Bronze Age Sicilians looked nothing like present-day Sicilians

[Token]

New paper oficially published: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0

https://i.imgur.com/ZLjfRzU.png
https://i.imgur.com/zdSea2i.png

[Jana]

What were they like?

[Adamastor]

This is also very interesting:


In Sardinia, nearly all ancestry derived from the island’s early farmers until the first millennium BC, with the exception of an outlier from the third millennium BC, who had primarily North African ancestry and who—along with an approximately contemporary Iberian—documents widespread Africa-to-Europe gene flow in the Chalcolithic. Major immigration into Sardinia began in the first millennium BC and, at present, no more than 56–62% of Sardinian ancestry is from its first farmers. This value is lower than previous estimates, highlighting that Sardinia, similar to every other region in Europe, has been a stage for major movement and mixtures of people.

The myth that Sardinians are living relics is starting to crumble.

[Token]

What were they like?

EEF plus some small amount of steppe based on the PCA. There is a Central Euro-like outlier too but he is probably a Beaker migrant from the north. Let's wait until they are uploaded to G25.

[Token]

I think it is now clear that Sicilians are mostly Hellenic.

[Samnium]

https://i.imgur.com/zrpYQig.png
Two outliers, one in Central Europe, and one plot where Iberians/Northern Italians plot I believe.

The sicilian cluster is already eastern shifted, and it's shown on the PCA.

[Adamastor]

EEF plus some small amount of steppe based on the PCA. There is a Central Euro-like outlier too but he is probably a Beaker migrant from the north. Let's wait until they are uploaded to G25.

It seems there was a complete replacement of native Sicilians by Greek colonists. Most of the ''East-Med'' in Southern Italy seems to be Greek, something I'm defending for a long time. I remember discussing with Sikeliot about it and his insistence that Sicilians had lots of Arabian and post-Roman Levantine ancestry.

[Samnium]

It seems there was a complete replacement of native Sicilians by Greek colonists. Most of the ''East-Med'' in Southern Italy seems to be Greek, something I'm defending for a long time. I remember discussing with Sikeliot about it and his insistence that Sicilians had lots of Arabian and post-Roman Levantine ancestry.

Phoenicians and Arab era had a huge impact on Sicilian genetics. The areas that are the less greek are also the most outlying, it can be explained with the "Aegean" theory. There are villages in inner Sicily that had never seen any greek. And that were isolated as one can get, yet they are still outlying.

It's possibly because of autochtonous populations being already East Med-like.

[Rocinante]

It seems there was a complete replacement of native Sicilians by Greek colonists. Most of the ''East-Med'' in Southern Italy seems to be Greek, something I'm defending for a long time. I remember discussing with Sikeliot about it and his insistence that Sicilians had lots of Arabian and post-Roman Levantine ancestry.

Exactly! East-Med is almost entirely greek in south italians.

[Adamastor]

Phoenicians and Arab era had a huge impact on Sicilian genetics. The areas that are the less greek are also the most outlying, it can be explained with the "Aegean" theory. There are villages in inner Sicily that had never seen any greek. And that were isolated as one can get, yet they are still outlying.

You're assuming ancient Greeks were like modern mainlaind Greeks and it's more than clear nowadays they were not. Greeks were East-Med as one can get. I think ancient mainlanders were like modern people from Crete, Rhodes etc. Also, many Greek settlers in Italy were from Asia Minor and we know ''Greek'' was more of an ethnolinguistic identity than a ''racial one''.
Probably many people with West Asian genetic profiles identified as Greeks in antiquity.

[Token]

It seems there was a complete replacement of native Sicilians by Greek colonists. Most of the ''East-Med'' in Southern Italy seems to be Greek, something I'm defending for a long time. I remember discussing with Sikeliot about it and his insistence that Sicilians had lots of Arabian and post-Roman Levantine ancestry.

He confused East Med admixture with MENA. Sicilians and South Italians are the closest you can get to the Bronze Age Myceneaean and Classical-era Greek samples.

[Nassbean]

what intrigued me is this :


with the exception of an outlier from the third millennium bc, who had primarily North African ancestry and who—along with an approximately contemporary Iberian—documents widespread Africa-to-Europe gene flow in the Chalcolithic.

hahah we're everywhere it's crazy even 5000 years ago there were north african immigrants in iberia and sardinia

[Dorian]

You're assuming ancient Greeks were like modern mainlaind Greeks and it's more than clear nowadays they were not. Greeks were East-Med as one can get. I think ancient mainlanders were like modern people from Crete, Rhodes etc. Also, many Greek settlers in Italy were from Asia Minor and we know ''Greek'' was more of an ethnolinguistic identity than a ''racial one''.
Probably many people with West Asian genetic profiles identified as Greeks in antiquity.

You're assuming a lot as well , what you think is not argument...

