus but Aegean islands and Crete are closer to south Italians than anyone else is.

3. Sicilians and Aegean islands have some mainland Greek and/or italic input otherwise they might plot like Cyprus, too.

4. Cypriots may have some degree of Greek DNA but these Greeks wouldn't have been similar to modern mainlanders.

5. In general Sicilians and Aegean islands have comparable MENA input, while Cypriots have more and mainland Greeks have less.

6. SE Sicily and Apulia are close as is Trapani, while the rest of Sicily and Calabria are the more exotic. The tail end of both mainland Greece and Aegean plot with Apulia while most Aegean islands plot like Sicily as s whole and Calabria, while most mainland Greeks are closer to Albania and intermediate between Bulgarians and Sicilians/Aegean islanders.

That's all fine, but my question was why do Cypriots come up for mainland Greeks first on these gedmatch results before Cretans do if there is no Greek ancestry? You've said plenty of times Cretans are similar to Peloponessian Greeks

[Ajeje Brazorf]

What's your sudden issue with me? Anyway to clarify:

1. West Sicily has more Phoenician than southeast Sicily does which shifts toward mainland Greece but the lack of Norman input in Calabria makes Calabria closer to Cyprus: still Sicily and Calabria overall plot not that far from Cyprus and no part of the Greek mainland is closer to Cyprus than Sicily to Cyprus.

2. Sicilians and calabrese are somewhere in between Greek mainland and Cyprus but Aegean islands and Crete are closer to south Italians than anyone else is.

3. Sicilians and Aegean islands have some mainland Greek and/or italic input otherwise they might plot like Cyprus, too.

4. Cypriots may have some degree of Greek DNA but these Greeks wouldn't have been similar to modern mainlanders.

5. In general Sicilians and Aegean islands have comparable MENA input, while Cypriots have more and mainland Greeks have less.

6. SE Sicily and Apulia are close as is Trapani, while the rest of Sicily and Calabria are the more exotic. The tail end of both mainland Greece and Aegean plot with Apulia while most Aegean islands plot like Sicily as s whole and Calabria, while most mainland Greeks are closer to Albania and intermediate between Bulgarians and Sicilians/Aegean islanders.

1. Wtf is "Phoenician"? They had 4 cities. What could they have left?
2. That one about Calabrians being closer to Cyprus because they lack Norman input is bullshit.
3. There's no Norman input, settlers in Sicily were from north and south Italy.
4. There are no giant differences in Sicily between east and southeast.
5. "MENA" is a silly term because North Africa has nothing to do with the Middle East.
6. A person from eastern Sicily would still be closer to Thessaly than to Cyprus.
7. Porcoddio.

[Tauromachos]

hat's all fine, but my question was why do Cypriots come up for mainland Greeks first on these gedmatch results before Cretans do if there is no Greek ancestry? You've said plenty of times Cretans are similar to Peloponessian Greeks
This^

@Teucer
Look in my "Does he look Sicilian series" i posted one Cretan and one Aegean Islander.
and almost noone found them Sicilian looking.

Sikeliot and other said the Cretan would look distinctivly Greek and couldn't pass anywhere outside of Greece
this was part 4 of the series.

The Aegean Islander was in part 5
Sikeliot said he would look Greek or Romanian

Sikeliot said also that the person in part 2 of my series was the most Sicilian looking and would look more Sicilian
than the Cretan and the Aegean Islander.

Part 2 of my series was an Arvanite Greek

Its all in my threads everyone can go there and take a look

[Sikeliot]

That's all fine, but my question was why do Cypriots come up for mainland Greeks first on these gedmatch results before Cretans do if there is no Greek ancestry? You've said plenty of times Cretans are similar to Peloponessian Greeks

This only happens if Crete isn't one of the references, and Cypriot is.

[Sikeliot]

1. Wtf is "Phoenician"? They had 4 cities. What could they have left?
2. That one about Calabrians being closer to Cyprus because they lack Norman input is bullshit.
3. There's no Norman input, settlers in Sicily were from north and south Italy.
4. There are no giant differences in Sicily between east and southeast.
5. "MENA" is a silly term because North Africa has nothing to do with the Middle East.
6. A person from eastern Sicily would still be closer to Thessaly than to Cyprus.
7. Porcoddio.


How do you justify the claim Calabria is closer to Thessaly than Cyprus? I have seen nothing supporting this. I have seen many examples of the reverse.

The closest Greeks to Calabria are the Dodecanese.

[Sikeliot]

This^

@Teucer
Look in my "Does he look Sicilian series" i posted one Cretan and one Aegean Islander.
and almost noone found them Sicilian looking.

Sikeliot and other said the Cretan would look distinctivly Greek and couldn't pass anywhere outside of Greece
this was part 4 of the series.

The Aegean Islander was in part 5
Sikeliot said he would look Greek or Romanian

Sikeliot said also that the person in part 2 of my series was the most Sicilian looking and would look more Sicilian
than the Cretan and the Aegean Islander.

Part 2 of my series was an Arvanite Greek

Its all in my threads everyone can go there and take a look

Individual photo examples don't prove a longstanding rule.

[Sikeliot]

This would be SE Aegean

Yes, genetically they're among the closest Greeks to Sicily.

[Tauromachos]

Individual photo examples don't prove a longstanding rule.

There is no longstanding rule


The majority of Greeks in the Mainland deosn't look neither Balkan Slav or typical Albanian and is absolutely passable
in Greek Islands too

[Sikeliot]

There is no longstanding rule


The majority of Greeks in the Mainland deosn't look neither Balkan Slav or typical Albanian and is absolutely passable
in Greek Islands too

I don't agree, I'm sorry. I think In groups the islanders look different than mainlanders.

[Tauromachos]

I don't agree, I'm sorry. I think In groups the islanders look different than mainlanders.

In groups the mainlanders look different from any Slavic ethnicity and even more so then they do from
Italians or Greek Islanders.


Also Greek Islanders major ancestry is Greek
call it Ionian Greek or whatever you like but its Greek not Near Eastern

[Sikeliot]

In groups the mainlanders look different from any Slavic ethnicity and even more so then they do from
Italians or Greek Islanders.


Also Greek Islanders major ancestry is Greek
call it Ionian Greek or whatever you like but its Greek not Near Eastern

I agree but individually some mainlanders look more East european influenced.

[Tauromachos]

I agree but individually some mainlanders look more East european influenced.

At least something you can agree on
And among these some,its probably most of the times Mainlanders with recent Slavic ancestors

[kleenex]

This means probably that Central Greece can't be closer to Balkans than to other Greek Island populations.

Also kleenex claims that Central Greece and Peloponnese are very close either way.
So Peloponnese should cluster with Central Greece,SE Sicily and perhabs Cyclade Islanders not with arbitrary Balkan populations.

