SE Sicily/Apulia/Trapani: represent older population structure or the reverse (more mixture)?

[Sikeliot]

Sarno et al in its supplementary figures states that they found the following clusters in southern Italy and Greece, stating that there is a cluster consisting of Trapani, Sicilian Arbereshe, Apulians, Lucanians, and the Griko from Apulia, and that this cluster is the most related to Greece as a whole (islands and mainland) while there is also a cluster consisting of Calabria and the rest of Sicily which captures the remaining Cretan and Dodecanese Greeks.

As we know that Apulia, Trapani, etc. shift north of the rest of Sicily/Calabria, and that Syracuse would be included in this cluster if it had been sampled, here is my question:

Does this cluster represent an older population structure within southern Italy that has since been overridden by higher Levant/North African input in Calabria and the rest of Sicily? Or does this cluster instead represent the opposite: it is in fact characterized by greater admixture, not less, which instead came from Greece and Albania?



In particular, by focusing on the Southern Italian/Balkan genetic framework, the considered level of clustering (K = 14) defines the following groups:

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.

While Calabrian Greek and Cypriot clusters are highly specific of their corresponding populations, on the other hand the two SSI-clusters (AW-Sicily and CE-Sicily) appear tightly interrelated with each other (Supplementary Fig. S5), showing some degree of admixture within a genetically contiguous area that, additionally to Southern Italy, encompasses also Crete and the Aegean/Dodecanese islands (i.e. what we called the “Mediterranean genetic continuum”). Although not too much emphasis should be therefore given to the “divisive” aspect of these two clusters, some differentiation emerges in the relative proportion to which each cluster is present in West Sicily (and Apulia) or East Sicily (and Calabria) respectively. In addition, one of the two clusters (the AW-Sicily purple one) appears more properly related not only to Crete and the Aegean/Dodecanese Greek islands, but also to Continental Greece, thus providing the framework for a finer exploration of subtle differentiation patterns.

[Tauromachos]

Sarno et al in its supplementary figures states that they found the following clusters in southern Italy and Greece, stating that there is a cluster consisting of Trapani, Sicilian Arbereshe, Apulians, Lucanians, and the Griko from Apulia, and that this cluster is the most related to Greece as a whole (islands and mainland) while there is also a cluster consisting of Calabria and the rest of Sicily which captures the remaining Cretan and Dodecanese Greeks.

As we know that Apulia, Trapani, etc. shift north of the rest of Sicily/Calabria, and that Syracuse would be included in this cluster if it had been sampled, here is my question:

Does this cluster represent an older population structure within southern Italy that has since been overridden by higher Levant/North African input in Calabria and the rest of Sicily? Or does this cluster instead represent the opposite: it is in fact characterized by greater admixture, not less, which instead came from Greece and Albania?


The thing is according to this study

South Balkans Albania and Continental Greece became slightly differentiated from Sicilian/Cretan e.c.t cluster due to admixtures from

Continental Europe that reached those parts in medieval times.

Before that they were pretty much the same cluster

[Smitty]

You know what I think: the latter. This component exists in all of South Italy, even if in small amounts. The post-Greek population influxes cannot account for such widespread influence in my opinion.

[Sikeliot]

The thing is according to this study

South Balkans Albania and Continental Greece became slightly differentiated from Sicilian/Cretan e.c.t cluster due to admixtures from

Continental Europe that reached those parts in medieval times.

Before that they were pretty much the same cluster


I don't agree with that conclusion. I mean, I do think there is admixture, but I think even without it, people in places like Thessaly and Macedonia were never identical to Sicilians and Cretans.

But based on the study, it suggests that the Apulia-West Sicily cluster has more Balkan admixture and that the Greek-speaking Calabrese are the "purest" southern Italian natives. This would imply that there was more mixture, not less, into this cluster.

[Bobby Martnen]

Since finding out that my Palermitan great-grandfather was likely J2, despite having light skin and eyes, I think it's likely that Palermo really did get significant Arab during the Moorish occupation :(

[Sikeliot]

You know what I think: the latter. This component exists in all of South Italy, even if in small amounts. The post-Greek population influxes cannot account for such widespread influence in my opinion.

So you think that the more Levantine shifted, the more native to southern Italy and that those shifting toward modern day Central Italians, Greeks and Albanians are more mixed, this is what you are suggesting?

[Sikeliot]

Since finding out that my Palermitan great-grandfather was likely J2, despite having light skin and eyes, I think it's likely that Palermo really did get significant Arab during the Moorish occupation :(

J2 is not Arab. The ancestor may have been Phoenician or Jewish, however, or carried by an Arabized West Asian ancestor who was not ancestrally from the Arabian Peninsula.

[Lavrentis]

But based on the study, it suggests that the Apulia-West Sicily cluster has more Balkan admixture and that the Greek-speaking Calabrese are the "purest" southern Italian natives.

