Should Greek input be considered "native" to S. Italy when assessing extent of foreign input?

[Sikeliot]

One of the things I often discuss when discussing Sicilian and southern Italian DNA is that I am interested in seeing which part of Sicily or southern Italy has best maintained the ancient genetic character of the land.

So the question becomes this: should Greek input be counted as "native" or should it be seen as a foreign input akin to that of Phoenicians, Berbers, Jews, Arabs, Normans, Gallo-Italic peoples, and so on? The answer to this question entirely changes which region should be viewed as most and least "native." If we consider Greeks native to the Aegean islands and Crete, lands that were inhabited by pre-Greek people and settled at roughly the same time as Sicily and southern Italy, then they should also be viewed as natives of southern Italy.

If Greek is counted as native, then Apulia, Lucania, and southeast Sicily are unquestionably the most "native" regions, as they have the least input from Normans, Arabs, Phoenicians, Jews, and Berbers and are genetically the closest to Greece of all the southern Italian regions.

If Greek is counted as "foreign," then the aforementioned regions become the most foreign-influenced because the Greek input is more substantial there, and even regions with more Middle Eastern input which have the greatest genetic distance to Greek clusters such as Palermo, Agrigento, inland central Sicily, and southern Calabria then become more native, despite absorbing some foreign input.

The Sarno study considers Calabrese Griko and the Calabria-EastCentral Sicily cluster to be representative of the oldest genetic structure there, and finds the greatest distance between the Calabrese Griko cluster and Greeks themselves, despite them being the only Greek-speaking people remaining in that part of Italy.

[Tauromachos]

One of the things I often discuss when discussing Sicilian and southern Italian DNA is that I am interested in seeing which part of Sicily or southern Italy has best maintained the ancient genetic character of the land.

So the question becomes this: should Greek input be counted as "native" or should it be seen as a foreign input akin to that of Phoenicians, Berbers, Jews, Arabs, Normans, Gallo-Italic peoples, and so on? The answer to this question entirely changes which region should be viewed as most and least "native." If we consider Greeks native to the Aegean islands and Crete, lands that were inhabited by pre-Greek people and settled at roughly the same time as Sicily and southern Italy, then they should also be viewed as natives of southern Italy.

Sorry but the term pre-Greek people for Crete and Islands is a bit fishy.

The Minoans were an earlier form of Mycanaean people who populated already Crete e.c.t before the Continental Mycanaean population received their additional admixtures
that altered them a bit compared to the Minoans.

And the Minoans were genetically not related to the Semitic people of the Levant and the Hamitc people of Egypt.
This fact has been settled in genetic studies

[kleenex]

As native. Were talking full genetic overlap which makes sense to me.

[Sikeliot]

As native. Were talking full genetic overlap which makes sense to me.

So everything that comes after Greek input should be considered foreign then, like Arab, Berber, Norman, Spanish, and Gallo-Italic?

[kleenex]

So everything that comes after Greek input should be considered foreign then, like Arab, Berber, Norman, Spanish, and Gallo-Italic?

Wow that's a tough question. I would say that the Greek settlements were much earlier, isolated and indigenous in nature I suppose (actually settling/creating cities) so yes the latter invasions (comparison) were foreign in my opinion.

[Sikeliot]

Wow that's a tough question. I would say that the Greek settlements were much earlier, isolated and indigenous in nature I suppose (actually settling/creating cities) so yes the latter invasions (comparison) were foreign in my opinion.

Alternatively, one might say lower North Euro input = more native (since apparently there was no Steppe in Bell Beaker Sicilians), in which case the places with more Greek input tend to have more North Euro and could be viewed as more foreign.

It depends on one's perspective.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Is possible differ phoenician from neolithic?

[Tauromachos]

Alternatively, one might say lower North Euro input = more native (since apparently there was no Steppe in Bell Beaker Sicilians), in which case the places with more Greek input tend to have more North Euro and could be viewed as more foreign.

It depends on one's perspective.