I think that Central Greece is pretty varied and depends on where the sampling came from. It may have included the Sporades which may render that region less "Northern" shifted. I think that the Peloponnese is in between Northern Greece and Central Greece (which is relatively close to Island populations).

[kleenex]

At least something you can agree on
And among these some,its probably most of the times Mainlanders with recent Slavic ancestors

There might be isolated villages or individuals within each village who may have increased Slavic admixture but not sure where/when it came from so it's difficult to make definitive statements about Slavic admixture in mainland Greeks when we don't have any Greek DNA samples from post Slavic incursions of the early middle ages.

[kleenex]

I'm not surprised by the Sarno study it makes complete sense historically/genetically. I have little faith in Modern admixture calculators (like Eurogenes et. al) because when components like East Med are construed as Near Eastern rather than ancient Neolithic in Greeks or Italians it really irks me.

[Tauromachos]

I think that Central Greece is pretty varied and depends on where the sampling came from. It may have included the Sporades which may render that region less "Northern" shifted. I think that the Peloponnese is in between Northern Greece and Central Greece (which is relatively close to Island populations).

And why do you think everything Mainland is more Northern than everything Island within neighbouring regions such as
Central Mainland and Sporades.?

This sounds like a kind of dogma to me


Where do you think in Greece more Northern tourists go each Summer
Mainland or Aegean Islands ? ;)

[kleenex]

And why do you think in everything Mainland is more Northern than everything Island within neighbouring regions such as
Central Mainland and Sporades.?

This sounds like a kind of dogma to me


Where do you think in Greece more Northern tourists go each Summer
Mainland or Aegean Islands ? ;)

Just basing it on what the genetic study says nothing more or less. I can understand why tourists go to the Islands rather than mainland Greece because the beaches are better and it's a little more exciting but that doesn't have anything to do with study in question.

[Tauromachos]

Just basing it on what the genetic study says nothing more or less. I can understand why tourists go to the Islands rather than mainland Greece because the beaches are better and it's a little more exciting but that doesn't have anything to do with study in question.

So they will mix more with Greeks there than in the Mainland.

I still find the believe that no Northerner who set feet in Mainland Greek soil and mixed there wouldn't hae moved to the Islands and also
mix there and that
all Mainland Greeks are more Northern than all Islands Greeks realy stupid.

And these studies won't change that,they talk about averages and not about each individual case.

Even this study itself mentions there are exceptions and individualy Mainland Greeks can fall into the Aegean cluster.

You said it yourself previously if there can be villages with more Slavic admixture then there can also be villages with less Slavic
or no Slavic admixture or instead of Slavic with Greek Islander or Cretan admixture.

Since Greek Mainlanders and Islanders mix nowadays why shoudln't they have mixed before in the past????

[Bobby Martnen]

I'd like to see someone do an Island-wide study of Sicily looking at Y-DNA and mt-DNA, and using that to determine how they are mixed.

i.e. if you find 16% I1 in a town, those people are 8% Norman.

[catgeorge]

This is possibly one of the better analysis of the people of Greece through the ages and variances. Only issue is the sample sizes are too small. But you get the idea with consistencies

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ohocmvHfgs8/VKy0QdszPeI/AAAAAAAAArw/GVlOfokyI-w/s1600/Angel's%2BData%2Bfigure%2B6.jpg

[Bobby Martnen]

R1a=Slavic
R1b=Celtic/Italic
I1=Germanic
I2, E1b1b=Balkanic
J=Levantine

[Bobby Martnen]

Mainland Greeks are about equidistant to South Slavs and ”Central Greeks”. Me, sorcelow, kleenex and other peloponnesians all plot similarily.


Who is the "Central Greek" sample?

Smyrniots?

Constantinopolitans?

[Tauromachos]

Who is the "Central Greek" sample?

Smyrniots?

Constantinopolitans?

Yeah because it scores no Slavic it most be Smyrniots and Greeks from Constantinople :picard1:

No Slavs ever went to Constantinople ?:lol:

Constantinople was Cosmopolitan and even had a Russian quarter

All the rest of Mainland Greece has no Greeks from Constaninople or Smyrna but only
100% native Mainlanders :lol:

[catgeorge]

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-7000-BC-2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-2000-BC-2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-117-AD-2k-jpg.jpg

[Tauromachos]

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-7000-BC-2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-2000-BC-2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-117-AD-2k-jpg.jpg


Gorgious!

[Sikeliot]

I'm not surprised by the Sarno study it makes complete sense historically/genetically. I have little faith in Modern admixture calculators (like Eurogenes et. al) because when components like East Med are construed as Near Eastern rather than ancient Neolithic in Greeks or Italians it really irks me.

What was notable is that the Aegean islanders were mostly overlapping with east-central Sicily and Calabria, and that no mainland Greeks fell into that cluster, some of both islanders and mainlanders fell into the Trapani/Arbereshe/Apulia cluster which is intermediate. So there is overlap between mainland and islands even if most are differentiated.

What intrigued me is island wide differences in all of Sicily and calabria except Trapani (Syracuse wasn't sampled) have largely been erased, and only Trapani and Apulia were differentiated. Geographically Palermo and Agrigento may be in western Sicily but they're genetically no different to Catania, Enna or Reggio Calabria.

[Tauromachos]

What was notable is that the Aegean islanders were mostly overlapping with east-central Sicily and Calabria, and that no mainland Greeks fell into that cluster, some of both islanders and mainlanders fell into the Trapani/Arbereshe/Apulia cluster which is intermediate. So there is overlap between mainland and islands even if most are differentiated.


Absolutely fake and its not said in that study i have read that study also.
It talks about the average cluster for Greek Mainland,Sicilians and Greek Islanders.

But mentions there are case where Mainland Greeks are within the Sicilian cluster and not the Albanians.

And talks about Mainland Greek Albanian cluster which is called South Balkan there.
It doesn't imply anything about Serbs,Croats,Slovenians,Romanians and Greeks.

Only Albanians

[Sikeliot]

Absolutely fake and its not said in that study i have read that study also.
It talks about the average cluster for Greek Mainland,Sicilians and Greek Islanders.

But mentions there are case where Mainland Greeks are within the Sicilian cluster and not the Albanians.

And talks about Mainland Greek Albanian cluster which is called South Balkan there.
It doesn't imply anything about Serbs,Croats,Slovenians,Romanians and Greeks.

Only Albanians

Read the additional images supplement and it's in there. Some mainlanders and islanders plot near Trapani and Apulia but no mainlanders in the east central Sicily cluster and no Sicilians in the mainland cluster.

[Tauromachos]

Read the additional images supplement and it's in there. Some mainlanders and islanders plot near Trapani and Apulia but no mainlanders in the east central Sicily cluster and no Sicilians in the mainland cluster.

