PDA

View Full Version : Population history of southern Italy during Greek colonization



Pax Augusta
17-12-19, 01:09
Population history of southern Italy during Greek colonization inferred from dental remains


First published: 21 October 2019
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23937


Abstract

Objectives

We are testing competing scenarios regarding the population history of the ancient Greek colonization of southern Italy using dental phenotypic evidence.

Materials and Methods

We collected dental metric and nonmetric trait data for 481 human skeletons from six archaeological sites along the Gulf of Taranto, dating to pre‐colonial (900–700 BC) and post‐colonial periods (700–200 BC). We are evaluating scenarios through an individual‐level biodistance analysis using a three‐pronged approach: (a) by analyzing levels of mobility in pre‐ and post‐colonial periods under a model of isolation‐by‐distance; (b) by quantifying differences in group means and variances in pre‐ and post‐colonial periods utilizing permutational multivariate analysis of variance and Betadisper analyses; and (c) by identifying ancestries of post‐colonial individuals using naïve Bayes classification.

Results

Southern Italy during pre‐colonial times was characterized by low levels of mobility and marked differences in group means and variances. During post‐colonial times, mobility increased and there were no differences in group means and variances. About 18% of the people in post‐colonial times were of Greek ancestry and lived equally distributed across Greek colonies and indigenous villages. Nevertheless, the overall biological composition and variability of southern Italy remained relatively unchanged across pre‐ and post‐colonial periods.

Discussion

Our results support a scenario in which only few Greek colonists migrated to southern Italy and lived in smaller numbers alongside indigenous people in Greek colonies as well as in indigenous villages. Our results contradict a scenario in which large numbers of Greek invaders founded biologically isolated and substantially homogeneous colonial enclaves within conquered territories.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23937 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23937)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/attachment/88adbab2-f6cc-4839-b0d5-8ee384648610/ajpa23937-fig-0001-m.jpg

Jovialis
17-12-19, 02:43
Very interesting, so the indigenous Southern Italians were just Greek-like, and not actually heavily impacted by Greek colonists. Who this paper says had a marginal, but respectable influence on the local population.

Angela
17-12-19, 04:56
Maybe actual genetic analysis will show that was the case. I don't know.

What I do know is that I'm not going to base a conclusion like that on anthropologists examining teeth.

Also, the only way to be sure who is "indigenous" versus a migrant is to have isotope data from a couple of generations in the same spot, because the children of migrants raised in a new land are going to present as "natives".

This paper is by no stretch of the imagination of the caliber of the paper on the Langobards to which Patrick Geary contributed.

What I did find interesting is that the pre-colonial area was so heterogeneous. Had the steppe admixed "Italics" not mingled as of yet in certain areas with the prior Neolithic inhabitants and did so only under the pressure of a new migration?

bigsnake49
19-12-19, 21:57
I would be interesting to do a comparison between the smaller Greek colonies and the larger ones, i.e Syracuse, Taranto, etc as far as genetic influence on the local populations. Also Ancient Greek colonization vs medieval and post medieval migrations.

Couldn't they extract DNA from the teeth?

Salento
19-12-19, 23:01
Sorry :) :) :-)

bigsnake49
20-12-19, 02:00
The geography of Southern Italy and especially this part of Italy has made difficult/nearly impossible any global mixing as described by some people.

What would be interesting is to have samples from Sybaris, Crotone and Calabria Ultra.

If you take samples from Sybaris you might want to compare them with Terranova di Sibari which is where the Sibari moved when the pirates came calling. It's where my wife's grandmother came from.

ihype02
23-01-20, 13:56
Very interesting, so the indigenous Southern Italians were just Greek-like, and not actually heavily impacted by Greek colonists. Who this paper says had a marginal, but respectable influence on the local population.
Those two statements are not necessarily contradictory, indigenous Southern Italians might have been Greek-like before the colonization and still be heavily impacted by Greek colonists after.

Jovialis
23-01-20, 14:54
That is a possible scenario as well. I hope the upcoming paper by the Reich Lab will help resolve this

Bucket
10-02-20, 13:34
How can we claim Southern Italian Italic peoples were Greek like in light of the Latin and Etruscan samples? Seems a stretch to say that considering the heavy impact of the late Republican period and early imperial period.

