• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Sicilians: Which groups overlap? (Multiple choice version)

Multiple choice.. pick all that fit.

  • Total voters
    21
Status
Not open for further replies.
No th east had Greek colonization, central Sicily was inhabited by a Celtic group either from Iberia but I speculate a type of latins offshoot in the SICANI. Western Sicily was Trojan and Phoenician.
 
Maybe there's a very ancient link that we have to connect but no, they were not firstly known as "Hittites" but Trojans whose stories truly began AFTER the glory of Troy. The story of the Elymians beings when Troy and the civilizations around it no longer matter as they have been sacked by various Greek tribes and the Elymians were basically these Trojan refugees seeking new lands (as Aeneas did) knowing that they can't permanently colonize/ settle anywhere directly near the Greeks. So they sailed past it aiming instead for some other region known as Hesperia, understanding that Iberia was too far and north-Africa isr't a suitable environmental decision, they settled for Italy. Aeneas first arrived at Cumae at Lazio in central Italy. Then he settled his people in western Sicily and some in Latium I believe.
 
The first pelasgians of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean seas to arrive to Italy I believe were the Chonii and Oenotri people who settled southern Campania to Calabria. They were sons of Lycaon. Then the Trojans settled western Sicily. The Iapygians (Messapus,Peucetis, Daunus also sons of Lycaon.) are said to have colonized the entirety of what is Apulia from Crete. (Note how the equally pelasgic Oenotri colonized ancient Calabria with a same substratum found among certain Apulians, southern campanians and Calabrians (the Etruscans were probably of this branch as well.) Then Achaean Greeks colonized virtually all of Calabria and the Ionians founded Reggio Calabria at the tip. The Etruscans arrived from Turkey as a minor substratum in Tuscany and Umbria in north-central Italy and possibly extending into the alps if they weren't killed off by advancing celts. Even groups from Veneto as the Adriatic Veneti could have been anatolians. Greeks settled even harbours on the Veneto and Marche coastal regions. I believe Neolithic haplogroup frequencies near Liguria are probably also indicative of minor Greek presence
 
The Umbrians and Ligurians were of the same stock; Danube river celts with a possible origin in Denmark. They differed in that they were more of a Germanic stock compared to the Gallic predominance found across the north. The Ligurians may have picked up Etruscan/rhaetics elements and all this before the Gallic tribes even migrated. The Gauls though were hostile to the Etruscans but the Boii, Umbrians and Romans made pacts and alliances with the Etruscans, even though ultimately the Aeduians are those Gauls teat founded milan when arriving upon Insubres territory (among which there was a canton named aedui since very ancient times) the Romans ultimately were eternal kinsmen of the aedui and lingones I believe or solely aedui.
 
adamo said:
central Sicily was inhabited by a Celtic group either from Iberia but I speculate a type of latins offshoot in the SICANI.
Click to expand...

Autosomally people from central Sicily today just cluster closely to other Sicilians. It could be because Greeks eventually took over those lands as well and resettled people there.
 
Right; R1b is still present in 25-30% of Sicilian males. It's just the island is split up among E3b (25%) and J2 (25-30%) as well with G being present at 11%. The percentage of R1b is drastically reduced in the south and even LESS of it is R1b u-152 showing that the gauls truly didn't invade all the way to the south as other people's were at one point occupying that territory.
 
The south is one of the most maximal regions of Neolithic influence in Europe with R1b (25%), E3b (25%), J2 (25%) and G (25%) would be a fair haplogroup distribution in the south. The center is more R1b (40%) E3b (10%) J2 (20%) G (10%). The north is R1b (55%) E3b (10%) j2 (10%) G (10%)
 
adamo said:
Right; R1b is still present in 25-30% of Sicilian males. It's just the island is split up among E3b (25%) and J2 (25-30%) as well with G being present at 11%. The percentage of R1b is drastically reduced in the south and even LESS of it is R1b u-152 showing that the gauls truly didn't invade all the way to the south as other people's were at one point occupying that territory.
Click to expand...

Well you have to look at the subclades. The reason I do not buy for a second that there is substantial Iberian input, or has ever been, in Sicily is because the subclades of R1b never match up, and autosomal DNA does not correspond. On a PCA plot you will never see a Sicilian and an Iberian anywhere near one another.