Yes i have seen it but again i think you are misusing the term Aegean Islanders.


As for Greeks and Balkan Slavs it says this

Aegean-Dodecanese and Anatolian Greek Islands. We will refer to this domain as ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’. On the other hand, the continental part of Greece, including Peloponnesus, appears as slightly differentiated, by clustering with the other Southern Balkan populations of Albania and Kosovo. Finally, North-Central Balkan groups (Southern Slavic-speakers and Romanians) show affinity to Eastern Europeans (Fig. 2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4#Fig2), Supplementary Fig. S1 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4#MOESM1), Supplementary Information).

[catgeorge]

Albanians are our naughty children - IBD sharing based on said report has little to do with neighbours north of Greece other than Albanians. This is not new news anyway as they are carrying Greek Y DNA in denial masquerading as Illyrians.

[Tauromachos]

Albanians are our naughty children - IBD sharing based on said report has little to do with neighbours north of Greece other than Albanians. This is not old news anyway as they are carrying paternal Greek Y DNA in denial masquerading as Illyrians.

Exactly

[Alessio]

Amen.


Sikeliot's posts not always are realiable, he has a clear agenda and wants to depict Greeks as a heavily Slavic admixed people and southern Italians as Levantines in denial. Of course it is bullshit that Calabrians are 2x more Near Eastern than Apulians, I go to Apulia every summer and they do not look different from the other southerners. I even doubt he has ever set foot in Italy. Let's not forget that Apulians in antiquity were Iapygians, whose origins were possibly Illyrian Adriatic, that's why they may be more shfited to Greeks. Even today, central and northern Apulian dialects have the most diverging phonology and funniest accent of all southern Italian dialects, I mean those dialects whose almost all words end in /ə/.

In this plot we form a distinctive cluster:
https://i.imgur.com/2lYwpVs.png

In this one we plot with Aegeans:
https://i.imgur.com/cqU9vz2.png

The funny part is that trolls can't use the Berber/Arab/Turk domination as an excuse since we had nothing or very little of that, so they will turn this around saying that we are the product of Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Levantine slaves all happily crammed and sunbathing in southern Italy. On the contrary, there have been Ostrogothic, Lombard and Norman dominations. Needless to say they left nothing genetically, but following the same logic we should be all blonde and blue eyed people from the north.
It is also funny when they cut Sicily in something like 3 or 4 zones of influence, ignoring the fact that there have been many earthquakes and resettling of peoples coming from other parts of the island which experienced a shitload of internal migration, especially in the cities. They believe that if you move from Messina to Siracusa you'll find yourself in a completely different world hahaha.



They are the same, ethnically speaking.

[kleenex]

Who is the "Central Greek" sample?

Smyrniots?

Constantinopolitans?

Central Greek sample includes Sporades who may pull that region closer to Cyclades/other Aegean Island samples.

[kleenex]

Absolutely fake and its not said in that study i have read that study also.
It talks about the average cluster for Greek Mainland,Sicilians and Greek Islanders.

But mentions there are case where Mainland Greeks are within the Sicilian cluster and not the Albanians.

And talks about Mainland Greek Albanian cluster which is called South Balkan there.
It doesn't imply anything about Serbs,Croats,Slovenians,Romanians and Greeks.

Only Albanians

Yes I agree.

[Sikeliot]

Central Greek sample includes Sporades who may pull that region closer to Cyclades/other Aegean Island samples.

That was my thought too.

[Bobby Martnen]

Someone should post this study at Italic Roots.

It would be funny to watch their reaction.

[Sikeliot]

Someone should post this study at Italic Roots.

It would be funny to watch their reaction.

They can think what they want. At this point I have no desire to persuade them.

[Kouros]

Someone should post this study at Italic Roots.

It would be funny to watch their reaction.

ItalicRoots is a cancer

[Ajeje Brazorf]

How do you justify the claim Calabria is closer to Thessaly than Cyprus? I have seen nothing supporting this. I have seen many examples of the reverse.

The closest Greeks to Calabria are the Dodecanese.

I said Eastern Sicily, not Calabria. Even Calabrians are closer to Thessaly than to Cyprus, I made a PCA with the Calabrians you posted (of course they are all inaccurate since you found them with the one-to-many function).
I even added an Anatolian Chalcolithic sample:

https://i.imgur.com/WNfjLwS.png

It is impossible to change your mind, you have spent the last 7 years and 98,577 posts just to spread disinformation about southern Italians being Levantine/Norman mixed or some shit like that. And you will keep doing this.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-7000-BC-2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-2000-BC-2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Europe-c-117-AD-2k-jpg.jpg

R1b1a (R-L754) was carried by an individual known as Villabruna 1, who lived circa 14,000 BP in north-east Italy, and belonged to the Epigravettian culture.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

ItalicRoots is a cancer

Threads like this one made appositely to troll drawing conclusions not based on the study are the real cancer.

[Sikeliot]

I said Eastern Sicily, not Calabria. Even Calabrians are closer to Thessaly than to Cyprus, I made a PCA with the Calabrians you posted (of course they are all inaccurate since you found them with the one-to-many function).
I even added an Anatolian Chalcolithic sample:

https://i.imgur.com/WNfjLwS.png

It is impossible to change your mind, you have spent the last 7 years and 98,577 posts just to spread disinformation about southern Italians being Levantine/Norman mixed or some shit like that. And you will keep doing this.


Most of them look intermediate to me, between the two, with 2 closer to Cyprus and 5 to Thessaly but the rest solidly intermediate.

[Sikeliot]

To me, the red Afroasiatic component corresponds well with on Dodecad K12b, the "North African" + "Southwest Asian" combined.

Here are some Sicilians, Greeks, etc and you can see how it corresponds.