What about Eastern Sicilians? Aren’t they close to Western Sicilians and Apulians according to that study?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Martnen]

J2 is not Arab. The ancestor may have been Phoenician or Jewish, however, or carried by an Arabized West Asian ancestor who was not ancestrally from the Arabian Peninsula.

What is the Arab hg? IIRC, the royal family of Jordan is J2.

It would be cool to be descended from Phoenicians, though.

But I was kinda hoping that my Sicilian side would be I1.

[Tauromachos]

I don't agree with that conclusion. I mean, I do think there is admixture, but I think even without it, people in places like Thessaly and Macedonia were never identical to Sicilians and Cretans.

But based on the study, it suggests that the Apulia-West Sicily cluster has more Balkan admixture and that the Greek-speaking Calabrese are the "purest" southern Italian natives. This would imply that there was more mixture, not less, into this cluster.

Again what means identical.

The study talks about two slightly differentiated clusters of South Eastern European populations of

Albania,Greece,South Italy and Cyprus

[Sikeliot]

Again what means identical.

The study talks about two slightly differentiated clusters of South Eastern European populations of

Albania,Greece,South Italy and Cyprus

My thought is the Apulia/Trapani cluster is close to what mainland Greeks would be if not for Slavic input, but the East Central Sicily-Calabria cluster not.

[Sikeliot]

What about Eastern Sicilians? Aren’t they close to Western Sicilians and Apulians according to that study?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The study has two clusters in southern Italy:

a) Apulia, Lucania, Trapani, and Arbereshe
b) Calabria, and all other Sicilian provinces

with the two clusters related closely but the former showing more Balkan input than the latter and being closer to ALL Greeks overall than the East-Central Sicily/Calabria cluster is.

[Lavrentis]

The study has two clusters in southern Italy:

a) Apulia, Lucania, Trapani, and Arbereshe
b) Calabria, and all other Sicilian provinces

with the two clusters related closely but the former showing more Balkan input than the latter and being closer to ALL Greeks overall than the East-Central Sicily/Calabria cluster is.

I get it, but I remember you saying that Eastern Sicilians are genetically similar to Apulians but the study puts them in another cluster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tauromachos]

My thought is the Apulia/Trapani cluster is close to what mainland Greeks would be if not for Slavic input, but the East Central Sicily-Calabria cluster not.

Ok but Greeks so far don't show high affinity with Eastern Europe and South Slavs fall into another cluster than the
Greek populations also.

[Sikeliot]

I get it, but I remember you saying that Eastern Sicilians are genetically similar to Apulians and the study puts them in another cluster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SE Sicily which was not sampled well. And the one region sampled -- Ragusa -- was with the Calabria cluster rather than the Apulia cluster.

[Smitty]

So you think that the more Levantine shifted, the more native to southern Italy and that those shifting toward modern day Central Italians, Greeks and Albanians are more mixed, this is what you are suggesting?

Of the two options, yes. Maybe later groups augmented this component; maybe they didn't. But the bulk of it had to have been there before. And by "native," of course we just mean pre-Greek.

[Smitty]

SE Sicily which was not sampled well. And the one region sampled -- Ragusa -- was with the Calabria cluster rather than the Apulia cluster.

How do you mean "not sampled well"? Just that they excluded Syracuse? Or that the sample was too small?

[Sikeliot]

How do you mean "not sampled well"? Just that they excluded Syracuse? Or that the sample was too small?

There is an area in southeast Sicily of low migration (i.e. fewer people have moved in or out) which captures the southernmost part of Catania province, most of Syracuse, and the areas of Ragusa that border them. None of these were sampled in the study.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Provinces_of_Sicily_map.png


This is where the samples were from:

https://i.imgur.com/gwz8xWv.png

[Sikeliot]

Of the two options, yes. Maybe later groups augmented this component; maybe they didn't. But the bulk of it had to have been there before. And by "native," of course we just mean pre-Greek.

Then maybe it makes sense to assume this pattern for migration:

1. Calabrese Griko are the "purest" southern Italians, as they have the least Steppe input (there is no evidence of mainland Greek input into their population either, they seem to rather be natives).
2. The rest of Calabria and all of Sicily except Trapani and the southeast are a modified version of the Calabrese Griko, in that they acquired a small amount of later North African/Levant input, as well as some Steppe input from Normans, Doric Greeks, etc.
3. Southeast Sicily, Trapani, Apulia, and Lucania were further diluted by a large settlement from Albania, Greece, or both.

[Tauromachos]

Then maybe it makes sense to assume this pattern for migration:

1. Calabrese Griko are the "purest" southern Italians, as they have the least Steppe input (there is no evidence of mainland Greek input into their population either, they seem to rather be natives).
2. The rest of Calabria and all of Sicily except Trapani and the southeast are a modified version of the Calabrese Griko, in that they acquired a small amount of later North African/Levant input, as well as some Steppe input from Normans, Doric Greeks, etc.
3. Southeast Sicily, Trapani, Apulia, and Lucania were further diluted by a large settlement from Albania, Greece, or both.