Maybe there was more Eastern admixture but do we have autosomal results that support that to begin with?

Jovialis
10-02-20, 17:29
How can we claim Southern Italian Italic peoples were Greek like in light of the Latin and Etruscan samples? Seems a stretch to say that considering the heavy impact of the late Republican period and early imperial period.

Maybe there was more Eastern admixture but do we have autosomal results that support that to begin with?

Iron age and Medieval samples; modern samples overlap. They seem pretty consistent, in staying roughly in the same place. Especially when Southern Italians are mostly similar to R437, a Latin.

https://i.imgur.com/5rT1g8u.png

Why more Eastern? The majority of the samples in the Imperial era were Greek/Cretan-like. The Near Eastern-tail, vanished from the cities after the fall of Rome.

FYI, I have had correspondence with Hannah Moots, and she believes R850 was Greek-like.

bigsnake49
10-02-20, 17:48
How can we claim Southern Italian Italic peoples were Greek like in light of the Latin and Etruscan samples? Seems a stretch to say that considering the heavy impact of the late Republican period and early imperial period.

Maybe there was more Eastern admixture but do we have autosomal results that support that to begin with?

The Latin and Etruscan samples have nothing to do with Southern Italy. Now we do need a study that concentrated on southern Italy both on the interior and close to the Greek colonies.

Jovialis
10-02-20, 17:54
We do need to get samples from a study specifically about southern Italy. Nevertheless, Southern Italians, from what I've seen do in fact have an affinity to R437-to-R850. I speculate we will get better fits, with future samples.

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

https://i.imgur.com/HDfuGJ4.png

torzio
10-02-20, 18:26
Iron age and Medieval samples; modern samples overlap. They seem pretty consistent, in staying roughly in the same place. Especially when Southern Italians are mostly similar to R437, a Latin.

https://i.imgur.com/5rT1g8u.png

Why more Eastern? The majority of the samples in the Imperial era were Greek/Cretan-like. The Near Eastern-tail, vanished from the cities after the fall of Rome.

FYI, I have had correspondence with Hannah Moots, and she believes R850 was Greek-like.


our pca match
but I have more samples added

https://i.postimg.cc/RZD6x1KQ/pca-feb2020.png (https://postimages.org/)

Bucket
11-02-20, 03:42
Iron age and Medieval samples; modern samples overlap. They seem pretty consistent, in staying roughly in the same place. Especially when Southern Italians are mostly similar to R437, a Latin.
I'm a bit out of the loop, where and when are those samples from? I thought we didn't have autosomal results from the remains found there?



Why more Eastern? The majority of the samples in the Imperial era were Greek/Cretan-like. The Near Eastern-tail, vanished from the cities after the fall of Rome.

FYI, I have had correspondence with Hannah Moots, and she believes R850 was Greek-like.
Eastern relative to Italy, between not-so-distant Myceneans, Anatolians and Levantines I think you are going to have an harder time distinguishing between a big Greek-like admixture or a minor Lebanese like one, not with the little evidence we have right one.


The Latin and Etruscan samples have nothing to do with Southern Italy. Now we do need a study that concentrated on southern Italy both on the interior and close to the Greek colonies.
How do they have *nothing* to do with Latins? Italic languages which have evident recent kinship have been spoken as far south as Calabria and *maybe* there were Italic speakers in Sicily too.

Angela
11-02-20, 05:22
There you go again.

Italic languages spread from north to south. Like most migrations from the north I think it's a good bet that by the time you reach the toe of the peninsula and Sicily the percentage of total dna from the "Italic" newcomers is smaller. Look at Sicily Beaker.