#1: Palermo, Sicily
North African: 5.44
SW Asian: 12.65
SUM: 18.09

#2: Palermo, Sicily
North African: 4.08
SW Asian: 13.83
SUM: 17.91


#3: Trapani, Sicily
North African: 5.85
SW Asian: 11.87
SUM: 17.72


#4: Trapani, Sicily
North African: 5.14
SW Asian: 12.29
SUM: 17.43


#5: Agrigento, Sicily
North African: 5.20
SW Asian: 13.97
SUM: 19.17


#6: Agrigento, Sicily
North African: 4.64
SW Asian: 11.98
SUM: 16.62


#7: Caltanissetta, Sicily
North African: 4.68
SW Asian: 12.88
SUM: 17.56


#8: Caltanissetta, Sicily
North African: 4.05
SW Asian: 14.11
SUM: 18.16


#9: Enna, Sicily
North African: 7.06
SW Asian: 12.48
SUM: 19.54


#10: Enna, Sicily
North African: 4.31
SW Asian: 12.83
SUM: 17.14


#11: Syracuse, Sicily
North African: 3.61
SW Asian: 10.92
SUM: 14.53


#12: Apulia, South Italy
North African: 2.53
SW Asian: 13.36
SUM: 15.89


#13: Apulia, South Italy
North African: 2.49
SW Asian: 10.88
SUM: 13.37


#14: Peloponnese, Greece:
North African: 1.50
SW Asian: 7.99
SUM: 9.49


#15: Peloponnese, Greece:
North African: 1.13
SW Asian: 11.89
SUM: 13.02


#16: Macedonia, Greece:
North African: 0.69
SW Asian: 7.93
SUM: 8.62


#17: Macedonia, Greece:
North African: 2.21
SW Asian: 6.83
SUM: 9.04


#17: Tilos, Dodecanese, Greece:
North African: 1.42
SW Asian: 11.21
SUM: 12.63


#17: Rhodes, Dodecanese, Greece:
North African: 2.30
SW Asian: 15.06
SUM: 17.36


#18: Chios, North Aegean, Greece:
North African: 1.79
SW Asian: 11.22
SUM: 13.01


#19: Ikaria, North Aegean, Greece:
North African: 2.66
SW Asian: 12.82
SUM: 15.48


#20: Crete:
North African: 1.51
SW Asian: 10.25
SUM: 11.76


#21: Crete:
North African: 2.13
SW Asian: 13.24
SUM: 15.37

[Alessio]

About the Griko and Grecani people of Southern Italy:

'While Albanian-speaking Arbereshe trace their recent genetic ancestry to the Southern Balkans, the Greek-speaking communities of both Apulia (Griko) and Calabria (Grecani) show no clear signs of a recent (i.e. from the late Middle Ages) continental Greek origin, instead resembling the ‘continuum’ populations of Southern Italy and the Greek-speaking islands (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S5, Supplementary Fig. S7, Supplementary Information).

Different hypotheses, either counterpoising or combining the Hellenic (Magna Graecia) and Byzantine colonization, have been historically proposed to explain the presence of present-day Greek-speaking communities in Southern Italy. Although different extents of Hellenic and Byzantine pressures were suggested to have demographically and culturally affected Calabrian and Apulian Greeks respectively, both historical and linguistic data agree on the fact that the current extension of these groups is a remnant of a wider Greek-speaking area, originally extended to larger parts of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily24. In the whole area, the Greek-language was well represented before the spread of Latin, and this Greek substratum has influenced the local Romance varieties in various respects. In fact, contacts between Greek and Romance speakers have been frequent and systematic27. Accordingly, historical and linguistic data suggest that this area was characterized by a pervasive multilingualism at least from the antiquity27, 37, 38, thus showing that both cultural transmission and genetic admixture may have played an important role in the formative process of these groups since the very beginning.

In this light, the tight genetic similarity between Salentino Greeks (GRI_SAL) and Italian neighbours (particularly from the province of Lecce-LE; Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S5, Supplementary Information), may be explained both as the result of extensive admixture events (coupled with lesser geographic isolation) or as the result of cultural transmission of Greek languages to Italian local populations. Importantly, these scenarios are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary the most recent syntheses tend to hypothesize a long-term Greek presence in Southern Italy, starting from the classical period and subsequently reinforced by continuous genetic and cultural interactions (e.g. during the Byzantine period) at least until medieval times - and even later.

In this context, the Grecanic groups from Calabria (GRI_BOV and GRI_CAL) remarkably show evidences of genetic differentiation, as suggested by PCA (Supplementary Fig. S7, Supplementary Information), ADMIXTURE (Supplementary Fig. S2) and fineSTRUCTURE (Fig. 3, Supplementary Fig. S5, Supplementary Table S4). These results are further confirmed by the presence of significantly high within-population average IBD-sharing and number of homozygosity runs (RoH) (Supplementary Fig. S8, Supplementary Table S6, Supplementary Information), as expected for more isolated and inbred populations. Beyond the linguistic differences, their marked geographic isolation and lower effective population size may have favoured the action of drift phenomena. This may have modified their genetic composition through the random amplification/fixation (or loss) of specific parts of the original genetic background.

Furthermore, we observed that both Calabrian and Apulian Greeks from Southern Italy almost completely lack the ‘Southern Balkan’ genetic component detected in Continental Greece and Albania, as well as in the Arbereshe. In both cases, this is consistent with the fact that their arrival in Southern Italy should at least predate those population processes associated to the more recent (i.e. late medieval) differentiation of continental Greek and Southern Balkan groups (cf. paragraph below). This does not exclude migrations from Aegean/Dodecanese and Crete islands, that presumptively did not (or only marginally) experienced - by virtue of their higher geographic marginality - the North-South Balkan gene flow that instead interested the continental part of Greece.''

[Alessio]

Maybe it's interesting for you to read as well:


http://snplogic.blogspot.nl/2017/06/the-genetics-of-ancient-romans.html

'' Southern Italy was a backwater for years. Isolated and insignificant. But from a genetic standpoint, those qualities ARE significant.

If you wanted to study the genetics of the Romans, would you go to a place where lots of people had passed through? A place that was a successful and world port in the Middle Ages? A place where people wanted to move to from elsewhere? OF COURSE NOT.

You would WANT a backwater; a place unchanged over millennia. The towns of South Italy (many of which who have never been invaded by anyone, thank you very much), are where you can find the descendants of Romans, unadulterated.

Professor Chris Wickham produced exhaustive studies of Italy from 400-1000 AD. He provides real numbers of the "others" in Italy. He concludes the Goths and Lombards (German tribes who ruled large parts of Italy from 476 AD - c. 1000 AD) never were more than 2%-9% of the Italian population, and he believes aside from pockets in the South, they were clustered mostly in the North. Again, it's the NORTHERN Italians with the non-Roman influences, not the Southerners. Again, this skews the DNA of the North. Don't assume the Southern differences from the North are from Southern exoticness.

Chances are, Northern Italian DNA is different because it started with a large dollop of Gaulish (Celtic) genes, and they received a small smattering of Germanic genes. This is why northern Italians appear, well, more "northern." Southern Italian DNA, for the most part is not different because of subsequent influences or invasions. Southern Italians are generally darker (although not by much) because of the absence of Gaulish and Germanic influences. But those southerners more closely represent Roman DNA as it was around the years 200 BC - 50 AD.

Wickham also studied the Byzantine (Eastern Roman empire, Greek-speaking), Norman (French Viking) and Saracen (Arab or North African) occupying forces in Italy, and concluded that for peninsular Italy, these forces were tiny, much less than 1% of the population, and that they left no real permanent traces. Again, this is because these were occupying armies not settlers. Please note contrary to popular belief, much of the towns and villages of Southern Italy were never physically occupied by ANY of these groups, even though suzerainty and tax payments did change hands. Was Paris after the Nazis any less French?