[Nassbean]

You're assuming ancient Greeks were like modern mainlaind Greeks and it's more than clear nowadays they were not. Greeks were East-Med as one can get. I think ancient mainlanders were like modern people from Crete, Rhodes etc. Also, many Greek settlers in Italy were from Asia Minor and we know ''Greek'' was more of an ethnolinguistic identity than a ''racial one''.
Probably many people with West Asian genetic profiles identified as Greeks in antiquity.

That's also what I thought when I said to Dorian that greeks from asia minor were probably hellenized anatolians

[Token]

You're assuming a lot as well , what you think is not argument...

We have Myceneaean samples from all over Greece and a Classical era sample from a Greek colony in Empuries. So far they are all most similar to South Italians and Aegean Greeks. What are the chances this is just a coincidence?

[Samnium]

You're assuming ancient Greeks were like modern mainlaind Greeks and it's more than clear nowadays they were not.

They weren't full blown Western Asians for sure, still modeling samples like in this study with a more East Med source (like Myceneans) you wouldn't get Southern Italians. In my opinion the Aegean theory doesn't work because only a tiny part of Southern Italy was under Greek control, you can still say that it eventually propagated to the whole region but there isn't any evidence about that.

You can't assume a shift of an area so large to only "Greeks". Abruzzo had one or two colonies (on the coast), Molise nothing, they are still Southern Italian like in genetics.

In my opinion Byzantine, Arab era (in Sicily), Imperial Roman era, Phoenicians played a great role in that. We don't have even ancient sicilian/southern italian DNA from Iron Age so as far it's only speculation.


Greeks were East-Med as one can get. I think ancient mainlanders were like modern people from Crete, Rhodes etc. Also, many Greek settlers in Italy were from Asia Minor and we know ''Greek'' was more of an ethnolinguistic identity than a ''racial one''.

This is just not true. Colonies of Magna Grecia were predominantly from the Mainland and Ionian Islands. You could say that Magna Grecia becoming a hub in the Med area welcomed many "Western Asians" etc. still the majority of them (inhabitants of these colonies) were ethnic greeks no different from those of Corynthe or Athens.

[dududud]

Only 25 samples?

[Lucas]

Today it was released also paper on ancient Sardinians only.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6

Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia

70 samples. There are Nuraghian samples too.

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-020-14523-6/MediaObjects/41467_2020_14523_Fig1_HTML.png

[dududud]

Today it was released also paper on ancient Sardinians only.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6

Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia

70 samples. There are Nuraghian samples too.

Samples are available? Where?

[Adamastor]

They weren't full blown Western Asians for sure, still modeling samples like in this study with a more East Med source (like Myceneans) you wouldn't get Southern Italians. In my opinion the Aegean theory doesn't work because only a tiny part of Southern Italy was under Greek control, you can still say that it eventually propagated to the whole region but there isn't any evidence about that.

You can't assume a shift of an area so large to only "Greeks". Abruzzo had one or two colonies (on the coast), Molise nothing, they are still Southern Italian like in genetics.



According to this paper the pre-Iron Age Sicilians disappeared completely. I think it's more than enough to suppose that Greek migrations were the starting point of all the change.


This is just not true. Colonies of Magna Grecia were predominantly from the Mainland and Ionian Islands. You could say that Magna Grecia becoming a hub in the Med area welcomed many "Western Asians" etc. still the majority of them were ethnic greeks no different from those of Corynthe or Athens.

I did not even said most, just that ''many'' were and it's true. Ionia sent many colonies to Southern Italy. People in these forums assume to much without looking at how Greeks themselves viewed these things: someone from Miletus or Pontus was as ''ethnic Greek'' as someone from Athens. Isocrates once said that ''are called Greeks those who participate in our education (paideia) rather than only those who belong to a common race (ethnos)''.

[Lucas]

Samples are available? Where?

As bams. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB35094

[dududud]

As bams. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB35094

Ah yes, these famous samples! I have already posted the results I had obtained on different calculators. Interesting.

[Lucas]

Ah yes, these famous samples! I have already posted the results I had obtained on different calculators. Interesting.

Really?:) But it was published today.

[dududud]

Really?:) But it was published today.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?310395-Nuragh-results

[catgeorge]

All our neighbours have Mycenean affinity except Turkey. Full east med is unlikely - EEF + CHG + some steppe.

[Samnium]

According to this paper the pre-Iron Age Sicilians disappeared completely. I think it's more than enough to suppose that Greek migrations were the starting point of all the change.

Without any sample of that era it's supposition and supposition, Sicily had three main groups in the Iron Age era, including Elymians and Sicanians and we have no clue about what they were genetically. I would rather be favorable to that option rather than a massive "easternization" by "greek source", because it's rather incoherent with the genetical make-up of Southern Italy.


I did not even said most, just that ''many'' were and it's true.

"Many", not true. Most of greek colonies in Southern Italy were from Mainland/Ionian Islands, even the most important cities : Rheggion, Kroton, Syracusa, Sybaris and so on were founded by Acheans from the mainland peninsula.


