Based on this chart, which Sicilian cluster is most/least "native" and unaffected by foreign input?

[Sikeliot]

Yellow = Caucasus (CHG)
Green = Sardinian (EEF)
Red = Natufian
Blue = European (WHG)

From left to right:

- Lecce, Apulia
- Matera, Lucania
- Cosenza, Calabria
- Reggio Calabria, Calabria
- South Italian mainland average #1
- Catania, Sicily
- Ragusa, Sicily
- Enna, Sicily
- Agrigento, Sicily
- Palermo, Sicily
- Trapani, Sicily
- South Italian mainland average #2
- South Italian mainland average #3
- Crete
- Dodecanese islands





And here are the averages, also compared to Greece and Albania:

[JMack]

The ones with more Sardinian + minor Natufian are probably the most ''pure''. But it's difficult to say it, because these populations have been stabilized in what they are now for such a long time. Which component arrived first? I think Sardinian-like, probably.

[Sikeliot]

The ones with more Sardinian + minor Natufian are probably the most ''pure''. But it's difficult to say it, because these populations have been stabilized in what they are now for such a long time. Which component arrived first? I think Sardinian-like, probably.

Of the Sicilian samples, what do you notice?

I notice that the Natufian component seems higher in Palermo and Agrigento rather than Enna and Ragusa, and Enna has higher Caucasian. The Palermo set, despite people's belief that they have high Norman, has the least "European". Trapani has the most, but I think if we had Syracuse in there, it'd surpass them.

I also notice the Natufian element is lower in mainland southern Italy (except Reggio Calabria) and lower in the Greek islands (though Caucasian is higher there as is the European).

[JMack]

Of the Sicilian samples, what do you notice?
I also notice the Natufian element is lower in mainland southern Italy (except Reggio Calabria) and lower in the Greek islands (though Caucasian is higher there as is the European).

Yes. Why do you think so? I still think these regions with more neolithic and natufian were more isolated in the past, that's the reason they maintained this configuration. I cannot figure out how some few invaders would shift an entire genetic pool so quick.

And do you think Syracuse would be more Euro-shifted due to proper mainland Greek ancestry, right?

[Sikeliot]

Yes. Why do you think so? I still think these regions with more neolithic and natufian were more isolated in the past, that's the reason they maintained this configuration. I cannot figure out how some few invaders would shift an entire genetic pool so quick.

And do you think Syracuse would be more Euro-shifted due to proper mainland Greek ancestry, right?

Yes, exactly.

I notice though the Palermo sample has high Caucasian like Enna, but high Natufian like Agrigento, and some of them have almost none of the blue "European" component. The same is true for Catania. I suspect this is a region that accumulated more Middle Eastern input and received almost no Norman.

The interesting bit is, the Apulia sample from Lecce appears to be the one most similar to the Cretans and Dodecanese, NOT the Sicilians/Calabrese despite my expectation otherwise.

[Sikeliot]

As far as the "native" ness of different parts of Sicily, this is my take based on history and my impression of genetics, so I would like to know the opinions of other knowledgeable people -- some Greek posters, Principe Azzurro, Ouroboros, etc.

We'll start with the obvious.

1. Southeast Sicily -- Syracuse, Ragusa and likely that southern inland part of Catania -- have a lot of Greek ancestry which is evident in their IBD sharing/cousin matches on GEDmatch, their GEDmatch results. Compared to the rest of the island, they shift toward Northern Europe -- sometimes even Russia. Very clearly, this ancestry was carried there by Greeks, so it would be very unlikely for this part of the island to be the least mixed. In fact, any map of Magna Grecia shows this to be the most heavily colonized region. It also resisted Carthaginian and Phoenician conquest, and was one of the last areas to be Arabized.





2. Agrigento, Caltanissetta, and Palermo: these regions consistently produce results with an elevated -- though still minority -- North African element, as well as generally being shifted more toward the Levant, different Jewish groups, and so on. The northwest part of Sicily, the Partinico/Cinisi/Trappeto area seems to have elevated North African in particular. Agrigento in particular has a high amount of y-dna lines that are Near Eastern, as does Caltanissetta. This makes sense due to proximity to North Africa as well as their shared history with Malta, longest retention of Siculo-Arabic language, and highest number of Siculo-Arabic surnames. These were also the areas of highest Punic influence. Therefore, it is clear to me that no matter what you attribute it to, these areas are not the most purely Sicilian.

3. Trapani -- they have elevated Near Eastern input and North African as well as being shifted toward Western Europe. It is likely that there was significant repopulation from the Italian mainland, as well as small Norman input, after the Crusades on top of a heavily Near Eastern base.

4. The only area this leaves, to me, is Messina or Enna be the most unmixed/have the highest retention of native Sicilian ancestry, though even then I question it because there are clearly parts of Messina which have elevated Near Eastern input and despite that it does not show autosomally, some of their y-dna lines are Greek. Meanwhile, there are Lombard towns in Enna, where Lombard is still spoken, and a lot of the east coast's Greeks fled there to escape Arabization. Also, Catania does seem to show some Near Eastern input, too.

My guess is it is the inland part of Messina and the non-Lombard population of Enna who have the highest retention of native Sicilian ancestry.

[Bobby Martnen]

What interests me is that all the various provinces are fairly evenly mixed within themselves (as opposed to compared to other provinces). Compare this to African Americans or Hispanics, where you'll see huge difference in admixture percentages.

It's a sign that this admixture happened a very long time ago, probably starting in Classical antiquity and ending in about 1300 AD.