Distance to:
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily


17.75790528
Morocco_Jews


18.68690451
Sephardic_Jews


20.97808233
Italy_Calabria


21.34804441
Ashkenazi


21.53729198
Italy_Campania


22.10654428
Ashkenazy_Jews


22.14209035
Italy_Sicily


23.06039410
France_Corsica


23.21633691
Italy_Abruzzo


24.42997540
Italy_Marche


24.76014943
Greek_Crete


25.52503884
Italy_Apulia


25.78033095
Italy_Lazio


26.09522945
Greek


26.45275033
Italy_Romagna


27.37371002
Cypriots


27.69570021
Italy_Tuscany


28.93280683
Italy_Emilia


29.16867275
Italy_Liguria


29.84378662
Greek_Cappadocia


31.19259556
Italy_Lombardy


31.21225240
Nusayri_Turkey


32.33615314
Crimean_Tatar_Coast


32.69854890
Italy_Piedmont


32.70471526
Albanian_Kosovo



We have to wait for Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Southern Italy, but could they be completely different?

So, we have to figure out what the Southern Italians after the arrival of the Italic speakers looked like autosomally. After that we can see, hopefully, with samples from both Greek settlement areas on the coasts versus the interior how much of an effect they had.

As for the Latins of the area around Rome, they, like the Etruscans, mostly land in a sort of no man's land between Spain and Northern Italy. There are two exceptions: R437 and R850. Both of them were modeled by the authors. R850 is Crete like. Didn't you read the paper?

So, either there were "Greek like" or "island Greek like" people in the Center who weren't yet absorbed by the "Italics", or, imo, the likeliest scenario is that this "Greek like" ancestry was moving north up the peninsula already by Republican times. It could have come directly from Greece or Anatolia, of course, or both might be true; we'll have to see. The "new" ancestry in these Latins didn't come from the Levant.

Now, there were Levant like samples in Rome in the Imperial period. That "Levantine tail" disappeared after the fall of Rome. That makes total sense. Rome was no longer the prosperous metropolis attracting merchants from all over the world that it once was. The wealth had shifted to Constantinople.

What Antonio et al failed to incorporate into their thinking is the fact that you can't assume that every body buried in an international metropolis belongs to locals or even to people who decided to stay and settle and whose progeny mixed with that of the locals.

I'm sure some did. I'm equally sure some did not. I doubt that all the the Northern European samples we find in their set stayed and became ancestors of the Romans of the Medieval period. Why assume that all the Levantines did?

One also has to factor in the incredible de-population suffered by the citizens of the large urban centers with the Germanic invasions through war itself, but also through disease and starvation. Then the Gothic War which was as bad if not worse. Country people always survive better, and the people who lived in the mountains. I grew up on stories of the people of La Spezia being bombed to smithereens and burned, or strafed as they fled the city, only to fall prey to hunger and disease. The canny country people had carved out half the hillsides for food storage to save it from both the Germans and the partisans, to be honest.

That ancient period in Italy must have been like hell on earth.

Bucket
11-02-20, 07:51
There you go again.

Italic languages spread from north to south. Like most migrations from the north I think it's a good bet that by the time you reach the toe of the peninsula and Sicily the percentage of total dna from the "Italic" newcomers is smaller. Look at Sicily Beaker.
Thanks!

That's true but for Southern Italians to have been Greek like there must have been some hard genetic border in the middle of Italic Italy, otherwise how do you reconcile Southern Italic being like to 13-14% Steppe Mycenean Greek and not 25% Steppe Latins?



We have to wait for Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Southern Italy, but could they be completely different?
Weren't Copper Age and early Bronze age Latins Sardinia-like?
On the nMonte Runner by Poi the main Bell Beaker samples from Italy are like 30% Steppe, which is incredibly high
Are they the same as the one from Sicily? Doesn't seem so.


As for the Latins of the area around Rome, they, like the Etruscans, mostly land in a sort of no man's land between Spain and Northern Italy. There are two exceptions: R437 and R850. Both of them were modeled by the authors. R850 is Crete like. Didn't you read the paper?
I didn't directly read the Roman paper, but now I get what you mean, I just was confused where the samples came from.