The native Sicilians were probably similar to the early version of Greeks without"Northern" in other words they were probably Minoan like people.

I think the native people of Sardina,Sicily and Crete would have been very similar populations.

Later Phoenicians settled along the Western parts and Greeks in other parts of Sicily.

So i would view this way that Phoencian and Greek influences can be viewed as native Sicilian
since they were already there during the classical Age.

Everything that came additionaly to the Island thereafter would
be less native as kleenex said.

[Sikeliot]

The native Sicilians were probably similar to the early version of Greeks without"Northern" in other words they were probably Minoan like people.

I think the native people of Sardina,Sicily and Crete would have been very similar populations.

Later Phoenicians settled along the Western parts and Greeks in other parts of Sicily.

So i would view this way that Phoencian and Greek influences can be viewed as native Sicilian everything that came additional to the Island thereafter would
be less native as kleenex said.


The issue is differentiating Phoenician input from later migrations from the MENA world that came during Arab rule.

My personal inclination is that the area around the Hyblaean mountains in Sicily -- the southern inland part of Catania, Syracuse, and neighboring areas in Ragusa -- have changed very little since the Greek settlements. But that is just my opinion.

[Tauromachos]

The issue is differentiating Phoenician input from later migrations from the MENA world that came during Arab rule.

Yes thats the main problem unless there are reliable sources/samples of Ancient Phoenician DNA like there are from Minoans and Mycanean Greeks.



My personal inclination is that the area around the Hyblaean mountains in Sicily -- the southern inland part of Catania, Syracuse, and neighboring areas in Ragusa -- have changed very little since the Greek settlements..

I concur

But with early version of Greeks a meant the Non Continental pre-classical Island "Minoan like"populations that didn't have the extra Northern that
Classical Greeks"Syrakusians" and Mainland Mycanaeans had.

I think you mistunderstood me ,read my posts again where i did explain it.

[catgeorge]

Magna Graecia was at large Dorian and Dorians came from NW Greece. Most likely some reverse migration took place from Thessalian Neolithic expansion as far north as Proto Linear Pottery 6000 BC which is (Proto Greek from Helladic Greece + Tardenoisian (West Med + Celtic)

Greece is historically notorious for reverse migrations even during Greek revolution Greeks migrated back to Greece from as far as Ukraine, Russia, Austria, Italy and France.

WWI had more reverse migrations then mass emigration

circa WW2 was emigration all the way (fuck you Germany)

Then reverse migration occurred again from New World + Egypt + Fallen soviet states circa 1980 to 2012

Now emigration occurred again due to Jew banking systems (fuck you Germany)

Long story short Magna Graecia is largely Dorian and most likely migrated to Greece from Proto Linear Pottery or there abouts that colonised Sicily. My theory and sticking to it :)

[Sikeliot]

Magna Graecia was at large Dorian and Dorians came from NW Greece. Most likely some reverse migration took place from Thessalian Neolithic expansion as far north as Proto Linear Pottery 6000 BC which is (Proto Greek from Helladic Greece + Tardenoisian (West Med + Celtic)

Greece is historically notorious for reverse migrations even during Greek revolution Greeks migrated back to Greece from as far as Ukraine, Russia, Austria, Italy and France.

WWI had more reverse migrations then mass emigration

circa WW2 was emigration all the way (fuck you Germany)

Then reverse migration occurred again from New World + Egypt + Fallen soviet states circa 1980 to 2012

Now emigration occurred again due to Jew banking systems (fuck you Germany)

Long story short Magna Graecia is largely Dorian and most likely migrated to Greece from Proto Linear Pottery or there abouts that colonised Sicily. My theory and sticking to it :)

This all supports why parts of Sicily with higher ancient Greek input have higher Steppe also.

[Sacrificed Ram]

And Byzantine armies...

[Tauromachos]

This all supports why parts of Sicily with higher ancient Greek input have higher Steppe also.

How much Steppe have these parts of Sicily?

[Sikeliot]

How much Steppe have these parts of Sicily?