People in these forums assume to much without looking at how Greeks themselves viewed these things: someone from Miletus or Pontus was as ''ethnic Greek'' as someone from Athens. Isocrates once said that ''are called Greeks those who participate in our education (paideia) rather than only those who belong to a common race (ethnos)''.

I can assure you that most of Greek colonies in Southern Italy weren't from Greek Anatolia or whatever.

Ethnic greek could mean everything in that era, even assimilated Levantines, but I'm talking about people coming from Mainland Greece (that looked like Myceneans/Minoans genetically probably).

[Voskos]

Phoenicians and Arab era had a huge impact on Sicilian genetics. The areas that are the less greek are also the most outlying, it can be explained with the "Aegean" theory. There are villages in inner Sicily that had never seen any greek. And that were isolated as one can get, yet they are still outlying.

It's possibly because of autochtonous populations being already East Med-like.

Elymians, Sicanians, SIcels, Phoenicians. Add to that Roman Anatolians that weren't necessarily Greek-speaking. According to our brazilian members those were all Greek.

https://virtualenglishlessons.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/its-all-greek-to-me.jpg?w=600

[Leto]

This is also very interesting:



The myth that Sardinians are living relics is starting to crumble.
Oh yeah, you love that "myth busting". The truth is they are still fairly distinct from both mainland Italy and Spain.

[dududud]

Oh yeah, you love that "myth busting". The truth is they are still fairly distinct from both mainland Italy and Spain.

24 samples of "Sardinian" can not conclude anything. I therefore strongly doubt that this myth falls against 24 small samples.

[Samnium]

Elymians, Sicanians, SIcels, Phoenicians. Add to that Roman Anatolians that weren't necessarily Greek-speaking. According to our brazilian members those were all Greek.

https://virtualenglishlessons.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/its-all-greek-to-me.jpg?w=600

Yes we have no clue about what Elymians and Sicanians were. Sicels are thought to be Italic people but I think they crossed the Reggio Calabria strait in few numbers hence low R1b in Sicily compared to Western that had received at some point some Northern Italian input in the Middle Ages (aside of Norman).

I really don't buy that theory of the "whole" easternization of Southern Italy by greeks, not only it's an over-simplified model but also it's rather unreconciliable with history. Greek cities weren't the cosmopolite bordel of Roman one also.

[Leto]

24 samples of "Sardinian" can not conclude anything. I therefore strongly doubt that this myth falls against 24 small samples.
Well, that guy is a little obnoxious and likes to highlight mixity at every opportunity.

[Dorian]

We have Myceneaean samples from all over Greece and a Classical era sample from a Greek colony in Empuries. So far they are all most similar to South Italians and Aegean Greeks. What are the chances this is just a coincidence?

I'm not rejecting any of his theories but they remain just theories..yet he speaks with certainty ,we have one from Empuries/Phocaean , four from Argolis/NE-Peloponnese and two from Crete &Messinia/SW Peloponnese I think? how does that cover all Greece?and why should it be homogeneous?

[Grace O'Malley]

This is also very interesting:



The myth that Sardinians are living relics is starting to crumble.

This paper just came out on Sardinians.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6


From the Middle Neolithic onward until the beginning of the first millennium BC, we do not find evidence for gene flow from distinct ancestries into Sardinia. That stability contrasts with many other parts of Europe which had experienced substantial gene flow from central Eurasian Steppe ancestry starting about 3000 BCE11,12 and also with many earlier Neolithic and Copper age populations across mainland Europe, where local admixture increased WHG ancestry substantially over time10. We observed remarkable constancy of WHG ancestry (close to 17%) from the Middle Neolithic to the Nuragic period. While we cannot exclude influx from genetically similar populations (e.g., early Iberian Bell Beakers), the absence of Steppe ancestry suggests genetic isolation from many Bronze Age mainland populations—including later Iberian Bell Beakers13. As further support, the Y haplogroup R1b-M269, the most frequent present-day western European haplogroup and associated with expansions that brought Steppe ancestry into Britain13 and Iberia14 about 2500–2000 BCE, remains absent in our Sardinian sample through the Nuragic period (1200–1000 BCE). Larger sample sizes from Sardinia and alternate source populations may discover more subtle forms of admixture, but the evidence appears strong that Sardinia was isolated from major mainland Bronze Age gene flow events through to the local Nuragic period. As the archeological record shows that Sardinia was part of a broad Mediterranean trade network during this period19, such trade was either not coupled with gene flow or was only among proximal populations of similar genetic ancestry. In particular, we find that the Nuragic period is not marked by shifts in ancestry, arguing against hypotheses that the design of the Nuragic stone towers was brought with an influx of people from eastern sources such as Mycenaeans.

[Grace O'Malley]

I don't know if there should be another thread on this but I found this interesting.