Despite the Romans exporting so many people, I have never seen one of these modern, unschooled-in-history geneticists raise the question as to whether the similarities between South/Central Italian DNA and that of say, Greece,or North Africa is due to Roman OUTFLOW of genes. These idiotic (and perhaps racist?) people only repeat the Quentin Tarantino-esque claims that the similarity between such genes must be from exotic INFLOWS into the population of Italy. :wink''

Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801?needAccess=true

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Maybe it's interesting for you to read as well:


http://snplogic.blogspot.nl/2017/06/the-genetics-of-ancient-romans.html

'' Southern Italy was a backwater for years. Isolated and insignificant. But from a genetic standpoint, those qualities ARE significant.

If you wanted to study the genetics of the Romans, would you go to a place where lots of people had passed through? A place that was a successful and world port in the Middle Ages? A place where people wanted to move to from elsewhere? OF COURSE NOT.

You would WANT a backwater; a place unchanged over millennia. The towns of South Italy (many of which who have never been invaded by anyone, thank you very much), are where you can find the descendants of Romans, unadulterated.

Professor Chris Wickham produced exhaustive studies of Italy from 400-1000 AD. He provides real numbers of the "others" in Italy. He concludes the Goths and Lombards (German tribes who ruled large parts of Italy from 476 AD - c. 1000 AD) never were more than 2%-9% of the Italian population, and he believes aside from pockets in the South, they were clustered mostly in the North. Again, it's the NORTHERN Italians with the non-Roman influences, not the Southerners. Again, this skews the DNA of the North. Don't assume the Southern differences from the North are from Southern exoticness.

Chances are, Northern Italian DNA is different because it started with a large dollop of Gaulish (Celtic) genes, and they received a small smattering of Germanic genes. This is why northern Italians appear, well, more "northern." Southern Italian DNA, for the most part is not different because of subsequent influences or invasions. Southern Italians are generally darker (although not by much) because of the absence of Gaulish and Germanic influences. But those southerners more closely represent Roman DNA as it was around the years 200 BC - 50 AD.

Wickham also studied the Byzantine (Eastern Roman empire, Greek-speaking), Norman (French Viking) and Saracen (Arab or North African) occupying forces in Italy, and concluded that for peninsular Italy, these forces were tiny, much less than 1% of the population, and that they left no real permanent traces. Again, this is because these were occupying armies not settlers. Please note contrary to popular belief, much of the towns and villages of Southern Italy were never physically occupied by ANY of these groups, even though suzerainty and tax payments did change hands. Was Paris after the Nazis any less French?

Despite the Romans exporting so many people, I have never seen one of these modern, unschooled-in-history geneticists raise the question as to whether the similarities between South/Central Italian DNA and that of say, Greece,or North Africa is due to Roman OUTFLOW of genes. These idiotic (and perhaps racist?) people only repeat the Quentin Tarantino-esque claims that the similarity between such genes must be from exotic INFLOWS into the population of Italy. :wink''

I don't think we are related to Latins or to Romans. I repeat, the funny part is that Calabria, for example, never had any Levantine or North African domination after the fall of Rome. You have the Byzantines, then the Norman-Swabian dynasty, the Waldensian migration, the Anjou, the Aragonese etc. It's funny when trolls try to find historical "evidence" for a MASSIVE migration which would have completely altered their gene pool. Whoever takes Sikeliot's posts seriously is naive, he's now talking about an "Afroasiatic" component that he's exaggerating obviously. From Dodecad K12b spreadsheet:
Northwest_African: 0.60 Greek, 2.50-4.10 Sicilian
Southwest_Asian: 10.10 Greek, 11.91-12.50 Sicilian

[Alessio]

I don't think we are related to Latins or to Romans. I repeat, the funny part is that Calabria, for example, never had any Levantine or North African domination after the fall of Rome. You have the Byzantines, then the Norman-Swabian dynasty, the Waldensian migration, the Anjou, the Aragonese etc. It's funny when trolls try to find historical "evidence" for a MASSIVE migration which would have completely altered their gene pool. Whoever takes Sikeliot's posts seriously is naive, he's now talking about an "Afroasiatic" component that he's exaggerating obviously. From Dodecad K12b spreadsheet:
Northwest_African: 0.60 Greek, 2.50-4.10 Sicilian
Southwest_Asian: 10.10 Greek, 11.91-12.50 Sicilian

Who are ''we''?
Yes, he definitely exaggerates a lot in some of the claims he makes and overestimates the value of some of the the GEDmatch percentages attaching non-historical claims to it.
However, everyone is free to theorize about population genetics and even history. We don't have to agree or disagree.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Who are ''we''?
Yes, he definitely exaggerates a lot in some of the claims he makes and overestimates the value of some of the the GEDmatch percentages attaching non-historical claims to it.
However, everyone is free to theorize about population genetics and even history. We don't have to agree or disagree.

I meant south Italians. Yes, it's right, but not when you do it with trollish intentions.

[Tauromachos]

That was my thought too.

This point doesn't make sense

The study compares Continental Greece to Greek Islands and S.Italy.

Central Greece refers to the continental part.

How can Sporades be included there when they belong to the Island part?

You and kleenexe are claiming the scientist didn't knew that Sporades are Islands?:picard1:

[Sikeliot]

This point doesn't make sense

The study compares Continental Greece to Greek Islands and S.Italy.

Central Greece refers to the continental part.

How can Sporades be included there when they belong to the Island part?

You and kleenexe are claiming the scientist didn't knew that Sporades are Islands?:picard1:


I am unsure. But the study found the following clusters:

A. South Balkans: Albania, North Greece, and MOST Central Greeks and Peloponnese
B. West Sicily (Trapani and Arbereshe)-Apulia (both Italian and Griko): Trapanese, Sicilian Arbereshe, Apulians, SOME Peloponnesians/Central Greeks and SOME Aegean islanders
C. East-Central Sicily (Catania, Enna, Ragusa, Palermo, Agrigento), Calabria, and MOST Aegean islanders cluster
D. Cypriots
E. Calabrese Griko

[Tauromachos]

I am unsure. But the study found the following clusters:

A. South Balkans: Albania, North Greece, and MOST Central Greeks and Peloponnese
B. West Sicily (Trapani and Arbereshe)-Apulia (both Italian and Griko): Trapanese, Sicilian Arbereshe, Apulians, SOME Peloponnesians/Central Greeks and SOME Aegean islanders
C. East-Central Sicily (Catania, Enna, Ragusa, Palermo, Agrigento), Calabria, and MOST Aegean islanders cluster
D. Cypriots
E. Calabrese Griko

Ok

SOME Peloponnesians/Central Greeks and SOME Aegean

but it says Peloponnesians and Central Greeks plus some Aegean Islanders

So Aegean Islanders and Central Greece are viewed seperatly.