R1b is about 25%, with 5% R1a (I am R1a1a actually). Not 30% R1b.
 
About 60-75% of lineages in the south are of north-African (well, Balkans) and middle eastern lineages with only 25-30% of the lineages being west European. In the center about 50% of lineages are Neolithic maybe.....the north has 20-30%.
 
adamo said:
About 60-75% of lineages in the south are of north-African (well, Balkans) and middle eastern lineages with only 25-30% of the lineages being west European. In the center about 50% of lineages are Neolithic maybe.....the north has 20-30%.
Click to expand...

But all Sicilians are genetically, on an autosomal level, close to one another regardless of their haplogroup.

Interestingly also, Greeks have much more I2 and R1a (East European haplogroups) than Sicilians. Why didn't Sicilians get these from Greek ancestors?
 
R1a is typically east-Central European whereas I2a has a Balkanic and Sardinian distribution primarily (of differing subclades). That is a very good question, although I can confirm what you say; R1a is excessively rare in Italians (1-5%) and I2a as well (3-4%) not to mention I1 (5%). It seems that either I2a or R1a hadn't yet descended as south as Greece at the time and so weren't genetically an option to reach Italy. I guess the first tribes of Greeks had heavy J2, E3b and some R1b-L23/ R-M269* subclades, but not much else. Maybe the Thracian tribes of the north weren't among those groups that colonized Italy. Maybe I2a and R1a weren't even in the region yet at this time. But the facts remain undeniable; few are those Italians that have a Slavic or Balkanic/east European type of genetic profile, even Scandinavian and Germanic lineages are extensively rare. Only Celtic R1b is frequently found, most of it being R-S28 and with Neolithic agriculturalist lineages J2,E3b, G minority; that's italian y-DNA.
 
Italy is R1b (50%) J2 (25%) E3b (15%) G (15%) more or less in my opinion. Greece is like: R1b (16%) R1a (12%) I (15%) E3b (20%) J2 (20%) G (5%).
 
Whereas Italy has 50% R1b and virtually no other European haplogroups, Greece has (15%) R1b (15%) R1a and (15%) I ; mixed with about 45% Neolithic lines (J2+E3b predominantly with G extreme minority).
 
About half the men in the country are a mix of either R1a, R1b or I (predominantly I2a) 15% segments each meaning much less R1b. In Italy half the men are R1b (Celtic) and no other subclades of European haplogroups are really present at more than (5%).
 
About 50% of the y-DNA in both nations is of Neolithic origin.
 
adamo said:
The first pelasgians of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean seas to arrive to Italy I believe were the Chonii and Oenotri people who settled southern Campania to Calabria. They were sons of Lycaon. Then the Trojans settled western Sicily. The Iapygians (Messapus,Peucetis, Daunus also sons of Lycaon.) are said to have colonized the entirety of what is Apulia from Crete. (Note how the equally pelasgic Oenotri colonized ancient Calabria with a same substratum found among certain Apulians, southern campanians and Calabrians (the Etruscans were probably of this branch as well.) Then Achaean Greeks colonized virtually all of Calabria and the Ionians founded Reggio Calabria at the tip. The Etruscans arrived from Turkey as a minor substratum in Tuscany and Umbria in north-central Italy and possibly extending into the alps if they weren't killed off by advancing celts. Even groups from Veneto as the Adriatic Veneti could have been anatolians. Greeks settled even harbours on the Veneto and Marche coastal regions. I believe Neolithic haplogroup frequencies near Liguria are probably also indicative of minor Greek presence
Click to expand...

It was proved this year in the paper from Giotto, that etruscans came from southern germany and not anatolia, they arrived around 800BC in Italy and so must have come from raetic stock as raetic are older than etruscans.
 
I'm sorry but you've gone the wrong way Sile, confusing villanovan Danube region celts in Tuscany with proto-Etruscans descending from the alps. The Etruscans. Moved from Tuscany TOWARDS the alps, and not vice versa. You've failed Sile. Leave.
 
The Villanovans were Halstatt types spilling across the alps towards north-central Italy; not the Etruscans.
 
Some Greek influence in Liguria and Veneto to me is proved by now as 16% of Genoese males are E3b of which the totality is E-V13. Vicenza has 18% E3b all of it E-V13 as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top