Our inference of gene flow after the second millennium BCE seems to contradict previous models emphasizing Sardinian isolation12. These models were supported by admixture tests that failed to detect substantial admixture32, likely because of substantial drift and a lack of a suitable proxy for the Nuragic Sardinian ancestry component. However, compared with other European populations50,56, we confirm Sardinia experienced relative genetic isolation through the Bronze Age/Nuragic period. In addition, we find that subsequent admixture appears to derive mainly from Mediterranean sources that have relatively little Steppe ancestry. Consequently, present-day Sardinian individuals have retained an exceptionally high degree of EEF ancestry and so they still cluster with several mainland European Copper Age individuals such as Ötzi2, even as they are shifted from ancient Sardinian individuals of a similar time period (Fig. 2).

The Basque people, another population high in EEF ancestry, were previously suggested to share a genetic connection with modern Sardinian individuals32,57. We observed a similar signal, with modern Basque having, of all modern samples, the largest pairwise outgroup-f3 with most ancient and modern Sardinian groups (Fig. 3). While both populations have received some immigration, seemingly from different sources (e.g., Fig. 4, ref. 14), our results support that the shared EEF ancestry component could explain their genetic affinity despite their geographic separation.

[SharpFork]

I'm not rejecting any of his theories but they remain just theories..yet he speaks with certainty ,we have one from Empuries/Phocaean , four from Argolis/NE-Peloponnese and two from Crete &Messinia/SW Peloponnese I think? how does that cover all Greece?and why should it be homogeneous?
Plus it's pre Doric invasion, maybe it didn't have any effect at all but then we'd arguing that somehow Slavic admixture spread throughout Aegean and Mainland Greeks while neatly preserving a stark difference in ENF:Iran Neo ratios.

Edit: Also while the Empuries samples should probably be Phocaean from Anatolia, they do look like Mycenean Greeks why would maybe support the idea that the Dorians didn't change genetics much(disregarding that Phocis is Ionian) but still it also shows that "Anatolian Greeks" weren't super different from Ancient Mainland Greeks, at least Mycenean ones.

Basing our analysis on just the current samples of Greeks isn't working, because various Southern Italians and Aegean modern Greeks have more Iran Neo than all the samples of ancient Greeks so far and if we start using modern Anatolian or Aegean Greek populations as proxies we would be able to argue anything considering how different they are, not only to one another but also to the actual ancient Greek samples we have. I'm not sure how we would be meaningfully able to falsify Punic/Levantine or non-Greek Anatolian ancestry.

[SharpFork]

I don't know if there should be another thread on this but I found this interesting.
Aren't modern Basques 20-30% Steppe?

[FinalFlash]

How close is Bronze Age Anatolian Karomhoyuk(or however its spelled) to modern-day Greeks?

[Token]

How close is Bronze Age Anatolian Karomhoyuk(or however its spelled) to modern-day Greeks?

Somewht close to islanders but it lack steppe.

[Dorian]

Plus it's pre Doric invasion, maybe it didn't have any effect at all but then we'd arguing that somehow Slavic admixture spread throughout Aegean and Mainland Greeks while neatly preserving a stark difference in ENF:Iran Neo ratios.

Edit: Also while the Empuries samples should probably be Phocaean from Anatolia, they do look like Mycenean Greeks why would maybe support the idea that the Dorians didn't change genetics much(disregarding that Phocis is Ionian) but still it also shows that "Anatolian Greeks" weren't super different from Ancient Mainland Greeks, at least Mycenean ones.

Basing our analysis on just the current samples of Greeks isn't working, because various Southern Italians and Aegean modern Greeks have more Iran Neo than all the samples of ancient Greeks so far and if we start using modern Anatolian or Aegean Greek populations as proxies we would be able to argue anything considering how different they are, not only to one another but also to the actual ancient Greek samples we have. I'm not sure how we would be meaningfully able to falsify Punic/Levantine or non-Greek Anatolian ancestry.

All true , I've read about all kinds of repopulations/internal migrations &assimilations through the ages and simply using modern examples to compare with ancient ones as if there's some uninterrupted continuity of a specific people/place doesn't cut it always.

"The city Ἐμπόριον (Greek: Ἐμπόριον, Emporion, meaning "trading place", cf. emporion) was founded in 575 BC by Greek colonists from Phocaea(Asia Minor).
The Phocaeans(Central Greece) were mostly Dorian in their origin. A significant number of Phocic cities, however, had different origins. Nevertheless, all the cities of Phocis were gradually connected to the commonwealth because of common interests and common enemies.
Phocaea,Asia Minor was founded by Phocaeans under the leadership of the Athenians as Pausanias mentions. The land to which their colony was established was given by the Aeolians of nearby Kimi. The descendants of King Kodra, Kodrides then settled in the city. According to Pausanias again, after the establishment of Kodrides in the city, Phocaea was admitted to the Ionian public and became one of the cities of the Ionian Dodecapolis [2]. The findings of ceramics show Aeolian presence in the area in the beginning of the ninth century BC. and Ionian presence in the late 9th century BC"