So, either there were "Greek like" or "island Greek like" people in the Center who weren't yet absorbed by the "Italics", or, imo, the likeliest scenario is that this "Greek like" ancestry was moving north up the peninsula already by Republican times. It could have come directly from Greece or Anatolia, of course, or both might be true; we'll have to see. The "new" ancestry in these Latins didn't come from the Levant.
Depends on the exact dating, R850 is too early and would have during the kingdom period, it's most likely a Greek migrant, which we know have existed as a minority considering the general orientalizing period and evidence of Greek influence in the region(don't trust me on that though, it's just what I remember). The site where the remains where was afterall Ardea which is coastal, was it even under Roman jurisdiction?

Palestrina Selciata, the site of R437(which is from 400-200 BCE) is inland, so it could be indeed good starting evidence of more regular intermingling, but the 200 years time gap is just too much, we can't say or even theorize if it was international migration, enslavement or already internal Roman migration.


Now, there were Levant like samples in Rome in the Imperial period. That "Levantine tail" disappeared after the fall of Rome. That makes total sense. Rome was no longer the prosperous metropolis attracting merchants from all over the world that it once was. The wealth had shifted to Constantinople.
My theory is that continental slavery must have played a role as well, afterall within the city of Rome slaves were more prominent and freemen less AFAIK.


What Antonio et al failed to incorporate into their thinking is the fact that you can't assume that every body buried in an international metropolis belongs to locals or even to people who decided to stay and settle and whose progeny mixed with that of the locals.
I agree, though there must have been an impact in rural lands as well, the slave rebellions, displacement of the proletari and plantations show that a genetic shift through movement of slaves could have played a role outside the cities too, although not so much as to make Italians Levant-like.

I think the peninsular population at large couldn't have almost East Anatolian or Levantine especially considering that the northern Italian, Gallic or Germanic input needed to offset the East Med influence would have so big that we would either be speaking of a fully Gallo-Italian speaking peninsular Italy or even Germanic and obvious neither happened nor was close to happening.
Plus the existence of the Papal states, Venice and Byzantine holdings shows that such a replacement would have been unlikely, even areas completely lost by the Byzantines in the Balkans had at most like 50% Slavic input, Germanic paternal markers also don't show that.


I'm sure some did. I'm equally sure some did not. I doubt that all the the Northern European samples we find in their set stayed and became ancestors of the Romans of the Medieval period. Why assume that all the Levantines did?
The Germanic-like samples probably did but they need not have been that many and like you said before already admixed with Italians as they got to the South.


That ancient period in Italy must have been like hell on earth.
It was a bad time for Europe as whole, the climated in the early 6th century was bad, people underestimate the effect of climate on the lives of pre-modern people, the Pax Romana would have been hard to maintain under the sort of climatic regime of the 6th century, it's not all political stability or political peace.

Angela
11-02-20, 17:32
^^

Briefly, if you had read the paper carefully instead of just pulling out the dates of R437 and R850 you would know that other than the Parma Beakers we don't have Bronze Age samples from northern and southern Italy. Hopefully some will be published, but the number will be limited because some of the groups burned their dead.

As to the Parma Beakers, one had a lot of steppe, one had almost none, and one was in the middle. So, you are misinformed.

That is indeed different from Sicily, which is precisely my point.

Given the dearth of U-106 and I1 in Italy a substantial "Germanic" input in us is, imo, impossible, and in most of the south didn't exist at all, unless you want to consider Sicily, where you might have a little input in a small area. As for the Gauls, all the evidence suggests it was not in any way a "replacement". Plus, the Gauls migrated into Italy before the Empire.

We've known that there's a break in the Italian genetic cline just south of Rome for years and years, at least since the time of Novembre et al, and there was no wall, just rule by different entities. I'll decide whether I think there was a break in the cline at the time of the Republic when I see some samples from Bronze and Iron Age Southern Italy. IF there is a difference in ancestry at that time it was not because of the slavery practiced during the Empire.

I'm quite aware that the Germanics poured into the Empire because they were terrified of the Huns and fleeing from them, and that they were also experiencing hunger etc. The Goths had the sense to leave some of the infrastructure in place and leave Italians to run things, but the Gothic War resulted in mass destruction, famine, and disease. Then the Langobards, illiterate, completely unused to Roman civilization, moved in and destroyed the rest. There is no comparison. Italy was a wasteland.