[Sikeliot]

Ok


but it says Peloponnesians and Central Greeks plus some Aegean Islanders

So Aegean Islanders and Central Greece are viewed seperatly.


It says that the cluster is formed primarily of Trapanese, Apulians, and Sicilian/Apulian Arbereshe people, and that SOME Central and Peloponnese Greeks and SOME Aegean islanders fall into this cluster. This cluster, therefore, includes every region's outliers basically.

The firm separation is between the rest of the Sicilians/Calabrese, and the mainland Greeks, as none of them overlap in the same clusters.

[Bobby Martnen]

They can think what they want. At this point I have no desire to persuade them.

Yeah but they're a bunch of assholes, so it would be funny to troll them.

[Tauromachos]

It says that the cluster is formed primarily of Trapanese, Apulians, and Sicilian/Apulian Arbereshe people, and that SOME Central and Peloponnese Greeks and SOME Aegean islanders fall into this cluster. This cluster, therefore, includes every region's outliers basically.

The firm separation is between the rest of the Sicilians/Calabrese, and the mainland Greeks, as none of them overlap in the same clusters.

There is even more firm separation between all this groups you name and Balkan Slavic groups.

The study talks about a slightly differentiated South Balkan cluster compared to the Aegean cluster.

You always talk about the difference as if they were enterily diffent race like Aboriginals and Caucasians

[Sikeliot]

There is even more firm separation between all this groups you name and Balkan Slavic groups.

The study talks about a slightly differentiated South Balkan cluster compared to the Aegean cluster.

You always talk about the difference as if they were enterily diffent race like Aboriginals and Caucasians


My impression is that the Albanian-mainland Greek cluster is intermediate.

[Tauromachos]

My impression is that the Albanian-mainland Greek cluster is intermediate.

Nope

[Sikeliot]

Nope

Show me where the study indicates otherwise (that the Albanian-mainland Greek cluster is closer to the main Sicilian/Calabrese/Aegean islander cluster). The study plainly states that the presence of Slavic input in the former separates the clusters, which may have once been joined.

[Tauromachos]

Show me where the study indicates otherwise (that the Albanian-mainland Greek cluster is closer to the main Sicilian/Calabrese/Aegean islander cluster). The study plainly states that the presence of Slavic input in the former separates the clusters, which may have once been joined.

Ok i have to repeat it again though it starts to get boring


On the other hand, the continental part of Greece, including Peloponnesus, appears as slightly differentiated, by clustering with the other Southern Balkan populations of Albania and Kosovo.

Finally, North-Central Balkan groups (Southern Slavic-speakers and Romanians) show affinity to Eastern Europeans (Fig. 2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4#Fig2), Supplementary Fig. S1 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4#MOESM1), Supplementary Information).


And about Peloponnese we have this facts
https://media.nature.com/lw926/nature-assets/ejhg/journal/v25/n5/images/ejhg201718f2.jpg


Genetic similarity of Peloponneseans, Sicilians and Italians. PCA analysis of several European populations. (a) Notice the north to south distribution of the populations and that the Peloponneseans are placed to the far right of the graph and overlap with the Sicilians. (b) PCA analysis of Southern European populations illustrating the close relationship between Peloponneseans Sicilians and Italians (TSI is an Italian population) (c) Network analysis illustrating the high connectivity between the Peloponnesean populations as well as between the Peloponneseans, the Sicilians and the Italians. Notice the distance between Peloponneseans and the Slavic, and Near Eastern populations. Peloponneseans are connected with the Near Eastern populations through Crete and Dodecanese.

[Sikeliot]

Well in this study the Peloponnesians fall into 2 clusters: the Albania-North Greece cluster, and the Apulia-Trapani one.

The Sicilians used in the Peloponnesian study are Trapanese and Syracusans.

[Tauromachos]

Well in this study the Peloponnesians fall into 2 clusters: the Albania-North Greece cluster, and the Apulia-Trapani one.

The Sicilians used in the Peloponnesian study are Trapanese and Syracusans.

Whatever they don't have only direct affinity with Sicilians in that study but also with Cretans and Dodecanese Islanders.

Something you continously denie

The differences are
1)Crete,Sicily,Dodecanese have direct affinities to the Levant
2)Peloponnese doesn't have direct affinity to the Levant but only indirect via Sicily,Crete e.c.t

[Sikeliot]

Whatever they don't have only direct affinity with Sicilians in that study but also with Cretans and Dodecanese Islanders.

Something you continously denie

The differences are
1)Crete,Sicily,Dodecanese have direct affinities to the Levant
2)Peloponnese doesn't have direct affinity to the Levant but only indirect via Sicily,Crete e.c.t

Yes, this is true and I agree. But Peloponnesians seem to be more diverse genetically than Sicilians for whatever reason? Clearly this is due to the range of Slavic being anything from 1 to 15%.

[kleenex]

Have you seen this article:
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/mainland-island-greeks-genetically-diverged-in-middle-ages-1.5489323

[kleenex]

Whatever they don't have only direct affinity with Sicilians in that study but also with Cretans and Dodecanese Islanders.

Something you continously denie

The differences are
1)Crete,Sicily,Dodecanese have direct affinities to the Levant
2)Peloponnese doesn't have direct affinity to the Levant but only indirect via Sicily,Crete e.c.t

What you're saying is that there is a genetic cline linking the Peloponnese to Crete to Dodacanese to Cyrpus to Levant. I can't disagree with this.

[Sikeliot]

Have you seen this article:
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/mainland-island-greeks-genetically-diverged-in-middle-ages-1.5489323

This is basically saying mainland Greeks were like Sicilians and Cretans, until acquiring Slavic input. I don't fully agree with this as it doesn't explain the differences in the Levantine component (red). What do you think?

[Tauromachos]

This is basically saying mainland Greeks were like Sicilians and Cretans, until acquiring Slavic input. I don't fully agree with this as it doesn't explain the differences in the Levantine component (red). What do you think?

The Minoans were not related to Levantines

I though you understood that

[kleenex]

This is basically saying mainland Greeks were like Sicilians and Cretans, until acquiring Slavic input. I don't fully agree with this as it doesn't explain the differences in the Levantine component (red). What do you think?

I'm not sure about recent Slavic admixture in Greece (early middle ages) but I think that mainland Greeks did receive Balkan genetic input (either Slav or Albanian) from the eighth AD on. The genetic makeup of mainland Greeks during the Bronze, Dark, Classical period may have included a Steppe component absent in some Cretans/Islanders.

[Tauromachos]

The genetic makeup of mainland Greeks during the Bronze, Dark, Classical period may have included a Steppe component absent in some Cretans/Islanders.