Go figure now...
+ something to consider(as an example Herodotus was such a mix ) https://i.postimg.cc/FFy5TfPp/Screenshot-25.jpg


As for dorians ,agreed..anything is possible although I don't believe in an "invasion" from a place any other than Greece , If you believe that there lies historical truth in mythology you can check the return of heraclids ,they'd be proto-"achaeans"(who themselves were an "aeolic" tribe basically).. ( these tribal names either describe geography or a clan's "patriarch" ..not something fundamentally different in the way some mean it today)

But what stops two people of the same ethnicity(forget "tribes")/different geography plotting different ?could be that one has preserved older strains and the other has assimilated others (or both having assimilated different ones)..and this can go in either direction meaning either those in north preserved such or they were the ones to have absorbed foreign elements at some point that those who splitted couldn't have shared..finally it could be that they were all "mycenaean" at any time/place indeed.. but in any case all we can do is theorize atm.

Something to add is that If any heterogeneity ever existed I wouldn't expect it to show up in "elites" either.
Check each line of Agamemnon's family tree (maybe you don't have to take it literally but symbolically again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon
But that's basically royal "inbreeding"..and it goes as far back

[SharpFork]

As for dorians ,agreed..anything is possible although I don't believe in an "invasion" from a place any other than Greece , If you believe that there lies historical truth in mythology you can check the return of heraclids ,they'd be proto-"achaeans"(who themselves were an "aeolic" tribe basically).. ( these tribal names either describe geography or a clan's "patriarch" ..not something fundamentally different in the way some mean it today)
I don't find Greek ethnography to be not too helpful, for me the Dorian invasion is rather more evident from a linguistic perspective and the only way to explain how weird Archaic and Classical Greek linguistic situation is. Also the Doric component is evident given how serious Greeks themselves considered it and how they could meaningfully distinguish between such groups centuries later.

Genetically I presume the original Dorians(Macedonians and neighbouring barbarians too) to be at most 20-30% Steppe vs the Mycenean 10-20%.

[Alenka]

EEF plus some small amount of steppe based on the PCA. There is a Central Euro-like outlier too but he is probably a Beaker migrant from the north. Let's wait until they are uploaded to G25.
Which modern-day populations would these BA Sicilians plot closest to?

[Dorian]

I don't find Greek ethnography to be not too helpful, for me the Dorian invasion is rather more evident from a linguistic perspective and the only way to explain how weird Archaic and Classical Greek linguistic situation is. Also the Doric component is evident given how serious Greeks themselves considered it and how they could meaningfully distinguish between such groups centuries later.

Genetically I presume the original Dorians(Macedonians and neighbouring barbarians too) to be at most 20-30% Steppe vs the Mycenean 10-20%.

There was linguistic difference ,that's a fact but the split/isolation that led to it doesn't have to be faraway.Early history+"prehistory" is full of gaps and there are various agendas going on atm.

1)They inhabited the lands where Achaeans also lived, with whom they coexisted peacefully, until the Trojan era.
2) From early on they were associated with Hercules and his descendants, the Heraclides, and became involved in dynastic conflicts between Achaic dynasties as allies of the Achaic Heraclides.
3) They are in no way linked to the importation of iron into Greece, the treatment of which was already in place since the mid-15th century BC. century. Iron artifacts dating from the Minoan era have been found.
4) They are barely associated with the destruction of the Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese, which were caused by the Sea People, but
were also the result of civil strife and dynasties collision, after the turmoil caused by the long war in Troy. Indicative is the legend of Agamemnon's assassination by his cousin Augustus and his wife for the throne.
5) Under no circumstances did the Dorians possess the big population, nor knowledge of martial arts to such extent that they could drown the Peloponnese in blood. The Dorian Spartans, for example, took 300 years to form a worthy state in Laconia,while being constantly defeated by the Dorian Argians.
6) With the exception of a battle they fought, as allies of the Heraclids against the Mycenaeans and their allies, other conflicts with the Achaean inhabitants of the Peloponnese are not mentioned.
7) They were not associated with the Messinian wars, which occurred almost three centuries after the descent of the Heraclides to the Peloponnese. Both the Spartans and the Messinians were Dorians.
8) They are not as closely associated as it's believed with the so-called Dark Ages (11th-8th century BC), which were not so dark, after all.

[SharpFork]

There was linguistic difference ,that's a fact but the split/isolation that led to it doesn't have to be faraway.Early history+"prehistory" is full of gaps and there are various agendas going on atm.