On most GEDMatch calculators, that part of Sicily comes up as 1/4 of the way shifted toward northern Greeks (Thessaly and north of it).

[catgeorge]

On most GEDMatch calculators, that part of Sicily comes up as 1/4 of the way shifted toward northern Greeks (Thessaly and north of it).

yes - Thessalian neolthic had contact with Bug-Dneister (proto east European that later became Scythian/Sarmatian) and Kongemose (Proto NW European that later became Germanic) cultures + of course Tardenoisian (West Med + Celtic that later became France and Spain)

[Sacrificed Ram]

In Brazil we say greeks live like Byzantine Empire never existed...

[Tauromachos]

In Brazil we say greeks live like Byzantine Empire never existed...
???

What do you mean?

[Sacrificed Ram]

???

What do you mean?

Byzantine Empire embraced people from very diverse places, is more easy link some influence with historical peoples than pre-historical, like steppe component from some slav, iranic or turkic people than "ukrainian chalcolithics".

[-Scar-]

One of the things I often discuss when discussing Sicilian and southern Italian DNA is that I am interested in seeing which part of Sicily or southern Italy has best maintained the ancient genetic character of the land.

So the question becomes this: should Greek input be counted as "native" or should it be seen as a foreign input akin to that of Phoenicians, Berbers, Jews, Arabs, Normans, Gallo-Italic peoples, and so on? The answer to this question entirely changes which region should be viewed as most and least "native." If we consider Greeks native to the Aegean islands and Crete, lands that were inhabited by pre-Greek people and settled at roughly the same time as Sicily and southern Italy, then they should also be viewed as natives of southern Italy.

If Greek is counted as native, then Apulia, Lucania, and southeast Sicily are unquestionably the most "native" regions, as they have the least input from Normans, Arabs, Phoenicians, Jews, and Berbers and are genetically the closest to Greece of all the southern Italian regions.

If Greek is counted as "foreign," then the aforementioned regions become the most foreign-influenced because the Greek input is more substantial there, and even regions with more Middle Eastern input which have the greatest genetic distance to Greek clusters such as Palermo, Agrigento, inland central Sicily, and southern Calabria then become more native, despite absorbing some foreign input.

The Sarno study considers Calabrese Griko and the Calabria-EastCentral Sicily cluster to be representative of the oldest genetic structure there, and finds the greatest distance between the Calabrese Griko cluster and Greeks themselves, despite them being the only Greek-speaking people remaining in that part of Italy.

Why does it matter? Greeks overlap with Tuscans just as much and there was no ancient Hellenic influence in that region. Italy and Greece are quite close to each other, you cannot expect them to differ in genetic results much.

[GiCa]

Why does it matter? Greeks overlap with Tuscans just as much and there was no ancient Hellenic influence in that region. Italy and Greece are quite close to each other, you cannot expect them to differ in genetic results much.

Greeks don t overlap with Tuscans.

[catgeorge]

Greeks don t overlap with Tuscans.

This is true - the distance to Tuscan is averaging a little too far as we do with Bulgaria......bt it's not very far

[Sikeliot]

Greeks don t overlap with Tuscans.

There are Greeks that plot as far north as Tuscans, but shifted eastward.

[Carlito's Way]

I would say native since its very old already

[kleenex]

Greeks don t overlap with Tuscans.

I would guess there are Southern shifted Tuscans who aren't terribly distant from Southern Greeks (who may shift West). Overlap may be a stretch though. I would guess certain mainland Greeks (particularly Peloponnesians)are closer to Central Italians, Molise, Apulia (less Abruzzo). Not sure about Lazio or Marche.

[Sikeliot]

I would guess there are Southern shifted Tuscans who aren't terribly distant from Southern Greeks (who may shift West). Overlap may be a stretch though. I would guess certain mainland Greeks (particularly Peloponnesians)are closer to Central Italians, Molise, Apulia (less Abruzzo). Not sure about Lazio or Marche.