This is correct

[Sikeliot]

I'm not sure about recent Slavic admixture in Greece (early middle ages) but I think that mainland Greeks did receive Balkan genetic input (either Slav or Albanian). The genetic makeup of mainland Greeks during the Bronze, Dark, Classical period may have included a Steppe component absent in some Cretans/Islanders.

I think there are two things going on here: a Steppe component in the mainland which is not entirely Slavic but partially so, and a Levantine input into the islands (and in Sicily, Calabria, etc). Because of the latter, I cannot imagine mainlanders ever being exactly like Sicilians which is what is implied in the article you linked. But do I think they were once less differentiated than today? Yes, I do.

What surprised me is there was no evidence of mainland Greek input into Greek-speaking Calabrese. The study proposes rather that they are a relatively unmixed southern Italian population that adopted the Greek language, but it doesn't discount the possibility of island Greek input.

[Scar]

I think there are two things going on here: a Steppe component in the mainland which is not entirely Slavic but partially so, and a Levantine input into the islands (and in Sicily, Calabria, etc). Because of the latter, I cannot imagine mainlanders ever being exactly like Sicilians which is what is implied in the article you linked. But do I think they were once less differentiated than today? Yes, I do.

What surprised me is there was no evidence of mainland Greek input into Greek-speaking Calabrese. The study proposes rather that they are a relatively unmixed southern Italian population that adopted the Greek language, but it doesn't discount the possibility of island Greek input.

What do you think of this: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?236240-Longobard-DNA-study

It seems to confirm the idea that Southern Italians are somewhat more ''preserved'' since antiquity rather than North Italians who are heavily admixed with Germanic tribes. The whole idea of early Romans being Central European-like or even North Italian-like is very unlikely since Roman settlers from Pannonia ranged from South Tuscan to South Italian, more South Italian actually. It makes extremely plausible all we know about South Italian populations: extremely preserved since the Bronze Age.

And North Italians from that time were also in between South Italians and Tuscans.

[Sikeliot]

What do you think of this: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?236240-Longobard-DNA-study

It seems to confirm the idea that Southern Italians are somewhat more ''preserved'' since antiquity rather than North Italians who are heavily admixed with Germanic tribes. The whole idea of early Romans being Central European-like or even North Italian-like is very unlikely since Roman settlers from Pannonia ranged from South Tuscan to South Italian, more South Italian actually. It makes extremely plausible all we know about South Italian populations: extremely preserved since the Bronze Age.

I think southern Italians have acquired more input from the Levant and North Africa within the same time frame that northern Italians would have received Germanic input, so I think both of them are different today than they would have been 3000 years ago.

The base of all Italians and Greeks is Sardinian-like DNA, and then other migrations occurred to make up the other half.

[Scar]

I think southern Italians have acquired more input from the Levant and North Africa within the same time frame that northern Italians would have received Germanic input, so I think both of them are different today than they would have been 3000 years ago.

The base of all Italians and Greeks is Sardinian-like DNA, and then other migrations occurred to make up the other half.

But why ancient NW Italians would cluster with South Italians if South Italians are, according to you, substantially different than what they were in the past? I would understand if you were saying they received maybe a minor influence from the Levant and North Africa, and mostly Sicilians, but a considerable influence just doesn't make sense.

The most plausible theory is that South Italians always have been more or less like they are and North Italians are Germanic admixed. That's what we can conclude based on the paper member Token posted.

[Sikeliot]

But why ancient NW Italians would cluster with South Italians if South Italians are, according to you, substantially different than what they were in the past? I would understand if you were saying they received maybe a minor influence from the Levant and North Africa, and mostly Sicilians, but a considerable influence just doesn't make sense.

The most plausible theory is that South Italians always have been more or less like they are and North Italians are Germanic admixed. That's what we can conclude based on the paper member Token posted.

But if you consider that north Italians and Levantines are today genetically equidistant from Sicily (you can model Sicilians as half of each), you'd have to then assume North Italians mixed substantially with Germanics and I doubt they did. They, if anything, are more Gallic/Celtic, hence their similarity to southern French.

I don't think NW Italians clustered near MODERN southern Italians. Maybe at one point all of Italy was more similar than today though. Though it will be more similar if so many southerners keep moving north :lol:

[Ylla]

the analysis you write is really useful summarising everything :thumb001:

[Bobby Martnen]

But if you consider that north Italians and Levantines are today genetically equidistant from Sicily (you can model Sicilians as half of each), you'd have to then assume North Italians mixed substantially with Germanics and I doubt they did. They, if anything, are more Gallic/Celtic, hence their similarity to southern French.

I don't think NW Italians clustered near MODERN southern Italians. Maybe at one point all of Italy was more similar than today though. Though it will be more similar if so many southerners keep moving north :lol:

If I had to guess, I'd say that 1500 years ago, Southern Italians had less Germanic and less MENA, and they got equal amounts of both between 800-1300. But those components kind of cancel each other out on a PCA plot, so I think they always plotted where they do now.

North Italians got a lot of Germanic in the late Classical and early Medieval era.

[Scar]

But if you consider that north Italians and Levantines are today genetically equidistant from Sicily (you can model Sicilians as half of each), you'd have to then assume North Italians mixed substantially with Germanics and I doubt they did. They, if anything, are more Gallic/Celtic, hence their similarity to southern French.


Well, I think that's a possibilty. Specially if we consider the fact that according to the study the Germanic settlers in Italy weren't even Bavarian/Austrian-like, but more Scandinavian-like, more ''pure'' Germanic than what was imagined before. It makes perfect sense if we look both at the autosomal and Y-DNA from North Italian regions.

[Sikeliot]

If I had to guess, I'd say that 1500 years ago, Southern Italians had less Germanic and less MENA, and they got equal amounts of both between 800-1300. But those components kind of cancel each other out on a PCA plot, so I think they always plotted where they do now.

North Italians got a lot of Germanic in the late Classical and early Medieval era.

The Germanic input is lower than the MENA so it is likely that if you removed both, they would have been more similar to modern Dodecanese (who they are already close to but you know what I mean).

[AK-47]

What are you thoughts on George Stamatoyannopoulos, et al, and their findings published in European journal of Human Genetics?
Do you believe it's an accurate paper?

https://media.nature.com/lw926/nature-assets/ejhg/journal/v25/n5/images/ejhg201718f2.jpg

Genetic similarity of Peloponneseans, Sicilians and Italians. PCA analysis of several European populations. (a) Notice the north to south distribution of the populations and that the Peloponneseans are placed to the far right of the graph and overlap with the Sicilians. (b) PCA analysis of Southern European populations illustrating the close relationship between Peloponneseans Sicilians and Italians (TSI is an Italian population) (c) Network analysis illustrating the high connectivity between the Peloponnesean populations as well as between the Peloponneseans, the Sicilians and the Italians. Notice the distance between Peloponneseans and the Slavic, and Near Eastern populations. Peloponneseans are connected with the Near Eastern populations through Crete and Dodecanese.