1)They inhabited the lands where Achaeans also lived, with whom they coexisted peacefully, until the Trojan era.
2) From early on they were associated with Hercules and his descendants, the Heraclides, and became involved in dynastic conflicts between Achaic dynasties as allies of the Achaic Heraclides.
3) They are in no way linked to the importation of iron into Greece, the treatment of which was already in place since the mid-15th century BC. century. Iron artifacts dating from the Minoan era have been found.
4) They are barely associated with the destruction of the Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese, which were caused by the Sea People, but
were also the result of civil strife and dynasties collision, after the turmoil caused by the long war in Troy. Indicative is the legend of Agamemnon's assassination by his cousin Augustus and his wife for the throne.
5) Under no circumstances did the Dorians possess the big population, nor knowledge of martial arts to such extent that they could drown the Peloponnese in blood. The Dorian Spartans, for example, took 300 years to form a worthy state in Laconia,while being constantly defeated by the Dorian Argians.
6) With the exception of a battle they fought, as allies of the Heraclids against the Mycenaeans and their allies, other conflicts with the Achaean inhabitants of the Peloponnese are not mentioned.
7) They were not associated with the Messinian wars, which occurred almost three centuries after the descent of the Heraclides to the Peloponnese. Both the Spartans and the Messinians were Dorians.
8) They are not as closely associated as it's believed with the so-called Dark Ages (11th-8th century BC), which were not so dark, after all.

Honestly you enganging in a lot of pointless speculation that is simply unwarranted, Greek ethnography is completely useless, the only thing we can say for sure is that there certain kind of tribal and ethnic identitites in the Archaic period and they arose from some kind of event that Greeks recorded through mythology, not factual history.

Also the attempt at distinguishing sea people and dorians seems ridiculous to me, how many freaking migrations happened during the same exact period? Also why are we talking about Troy when by all accounts such an invasion would have happened in the early Dark ages considering the social situation of Greece during the invasion according to Homer?

There was no non-meteoric iron before the Dark Ages:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/209248?seq=1

The connection between iron working and Dorians is supported by various scholars, you can't just pretend it away by using meteoric iron finds.

Your assumption that the Dorians could not overrun Greece is simply unfounded. The collapse of the Mycenean civilization is unlike anything that happened in Archaic Greece, showing political stability in the latter says nothing about what could have been possible transition event during the 12th century.

The Dark ages were incredibily dark simply because there was no writing at large and the population was evidently quite illiterate compared to later periods

Honestly not one single thing you said is true...

[Dorian]

Honestly you enganging in a lot of pointless speculation that is simply unwarranted, Greek ethnography is completely useless, the only thing we can say for sure is that there certain kind of tribal and ethnic identitites in the Archaic period and they arose from some kind of event that Greeks recorded through mythology, not factual history.

Also the attempt at distinguishing sea people and dorians seems ridiculous to me, how many freaking migrations happened during the same exact period? Also why are we talking about Troy when by all accounts such an invasion would have happened in the early Dark ages considering the social situation of Greece during the invasion according to Homer?

There was no non-meteoric iron before the Dark Ages:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/209248?seq=1

The connection between iron working and Dorians is supported by various scholars, you can't just pretend it away by using meteoric iron finds.

Your assumption that the Dorians could not overrun Greece is simply unfounded. The collapse of the Mycenean civilization is unlike anything that happened in Archaic Greece, showing political stability in the latter says nothing about what could have been possible transition event during the 12th century.

The Dark ages were incredibily dark simply because there was no writing at large and the population was evidently quite illiterate compared to later periods

Honestly not one single thing you said is true...


These are not my points ,it's a translated article.. I don't post them to convince either but as alternatives.
Most Sea Peoples are associated with other non-Dorian Greek tribes along with Anatolian ones.

Something else to translate (if you have google chrome -right click -automatic translation ,not perfect though) https://www.tovima.gr/2008/11/25/science/mykinaioi-oi-ippotes-toy-xalkoy/

"Certainly the Mycenaeans as militarists did not initially use writing for literature, but for recording their annuities which grew steadily. Having now cleared the field from the Minoans (finally cleared with them in 1365 BC), they took over both the Aegean trade and the aggressive expansion to the East. Their treasuries were quickly filled with gold and precious stones. Their armor was becoming more elaborate - their full-body armor was preceded by 2,500 years of the European Middle Ages - and their swords became truly chic. They decorated their palaces with epic frescoes - no longer Minoan-style peaceful scenes - and ... adopted Minoan baths. At this time, as new findings reveal to us, they had expanded to the north, building trade-controlled cities as far as the Danube (the Heraclids of Mythology). The reason may have been the 'amber road' to the Baltic, but most likely it was access to the Chalkidiki and Carpathian iron mines."

The secret of collapse

The first objection to classical "Dorian invasion" theory came from metallurgy scientists: Iron processing was not introduced by the north but by the East. The first to extensively cast iron ore on a large scale were the Hatti, east of present-day Ankara, and perhaps this was why they became target of Nasili (Hittite-Hittites). But cast iron is fragile and reliable iron swords were produced only shortly before 1200 BC. (just before the Hittites collapsed). Therefore the Dorians, although originally living in areas rich in iron ore, could not invade the Peloponnese equipped with such good quality weapons. After all, organized and wealthy Mycenaeans should have had the same or greater access to them.