Joey37
11-02-20, 18:27
Sicily stayed Byzantine until the traitor Euphemius handed it over to the Arabs. Then the Normans came, and left some R-U106 and I1 while completing the Latinization of the island, which had formerly been majority Greek speaking.

torzio
11-02-20, 18:51
Sicily stayed Byzantine until the traitor Euphemius handed it over to the Arabs. Then the Normans came, and left some R-U106 and I1 while completing the Latinization of the island, which had formerly been majority Greek speaking.

I believe R-U106 and I1 came to south Italy via the Lombards.........normans would be a mix of danish ( vikings) and french markers through english markers and then to southern italy .......and IIRC some parts of albania

torzio
11-02-20, 18:53
^^

Briefly, if you had read the paper carefully instead of just pulling out the dates of R437 and R850 you would know that other than the Parma Beakers we don't have Bronze Age samples from northern and southern Italy. Hopefully some will be published, but the number will be limited because some of the groups burned their dead.

As to the Parma Beakers, one had a lot of steppe, one had almost none, and one was in the middle. So, you are misinformed.

That is indeed different from Sicily, which is precisely my point.

Given the dearth of U-106 and I1 in Italy a substantial "Germanic" input in us is, imo, impossible, and in most of the south didn't exist at all, unless you want to consider Sicily, where you might have a little input in a small area. As for the Gauls, all the evidence suggests it was not in any way a "replacement". Plus, the Gauls migrated into Italy before the Empire.

We've known that there's a break in the Italian genetic cline just south of Rome for years and years, at least since the time of Novembre et al, and there was no wall, just rule by different entities. I'll decide whether I think there was a break in the cline at the time of the Republic when I see some samples from Bronze and Iron Age Southern Italy. IF there is a difference in ancestry at that time it was not because of the slavery practiced during the Empire.

I'm quite aware that the Germanics poured into the Empire because they were terrified of the Huns and fleeing from them, and that they were also experiencing hunger etc. The Goths had the sense to leave some of the infrastructure in place and leave Italians to run things, but the Gothic War resulted in mass destruction, famine, and disease. Then the Langobards, illiterate, completely unused to Roman civilization, moved in and destroyed the rest. There is no comparison. Italy was a wasteland.

there is still some ostrogoth in italy especially their capital of ravenna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogothic_Ravenna


and this style
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Gothic_architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogothic_Ravenna)

Bucket
11-02-20, 21:54
^^

Briefly, if you had read the paper carefully instead of just pulling out the dates of R437 and R850 you would know that other than the Parma Beakers we don't have Bronze Age samples from northern and southern Italy. Hopefully some will be published, but the number will be limited because some of the groups burned their dead.

The information I missed wans't even the point of the study and would have been a detail I would have forgotten regardless.


As to the Parma Beakers, one had a lot of steppe, one had almost none, and one was in the middle. So, you are misinformed.
I see, I only see average through the nMonte runner.


Given the dearth of U-106 and I1 in Italy a substantial "Germanic" input in us is, imo, impossible, and in most of the south didn't exist at all, unless you want to consider Sicily, where you might have a little input in a small area. As for the Gauls, all the evidence suggests it was not in any way a "replacement". Plus, the Gauls migrated into Italy before the Empire.
Yes that's what I said.
"Substantial" depends on what you mean by that but obviously it was not more than what some people would call elite replacement(which is also vague, but let's say at the most 10%)


We've known that there's a break in the Italian genetic cline just south of Rome for years and years, at least since the time of Novembre et al, and there was no wall, just rule by different entities. I'll decide whether I think there was a break in the cline at the time of the Republic when I see some samples from Bronze and Iron Age Southern Italy. IF there is a difference in ancestry at that time it was not because of the slavery practiced during the Empire.
What do you mean by break? I thought the peninsula has generally a quite drastic cline to begin with.