Sorry but there is something wrong with your reasoning

Because you always use the term Mainland Greek input.

What do you think the native population in Mainland Greece was like before it received Steppe admixture?

[Sikeliot]

Trapani shifting also toward mainland Greece or belonging closely to a Greek cluster along with Apulia is consistent with two things I know, even though it goes against conventional wisdom that this was Phoenician land and that the only dominant Greek part of Sicily was the southeast:

A. On Myheritage, the Trapanese results I see score more consistent "Greek" than do the Agrigento/Palermo/Caltanissetta/Messina results.
B. There were Doric Greek settlements there, such as Selinus
C. Phoenician settlements in Trapani were more quickly Hellenized than those in Palermo.

[Sikeliot]

Sorry but there is something wrong with your reasoning

Because you always use the term Mainland Greek input.

What do you think the native population in Mainland Greece was like before it received Steppe admixture?

I don't know, but the Greeks who settled Sicily were mostly Doric, and would have had Steppe input.

[Tauromachos]

I don't know, but the Greeks who settled Sicily were mostly Doric, and would have had Steppe input.

Again Steppe input was already present in Mycanaeans of whom Dorians were a derivate.

Its possible that Dorics might have received some additional Northern input"perhabs from Scythians? Celts?" but from what i know
there has not been Scientific reasearch on DNA of Dorians in particular and if or how they were genetically different or distinct compared
to the other Hellenic groups.

Its also the problem to identify who was considered Dorian.

If we go by linguistics then Dorian dialects where spoken in Dodecanese as well.

Triandafilidis says that Scientists didn't find any alteration in the DNA of the ancient Peloponnesian population before and after the event
of the so-called Dorian invasion.


But there was an alteration earlier of the DNA of the Mycanean Greek population in the Mainland at some point that included this
extra Steppe input which wasn't found in the Minoans.


Yes its true alot if not most Greek colonies in Sicily were from Dorians

[Smitty]

Then maybe it makes sense to assume this pattern for migration:

1. Calabrese Griko are the "purest" southern Italians, as they have the least Steppe input (there is no evidence of mainland Greek input into their population either, they seem to rather be natives).
2. The rest of Calabria and all of Sicily except Trapani and the southeast are a modified version of the Calabrese Griko, in that they acquired a small amount of later North African/Levant input, as well as some Steppe input from Normans, Doric Greeks, etc.
3. Southeast Sicily, Trapani, Apulia, and Lucania were further diluted by a large settlement from Albania, Greece, or both.

In regard to point #3, I assume migration from farther north could have influenced it as well. I don't know if history supports that, but geographically it makes sense to me.


There is an area in southeast Sicily of low migration (i.e. fewer people have moved in or out) which captures the southernmost part of Catania province, most of Syracuse, and the areas of Ragusa that border them. None of these were sampled in the study.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Provinces_of_Sicily_map.png


This is where the samples were from:

https://i.imgur.com/gwz8xWv.png

Ah, so the Ragusa sample is basically the city of Ragusa? I see what you mean then.

[Tauromachos]

@Smitty

In regard to 3 i think it might be Norman also in the case of Trapani

Since Trapani was one of the regions where Normans were present.

But the problem again is to know what the exact genetics of Norman people were at that time to compare

[Smitty]

@Smitty

In regard to 3 i think it might be Norman also in the case of Trapani

Since Trapani was one of the regions where Normans were present.

But the problem again is to know what the exact genetics of Norman people were at that time to compare

I was referring more to Campania, Basilicata, Apulia, etc. But yes, it stands to reason that Trapani would have some Norman blood.

[Tauromachos]

I was referring more to Campania, Basilicata, Apulia, etc. But yes, it stands to reason that Trapani would have some Norman blood.

And it seems to show up since Trapanese shift North from other West Sicilians from what i remember.


And the ancient Phoenician was the same in Trapani with the other Western parts.

[Smitty]

And it seems to show up since Trapanese shift North from other West Sicilians from what i remember.


And the ancient Phoenician was the same in Trapani with the other Western parts.

The Phoenicians were in Trapani. But if Trapani plots north, you would think there was no Phoenician influence at all.

[Sikeliot]

The Phoenicians were in Trapani. But if Trapani plots north, you would think there was no Phoenician influence at all.

Trapani shifts north because of later input. They still have Phoenician.

[Smitty]

Trapani shifts north because of later input. They still have Phoenician.

It would have to be a lot of northern influence, though, to cancel out the Phoenician and drag the area north of the rest of Sicily.

[Tauromachos]

Trapani shifts north because of later input. They still have Phoenician.

And this input might be Norman

[Sikeliot]

Bump