The other major opposition came from perhaps the cleverest historian of the 20th century, the French Brudel (Braudel), in the 1960s. In his excellent book "The Mediterranean in the Ancient World" he put forward the theory that the collapse of so many powerful kingdoms in 30 years was the result of not "barbarian invasion" but ... climate change! A prolonged drought, coupled with earthquakes, has brought famine, migration and the collapse of these societies. This new theory was scrutinized in the following years and only a few years ago (with the publication of Elizabeth Griffiths, Michael Lignou and David Lucero of Columbia University in Science and Society -V1003, Fall 2005) was justified. Our distant ancestors have succumbed to the catastrophes of a climate change commensurate with what has just begun to unfold for us!


One more alternative..
https://anemourion.blogspot.com/2017/06/blog-post_947.html

[Token]

The Bronze Age Sicilians are in the Global25 datasheet. Can someone try Sicilians as Sicily_LBA + Mycenaean/Empuries2?

[Dick]

The Bronze Age Sicilians are in the Global25 datasheet. Can someone try Sicilians as Sicily_LBA + Mycenaean/Empuries2?

Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 4.8073% / 0.04807326
55.2 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
44.8 GRC_Mycenaean

Target: Sicilian_West
Distance: 5.7130% / 0.05712950
56.0 GRC_Mycenaean
44.0 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2

[Cumansky]

Bronze Age Sicilians looked nothing like present-day Sicilians???

[Cumansky]

Modern Sicilians

Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 1.8036% / 0.01803563
67.8 PHOENICIAN:Lebanese_Druze
27.0 NORTH-SEA:Scottish
3.4 INDIAN:Indian_Paniya
1.6 AFRICAN-NOMADIC:Fulani
0.2 NORTH-CENTRAL-AFRICAN:Sudanese

Target: Sicilian_West
Distance: 1.8126% / 0.01812620
61.0 PHOENICIAN:Lebanese_Druze
29.8 NORTH-SEA:Scottish
5.6 AFRICAN-NOMADIC:Fulani
3.4 INDIAN:Indian_Paniya
0.2 POLYNESIAN:Hawaiian

ITA_Sicily_LBA

Target: ITA_Sicily_LBA
Distance: 5.1341% / 0.05134069
66.8 PHOENICIAN:Lebanese_Druze
19.4 NORTH-SEA:Scottish
6.2 INDIAN:Indian_Paniya
6.0 AFRICAN-NOMADIC:Fulani
1.6 CHINESE:Han_NChina

[Cumansky]

???

[-Scar-]

I think it is now clear that Sicilians are mostly Hellenic.

Old Greek only controlled the eastern coast. This study suggest no extreme shift of ancient Sicilians after the Greek colonisation, they were probably genetically similar with Hellenes to a large before the colonization occured.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23937

[-Scar-]

Old Greek only controlled the eastern coast. This study suggest no extreme shift of ancient Sicilians after the Greek colonisation, they were probably genetically similar with Hellenes to a large before the colonization occured.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23937

Old Greeks*
genetically similiar to*
Cannot edit my post, terrible server.

[JamesBond007]

EEF plus some small amount of steppe based on the PCA. There is a Central Euro-like outlier too but he is probably a Beaker migrant from the north. Let's wait until they are uploaded to G25.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsh4SvPdfl8

[SharpFork]

The Bronze Age Sicilians are in the Global25 datasheet. Can someone try Sicilians as Sicily_LBA + Mycenaean/Empuries2?
95897
It is a lot of Greek admixture but it still required 1/6 to 1/4 Levantine ancenstry. The thing is though that using any other Iron age Italic sampels removes all native Sicilian admixture, not sure why exactly.



Old Greek only controlled the eastern coast. This study suggest no extreme shift of ancient Sicilians after the Greek colonisation, they were probably genetically similar with Hellenes to a large before the colonization occured.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23937

No autosomal DNA ---> 100% Useless

95898(different image from the one above)

They don't look Greek like at all, more like Sardinia like.

[-Scar-]

95897
It is a lot of Greek admixture but it still required 1/6 to 1/4 Levantine ancenstry. The thing is though that using any other Iron age Italic sampels removes all native Sicilian admixture, not sure why exactly.




No autosomal DNA ---> 100% Useless

95898(different image from the one above)

They don't look Greek like at all, more like Sardinia like.

I am sorry it was hard to follow the PCA shown in the OP. I held the belief that old Sicilians were Greek-like genetically before the colonisation and that they were still very heavily colonised by Greeks guees that was wrong.

[-Scar-]

95897
It is a lot of Greek admixture but it still required 1/6 to 1/4 Levantine ancenstry. The thing is though that using any other Iron age Italic sampels removes all native Sicilian admixture, not sure why exactly.




No autosomal DNA ---> 100% Useless

95898(different image from the one above)

They don't look Greek like at all, more like Sardinia like.