I'm quite aware that the Germanics poured into the Empire because they were terrified of the Huns and fleeing from them, and that they were also experiencing hunger etc. The Goths had the sense to leave some of the infrastructure in place and leave Italians to run things, but the Gothic War resulted in mass destruction, famine, and disease. Then the Langobards, illiterate, completely unused to Roman civilization, moved in and destroyed the rest. There is no comparison. Italy was a wasteland.
The Lombards are not responsible for the Byzantine-Gothic war, climate(Late Antique ice age) and plague decimating Roman population and cities before they even entered.
Maybe they mismanaged Rome's Italian ruins, but so did the Western empire mismanage itself in the last century of its life and the Lombards were in an even worse situation with the spread of Islam and Islamic raiding on top of the problem region they inherited already. On top of that their internal faidas in division was also not simply a feature of their culture but also brought by Byzantine interference.

ihype02
05-03-20, 00:10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily
When Ravenna fell to the Lombards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards) in the middle of the 6th century, Syracuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse,_Sicily) became Byzantium's main western outpost. Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) was gradually supplanted by Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) as the national language and the Greek rites of the Eastern Church were adopted.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily#cite_note-12)


It turns out a large propotion of Sicily was Latinised in the late antiquity and early Dark Ages and the Greek language made a comeback through the Eastern Roman Empire.
Any opinion?

Angela
05-03-20, 01:41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily
When Ravenna fell to the Lombards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards) in the middle of the 6th century, Syracuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse,_Sicily) became Byzantium's main western outpost. Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) was gradually supplanted by Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) as the national language and the Greek rites of the Eastern Church were adopted.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily#cite_note-12)


It turns out a large propotion of Sicily was Latinised in the late antiquity and early Dark Ages and the Greek language made a comeback through the Eastern Roman Empire.
Any opinion?

Your conclusion doesn't flow from the quoted material, imo. Yes, Sicily was "Latinized", but most of that occurred in the early Middle Ages once the Saracens were removed from power and then when the rulers heavily promoted migration from Lombardia, Piemonte, Liguria etc. because fields were lying fallow after the expulsion of the Muslims. Also, as westerners, the rulers weren't happy about the Greek Catholicism practised on the island.

As to the proportions of Greek speaking versus Latin speaking Sicilians at various points in Sicily's history I've never seen figures which I think are hard and fast. Did "all" Sicilians who spoke Greek switch to Latin once Rome incorporated them, and then switch back to Byzantine Greek when they were part of the Byzantine Empire? I don't know. I doubt anyone does. What I know is that at the court of Frederick II, they still spoke Greek, Arabic, a Latin based "volgare", and probably some spoke French and German.

How much genetic change took place at each stage is another unknown in my opinion. We've been discussing the situation on the thread on the genetic changes which took place in the islands of the western Mediterranean. The Reich Lab paper uses a source for later Sicilians which is half Moroccan Late Neolithic. However, that population was half EEF like, probably from Spain. Do they have a sample of the Saracens from the invasion period which shows that type of population was still around? I don't know, but they didn't produce it.

Plus, the amount of actual North Africa specific ancestry in their models of modern Sicilians show extremely small percentages, so where does that leave us? How close were the Greek colonists of Magna Graecia genetically to the people of Sicily when they arrived? I don't know, because we have no specific samples of those Greek colonists. Also, to my knowledge there is no evidence of large scale folk movement from the East to Sicily during the Byzantine period. If such evidence shows up, then fine.

Palermo Trapani
05-03-20, 02:50
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily
When Ravenna fell to the Lombards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards) in the middle of the 6th century, Syracuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse,_Sicily) became Byzantium's main western outpost. Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) was gradually supplanted by Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) as the national language and the Greek rites of the Eastern Church were adopted.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily#cite_note-12)

Early Catholic Cemetaries


It turns out a large propotion of Sicily was Latinised in the late antiquity and early Dark Ages and the Greek language made a comeback through the Eastern Roman Empire.
Any opinion?