Molise is close to Abruzzo. Oddly enough Apulians have a northward shift despite being located to the south.

[kleenex]

Molise is close to Abruzzo. Oddly enough Apulians have a northward shift despite being located to the south.

I've noticed that.

[Slevin]

you are really a retard man

[AK-47]

One of the things I often discuss when discussing Sicilian and southern Italian DNA is that I am interested in seeing which part of Sicily or southern Italy has best maintained the ancient genetic character of the land.

So the question becomes this: should Greek input be counted as "native" or should it be seen as a foreign input akin to that of Phoenicians, Berbers, Jews, Arabs, Normans, Gallo-Italic peoples, and so on? The answer to this question entirely changes which region should be viewed as most and least "native." If we consider Greeks native to the Aegean islands and Crete, lands that were inhabited by pre-Greek people and settled at roughly the same time as Sicily and southern Italy, then they should also be viewed as natives of southern Italy.

If Greek is counted as native, then Apulia, Lucania, and southeast Sicily are unquestionably the most "native" regions, as they have the least input from Normans, Arabs, Phoenicians, Jews, and Berbers and are genetically the closest to Greece of all the southern Italian regions.

If Greek is counted as "foreign," then the aforementioned regions become the most foreign-influenced because the Greek input is more substantial there, and even regions with more Middle Eastern input which have the greatest genetic distance to Greek clusters such as Palermo, Agrigento, inland central Sicily, and southern Calabria then become more native, despite absorbing some foreign input.

The Sarno study considers Calabrese Griko and the Calabria-EastCentral Sicily cluster to be representative of the oldest genetic structure there, and finds the greatest distance between the Calabrese Griko cluster and Greeks themselves, despite them being the only Greek-speaking people remaining in that part of Italy.
Greeks are foreign.
Different culture, nation, language, and different genetics.
Modern Italians are generally Catholics and most Greeks are Greek Orthodox.
Two distinct peoples.
They may have a genetic blending point, but still not the same.

[Bobby Martnen]

So everything that comes after Greek input should be considered foreign then, like Arab, Berber, Norman, Spanish, and Gallo-Italic?

No, Greek input is foreign. Italic input is the native input in Sicily, since it's part of Italy.

[Faklon]

Can you post the Sarno study and where it shows that the Calabrese Griko share the less IBD with modern Greeks?

Welcome to 2014


The Minoans were an earlier form of Mycanaean people

They were a completely different civilization also, lol. Different language, religion, customs, ideals...

Welcome to 1500 BC

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Only pelasgians should be considered native

[Tauromachos]

They were a completely different civilization also, lol. Different language, religion, customs, ideals...

Welcome to 1500 BC

Lol have you read any of the papers on Minoan and Mycanaean DNA?

They had common ancestry and their DNA was very similar with only minor differences.

Of course Minoans were not exactly the same culturally with Mycanaeans since Minoans lived in Crete and the Islands.
Logically they did alot of seafare and established very early trade and contact via the Mediteranean with the Levant and Egypt but genetically
they were not related to them.

The Mycanaeans populated the Mainland and only later moved to Crete and the Islands they were more warlike and militarily organised which
is also logical.

The main difference between Mycanaeans and Minoans is that Mycanaeans had some NE admixture from people in the Steppes 8%-10%.
The Mycanaean script has been deciphered and shown to have been a Greek language.

The Minoan language is still unkown.

[Faklon]

...

Yes, I would read Sikeliotized posts on how the matriarchial Minoans were an earlier form of Mycenean people. By warlike you mean that they made scary faces in the battleground?

There is a whole different culture in many accounts, as for the Mycenean language it has of course been deciphered as Greek and rather proto-Greek. If Minonas spoke the same language it would probably be also deciphered by now(Raine spam incoming). In any case, there has been a lot of intermingling with early Greek civilizations for the Mycenean kingdoms to form, most likely they were Steppe tsopanos in the beginning but no matter what they were there are big differences between them and Minoans even after Minoan trade and interaction to make them similar civilizations.