Yeah how old those samples are? One of them is 2200BC that is 1400 years before the Greek colonization. How do we know nothing happend during those years?
The iron age 'Italians/Romans' who lived outsides of Greek colonies/regions seems to come out as ''Greek-like genetically''. I highly doubt if Sicilians were that different.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/11/06/366.6466.708.DC1/aay6826_Antonio_SM.pdf

[sailormoon]

Sardinians are well described as an isolated remnant of Europe’s first farmers. Bronze Age Sardinians mostly carried Y-haplogroup R1b1a [xR1b1a1a], which is different from R1b1a1a2a1a2 (Z195) associated with Steppe ancestry, while one outlier individual I10553 (1226-1056 calBCE) carried Y-haplogroup J2b2a. Modern Sardinians can be modeled as harboring 10.0 ± 1.6% Steppe ancestry and a larger 19.1 ± 1.9% Iranian-related ancestry that arrived in Europe after the Neolithic. In Sardinia, Steppe ancestry can be detect by ~200-700 CE.



Most Sardinians buried in a Nuragic Bronze Age context possessed uniparental haplogroups found in European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, including Y-haplogroup R1b1a[xR1b1a1a] which is different from the characteristic R1b1a1a2a1a2 spread in association with the Bell Beaker complex4.

An exception is individual I10553 (1226-1056 calBCE) who carried Y-haplogroup J2b2a (Online Table1), previously observed in a Croatian Middle Bronze Age individual bearing Steppe ancestry44, suggesting the possibility of genetic input from groups that arrived from the east after the spread of first farmers.

This is consistent with the evidence of material culture exchange between Sardinians and mainland Mediterranean groups15, although genome-wide analyses find no significant evidence of Steppe ancestry so the quantitative demographic impact was minimal. qpAdm modeling of the ancestry of the Sardinia_Nuragic_BA10365 outlier with respect to sources potentially more closely related in space and time does infer some ancestry in this individual from an eastern source (either carrying Steppe ancestry or Iranian-related ancestry) that we do not detect by modeling with sources more distant in space and time, consistent with the hypothesis of eastern influence (Supplementary Table 12).

[Voskos]

Which modern-day populations would these BA Sicilians plot closest to?

Distance to: ITA_Sicily_MBA
0.01924988 Sardinian
0.03552101 French_Corsica
0.04147651 Italian_Lazio
0.04176484 Italian_Umbria
0.04211118 Italian_Bergamo
0.04224740 Italian_Calabria
0.04249322 Italian_Apulia
0.04251853 Italian_Campania
0.04268797 Italian_Basilicata
0.04272396 Italian_Tuscany
0.04300282 Sicilian_West
0.04307280 Italian_Lombardy
0.04321497 Sicilian_East
0.04331625 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04341094 Italian_Molise
0.04362336 Spanish_Menorca
0.04392096 Italian_Piedmont
0.04403462 Italian_Marche
0.04404258 Greek_Peloponnese
0.04430525 Spanish_Murcia
0.04466721 Maltese
0.04482037 Italian_Veneto
0.04485287 Spanish_La_Rioja
0.04504649 Spanish_Baleares
0.04520366 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige

Distance to: ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.02494790 Sardinian
0.03087979 French_Corsica
0.03525464 Italian_Lombardy
0.03613030 Italian_Bergamo
0.03639616 Italian_Apulia
0.03668117 Sicilian_East
0.03669981 Italian_Lazio
0.03687049 Italian_Calabria
0.03693789 Sicilian_West
0.03723637 Italian_Campania
0.03742870 Italian_Umbria
0.03757434 Italian_Abruzzo
0.03778406 Italian_Tuscany
0.03784156 Spanish_Menorca
0.03793956 Italian_Basilicata
0.03798611 Italian_Marche
0.03820366 Italian_Piedmont
0.03825229 Italian_Liguria
0.03863335 Italian_Molise
0.03898714 Maltese
0.03898934 Spanish_Murcia
0.03936252 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.03960288 Italian_Jew
0.03962473 Greek_Thessaly
0.03985933 Italian_Veneto

Distance to: ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.01980522 Sardinian
0.02420679 French_Corsica
0.03022018 Italian_Bergamo
0.03073469 Spanish_Murcia
0.03113501 Spanish_Menorca
0.03136961 Spanish_Pirineu
0.03167288 Italian_Lombardy
0.03223641 Spanish_Baleares
0.03237262 Spanish_Castello
0.03255104 Italian_Tuscany
0.03257106 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre
0.03259946 Italian_Umbria
0.03280685 Italian_Piedmont
0.03291548 Italian_Lazio
0.03307240 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.03313212 Spanish_Andalucia
0.03314966 Spanish_Peri-Barcelona
0.03319159 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
0.03324355 Spanish_La_Rioja
0.03324429 Spanish_Valencia
0.03329166 Italian_Veneto
0.03336730 Spanish_Mallorca
0.03351554 Spanish_Cantabria
0.03357218 Spanish_Extremadura
0.03366212 Spanish_Eivissa