I have always read the early Church Fathers. Below is a link from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, it is an old article ,but it does deal with the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and whether Latin Rite or the Greek Rite was dominate in the early Church. The evidence suggest Latin first in terms of Liturgy as Sicily was under direct Jurisdiction of the Pope, not one of the Eastern Patriarchs in Alexandria and Antioch (3 major ones identified in Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, 325AD) and later Jerusalem and Constantinople.

http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/13772a.htm
There are accounts of Bishops in Palermo and Trapani as early as the 2nd century. Saint Clement of Alexandria mentions a thriving Christianity in Sicily in the 2nd, and by the 3rd century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage speaks of the Church in Sicily was in tied closely to Rome and Carthage (which used Latin) as well. Early female martyrs in Sicily include Saints Agatha and Lucy. Most of the early Christian Cemeteries in Sicily generally in Latin, some in Syracuse in Greek. It is pretty clear that till the 8th century, the major Liturgical Rite in Sicily was the Roman Rite. Saint Benedict, founder of the Benedictines, sent monks to Sicily and Pope Gregory the Great personally founded Monasteries In Sicily.

It does seem by the time of the Saracen invasion, Latin and Byzantine Rites were both present in Sicily but after the Saracens were evicted, the Normans and mainland Italians who reopened all the Churches closed by the Saracens and staffed those parishes/Churches with Roman Rite Clergy thus returning Sicily back to almost exclusively Latin Rite Liturgies and Latin Roman Devotions such as the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, etc.

ihype02
05-03-20, 12:51
Your conclusion doesn't flow from the quoted material, imo. Yes, Sicily was "Latinized", but most of that occurred in the early Middle Ages once the Saracens were removed from power and then when the rulers heavily promoted migration from Lombardia, Piemonte, Liguria etc. because fields were lying fallow after the expulsion of the Muslims. Also, as westerners, the rulers weren't happy about the Greek Catholicism practised on the island.

As to the proportions of Greek speaking versus Latin speaking Sicilians at various points in Sicily's history I've never seen figures which I think are hard and fast. Did "all" Sicilians who spoke Greek switch to Latin once Rome incorporated them, and then switch back to Byzantine Greek when they were part of the Byzantine Empire? I don't know. I doubt anyone does. What I know is that at the court of Frederick II, they still spoke Greek, Arabic, a Latin based "volgare", and probably some spoke French and German.

How much genetic change took place at each stage is another unknown in my opinion. We've been discussing the situation on the thread on the genetic changes which took place in the islands of the western Mediterranean. The Reich Lab paper uses a source for later Sicilians which is half Moroccan Late Neolithic. However, that population was half EEF like, probably from Spain. Do they have a sample of the Saracens from the invasion period which shows that type of population was still around? I don't know, but they didn't produce it.

Plus, the amount of actual North Africa specific ancestry in their models of modern Sicilians show extremely small percentages, so where does that leave us? How close were the Greek colonists of Magna Graecia genetically to the people of Sicily when they arrived? I don't know, because we have no specific samples of those Greek colonists. Also, to my knowledge there is no evidence of large scale folk movement from the East to Sicily during the Byzantine period. If such evidence shows up, then fine.

I was not talking about colonization. My hypothesis was that the Greek language gradually decreased due to many reason the firstmost being the Latinization, however it was never completely ''defeated''. But after the Byzantine imperial rule it started to increase but not because of colonization.

Did old Greeks sent women when they colonized Sicily?

Angela
05-03-20, 16:05
I was not talking about colonization. My hypothesis was that the Greek language gradually decreased due to many reason the firstmost being the Latinization, however it was never completely ''defeated''. But after the Byzantine imperial rule it started to increase but not because of colonization.

Did old Greeks sent women when they colonized Sicily?

It's very difficult to say, I think. English archaeologists of the Imperial Period imo drew conclusions more on the practices of the British in India, etc. than on actual evidence from Magna Graecia when declaring that "of course" the Greek migrants brought their own women with them and didn't intermarry with the indigenous population.

