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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleenex

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sikeliot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleenex

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.

Is possible differ phoenician from neolithic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sikeliot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybernautic

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sikeliot

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.

Quote:

---

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.