Genetic similarity with Sicilians and Italians

As anticipated from the results of previous studies,18, 19, 20 the Peloponneseans are genetically placed very close to the Sicilians and Italians (Figures 2a and b) but they differ from several other populations we compared them (see Supplementary Figure 2). Network analysis (Figure 2c), highlighted the interconnections of Peloponnesean populations as well as the connections between Peloponneseans, Italians and Sicilians; in this network analysis, Sicilians and Italians serve as a bridge between Peloponneseans and other European populations (Basque, Andalusians and French). Slavic populations are placed far away from the Peloponneseans as are the Near Eastern populations. The latter are connected to the Peloponnesus via the islands of Crete and the Dodecanese.


Testing the theory of extinction of the medieval Peloponnesean Greeks

This theory allows a specific prediction about the genetic ancestry of the Peloponneseans: the great majority, if not all, of Peloponnesean ancestry should be Slavic. We compared, the Peloponneseans (except for Maniots and Tsakones) with populations of the Slavic homeland from which the sixth century Slavs should have originated. The exact location of the Slavic homeland is debated7, 8 but it is placed north of Danube,7 between the Oder and Dnieper rivers and includes areas inhabited by Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian populations. PCA analysis showed a clear separation of Peloponneseans from the Slavic populations (Figure 3a). By ADMIXTURE analysis (Figure 3c) the Peloponneseans and the Slavic populations form separate clusters with a small degree of gene flow from the Slavic to the Peloponnesean cluster.
[img]https://media.nature.com/lw926/nature-assets/ejhg/journal/v25/n5/images/ejhg201718f3.jpg

[Sikeliot]

What are you thoughts on George Stamatoyannopoulos, et al, and their findings published in European journal of Human Genetics?
Do you believe it's an accurate paper?


It implies that the Peloponnesians with the least Slavic input have a close relationship to Sicilians and I agree with this, but I also think that paper, by only using one Sicilian sample I think from Trapani, does not capture that much of the island has more Semitic mixture than that, and would therefore not plot with Peloponnesians.

[AK-47]

It implies that the Peloponnesians with the least Slavic input have a close relationship to Sicilians and I agree with this, but I also think that paper, by only using one Sicilian sample I think from Trapani, does not capture that much of the island has more Semitic mixture than that, and would therefore not plot with Peloponnesians.
Interesting.
In General, do you think the Peloponnese are closer to South Eastern Sicilians, than to Central or western Sicilians?
How does Syracuse compare to the general Peloponnese population?

[Sikeliot]

Interesting.
In General, do you think the Peloponnese are closer to South Eastern Sicilians, than to Central or western Sicilians?
How does Syracuse compare to the general Peloponnese population?

Syracusans are probably close to Maniots and Tsakonians, as well as to Cyclades islanders.

Messina/Catania/Enna/Palermo/Caltanissetta/Agrigento are clearly more Semitic influenced.

Trapani is an outlier due to higher WHG/Sardinian/Iberian type stuff but still plots with the rest of south Italy (maybe more like Apulia).

[AK-47]

It implies that the Peloponnesians with the least Slavic input have a close relationship to Sicilians and I agree with this, but I also think that paper, by only using one Sicilian sample I think from Trapani, does not capture that much of the island has more Semitic mixture than that, and would therefore not plot with Peloponnesians.
I downloaded the DOC. Supplementary Information from the paper, and can't find any evidence of Trapani specific samples.
I can email the author of the paper and ask him directly.
20 Sicilian samples and 12 reference.

[Sikeliot]

I downloaded the DOC. Supplementary Information from the paper, and can't find any evidence of Trapani specific samples.
I can email the author of the paper and ask him directly.

I forget if it was Syracuse or Trapani but I remember there is some reason I knew that it was definitely not Palermo, Messina, or Agrigento.

I do know, however, most studies with a Sicilian sample usually use one from the southeast or Trapani though. Lazaridis et al is an example.

And I know that because of this, it makes Sicily on PCA plots appear closer to the rest of Italy and Greece than it otherwise would be if different samples were used.

[kleenex]

Syracusans are probably close to Maniots and Tsakonians, as well as to Cyclades islanders.

Messina/Catania/Enna/Palermo/Caltanissetta/Agrigento are clearly more Semitic influenced.

Trapani is an outlier due to higher WHG/Sardinian/Iberian type stuff but still plots with the rest of south Italy (maybe more like Apulia).

So if you're saying that Syracusans plot near Maniots and Tsaknoians (who are the most Southern/Eastern shifted Peloponnesians) what Italian Group would you say plots closest to other Peloponnesians (Messinians, Elians, Arcadians, Laconians) of Southern Regioins. I'm thinking Abruzzo, Apulia. What's your opinion?

[Sikeliot]

So if you're saying that Syracusans plot near Maniots and Tsaknoians (who are the most Southern/Eastern shifted Peloponnesians) what Italian Group would you say plots closest to other Peloponnesians (Messinians, Elians, Arcadians, Laconians) of Southern Regioins. I'm thinking Abruzzo, Apulia. What's your opinion?

Apulians are probably even closer to Maniots/Tsakonians, because even Syracusans have SOME Levant-related admixture, even if less than most of the island.

Tuscans would be closest to other Peloponnesians, but west shifted.

[kleenex]

Apulians are probably even closer to Maniots/Tsakonians, because even Syracusans have SOME Levant-related admixture, even if less than most of the island.

Tuscans would be closest to other Peloponnesians, but west shifted.

So what Italian group/region would you say clusters with Southern Peloponnesians; Messinians, Elians, Laonians, Arcadians(who are non Tskanonian/Maniot)?

[Sikeliot]

So what Italian group/region would you say clusters with Southern Peloponnesians; Messinians, Elians, Laonians, Arcadians(who are non Tskanonian/Maniot)?

Apulia.

[kleenex]

That's what I'm thinking but there are rarely Apulian samples to compare to.

[Sikeliot]

Since some people keep repeating the lie that I think South Italians are Levantine and Greeks are Slavs... read what I ACTUALLY said. Thanks :)

[Dimitri159]

This is actually correct

For example studies on the DNA of Minoans revealed that they didn't have relations with the Levant and Egypt but with Ancient populations in Anatolia and North Iran,Caucasus and Armenian Highlands

Maybe Greeks actually do not closely descend from Minoans like we thought:

https://i.ibb.co/chGcMhP/Greece-Haplogroup.png

This looks like they have more Paleo-Balkan/Aryan Steppe ancestry.