Modern archaeologists take the opposite view.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0NYdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=How+many+women+would+typically+be+part+of+the+G reek+colonial+settlements+of+Magna+Graecia&source=bl&ots=2xWFtG6yvl&sig=ACfU3U3wgBEu5p-wc-80tWeitLx8K3DPQg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOyJyNuoPoAhXJmOAKHaSvA6AQ6AEwDXoECAkQA Q#v=onepage&q=Women%20colonists&f=false

I don't know who is right. What I think is true is that it might have been different for different time periods. Even in colonizations which ultimately became very "racist", like the settlement of South Africa by the Dutch, there was a lot of "breeding" with local and Asian women in the early years, if not outright marriage. The up to 10% of "exotic" ancestry in Afrikaners is proof of that, and must have come as highly unwelcome information.

Not that I mean to equate the ancient Greek attitude toward mingling with locals to that of Afrikaners. There's no evidence, to my knowledge, of that kind of societal imperative at all.

So, I would say that my personal opinion would be that eventually it happened, and the populations blended. There's also the fact that the hinterland would have been less changed genomically than the coastal Greek cities.

Once again, I think that archaeology sets the parameters, but ancient genomics is going to provide a lot of the answers.

ihype02
05-03-20, 17:31
It's very difficult to say, I think. English archaeologists of the Imperial Period imo drew conclusions more on the practices of the British in India, etc. than on actual evidence from Magna Graecia when declaring that "of course" the Greek migrants brought their own women with them and didn't intermarry with the indigenous population.

Modern archaeologists take the opposite view.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0NYdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=How+many+women+would+typically+be+part+of+the+G reek+colonial+settlements+of+Magna+Graecia&source=bl&ots=2xWFtG6yvl&sig=ACfU3U3wgBEu5p-wc-80tWeitLx8K3DPQg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOyJyNuoPoAhXJmOAKHaSvA6AQ6AEwDXoECAkQA Q#v=onepage&q=Women%20colonists&f=false

I don't know who is right. What I think is true is that it might have been different for different time periods. Even in colonizations which ultimately became very "racist", like the settlement of South Africa by the Dutch, there was a lot of "breeding" with local and Asian women in the early years, if not outright marriage. The up to 10% of "exotic" ancestry in Afrikaners is proof of that, and must have come as highly unwelcome information.

Not that I mean to equate the ancient Greek attitude toward mingling with locals to that of Afrikaners. There's no evidence, to my knowledge, of that kind of societal imperative at all.

So, I would say that my personal opinion would be that eventually it happened, and the populations blended. There's also the fact that the hinterland would have been less changed genomically than the coastal Greek cities.

Once again, I think that archaeology sets the parameters, but ancient genomics is going to provide a lot of the answers.
They surely brought some of their women, but to what extend would be the right question (compared to my earlier one).

New Englander
15-05-20, 17:45
"About 18% of the people in post‐colonial times were of Greek ancestry and lived equally distributed across Greek colonies and indigenous villages."

I mean, that's pretty significant is it not? Is that 18% of total ancestry, or that of those tested positive for Direct Greek Ancestry meaning only 18% have any ancestry at all, even if its very dissipated?

And I guess the Greek ancestry was not enough to change anything, because they were all too similar to begin with.

Now if the mobility was very low pre-colonization, how did the natives get to Southern Italy in the first place and stay distinct from continental Europe assuming they arrived by land? Was Western and Eastern Mediterranean ancestry not differentiated at that time? These are Bell-Beakers correct, Im not to great with ancient groups.

Angela
15-05-20, 18:44
^^Let's not forget that this paper isn't about genetics. It's about the characteristics of teeth. I'll wait for the dna. :)

Likewise, as for whether the "natives" of Southern Italy during the latter part of the first millennium BC were similar to the incoming Greeks we'll have to wait for the ancient dna.

bigsnake49
15-05-20, 19:02
^^Let's not forget that this paper isn't about genetics. It's about the characteristics of teeth. I'll wait for the dna. :)

Likewise, as for whether the "natives" of Southern Italy during the latter part of the first millennium BC were similar to the incoming Greeks we'll have to wait for the ancient dna.

Yep we need more ancient DNA. As far as whether the colonists sent back for Greek women, at least judging from recent emigrations to the US or Germany, yes they did. Now, again judging from recent emigrations, the second generation colonists were more open to local women, the third more so. But the local women would have to "convert" so they had to learn to speak Greek, pray to the Greek gods, etc.