Sicilians: Which groups overlap? (Multiple choice version)

[adamo]

That's without mentioning the J2 lineages as well.

 

[Angela]

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.

How have you determined that it came by way of the "Greeks" versus the Neolithic farmers...have you determined the subclade(s) of E-V113 present in both areas and their estimated dates? Matched the STR's against those in the Balkans, say, versus Greece?

 

[Eldritch]

How have you determined that it came by way of the "Greeks" versus the Neolithic farmers...have you determined the subclade(s) of E-V113 present in both areas and their estimated dates? Matched the STR's against those in the Balkans, say, versus Greece?

I agree, i wouldnt equate E-V13 presence with Greeks.

 

[Angela]

@ adamo

I think there might be some Genetic proof (underlining) to the Elymians being Trojan recordings;

Romano et al 2003 - did an autosomal-DNA test in which it turned out that Castellammare clusters closest with Turkey;
The significance is that Castellammare was the ancient harbor of Segesta [an Elymian settlement];
The Elymians (as we all know) are recorded to have been Trojans (i.e. Anatolians);

Thucydides - Book VI/XVIII
On the fall of Ilium, some of the Trojans escaped from the Achaeans, came in ships to Sicily, and settled next to the Sicanians under the general name of Elymi; their towns being called Eryx and Egesta.

All other 6 tested modern-day Sicilian towns cluster on complete diff. branches;

Romano et al 2003
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-1809.2003.00007.x/full#t7

All this shows, in my opinion, is that Sicilians, like southern Italians and other Italians, show signs of descent from Neolilthic peoples moving into Europe from the Northern Near East, including Anatolia.

There is no yDNA, mtDNA or aDNA for the "Trojans". There's even controversy about which settlement level was involved in the "Trojan" War, and some scholars postulate an Indo-European intrusive origin for them, or to put it another way, they would NOT have been, according to these scholars, very Anatolian at all as we understand that term today.

I don't understand how these kinds of correspondences can be drawn in the face such incredibly scant autosomal date, data that is much more likely to reflect much older and more significant migrations.

 

[Angela]

I think the Trojans arrived before the Phoenicians;
Trojan war in ancient dating is the early 12th cen BC
The first Phoenician colony (not really sure) prob. was Motya ~8th cen BC;
Carthage itself was only founded in the late 9th cen BC; So the Trojans (Elymi) must have settled earlier;

DiGaetano et al 2012 (post #55) shows the Sicilians are autosomal-DNA very similar to South Italians;
Figures from DODECAD 'K12b' (not academic/not to be taken seriously)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...EY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEYlE&hl=en_US#gid=0
S Italian & Sicilian [10 samples] - (5.5% Gedrosia)
29.9% Atl.-Med. / 11.8% N Europe / 36.5% Caucasus
12.5% SW Asia / 0.5% S Asia
2.5% NW Africa / 0.7% E African / 0.0% Sub-Saharan
Sicilian [15 samples] - (4.5% Gedrosia)
30.0% Atl.-Med. / 11.9% N Europe / 36.5% Caucasus
11.9% SW Asia / 0.1% S Asia
4.1% NW Africa / 0.7% E African / 0.2% Sub-Saharan

This makes the results from Romano et al 2003 - extra special;
It shows that certain specific areas with a certain specific historical backround are also Genetically diverse from the rest of the island as is the case with Castellammare the ancient Trojans and modern-day Turkey;

The Y-DNA results from DiGaetano et al 2009 are also very revealing;
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n1/full/ejhg2008120a.html
as are the mtDNA results from Romano et al 2003
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-1809.2003.00007.x/full#t7

I find your comments rather contradictory. DiGaetano shows that autosomally, Sicilians are very similar to Southern Italians, something which is also clear from the Dodecad analyses done by Dienekes. (It's a good thing we have that confirmation, as I think the DiGaetano results on their own shouldn't be taken very literally for the make-up of the different geographic areas of Italy, given that for a large portion of their data, they never asked if all four grandparents came from the same area. That is because a lot of that data was collected from hospitals; all that is certain is that the samples lived in certain cities. Since very few northerners migrate south, the southern data is marginally o.k. in my opinion, but the central Italian and northern Italian data is highly questionable.)

You then go on to focus on the mtDNA and yDNA results which do reveal differenes. Those may be informative for population genetics purposes and the tracking of migrations, but it has little to do with genetic relatedness. The MDLP run figures I posted above (which I think are highly suspect anyway, since they're only using one central Sicilian, one southern Sicilian, and no eastern Sicilians) show 1 to 2 percent differences in components...even the more homogenous northern Europeans show more variation than that at times.

 

[Angela]

I thought modern consensus was that the Elymians were related to either the Hittites or to Armenians. But either way that'd still be Anatolian.

Notice also Butera and Sciacca, also in western Sicily, drift toward the Turkey cluster. Troina, Caccamo etc. should have more Greek input.

Could you provide me with an academic source for the proposition that the "Elymians" were related to the Hittites or the Armenians? Thank-you.

 

[oreo_cookie]

How have you determined that it came by way of the "Greeks" versus the Neolithic farmers...have you determined the subclade(s) of E-V113 present in both areas and their estimated dates? Matched the STR's against those in the Balkans, say, versus Greece?

Well E1b subclades in Greece are also present in the rest of the Balkans..

 

[Angela]

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%)

If there were an autosomal cline in Sicily, something of which I'm not convinced, given the small data samples, and small differences in percentages on "admixture" analyses, I would speculate that it is a south/north cline, like everything else in Italy, and especially given the fact that the settlement of the "Moorish" or Berber tribes was heavier in the south, at least according to Chiarelli, in his book A History of Muslim Sicily.

In fact, if someone wanted to see if they could distinguish between the pre-Moorish Sicilians, and the post-Moorish Sicilians, they might want to look at the people in the triangular region formed by the mountainous areas of the Peloritani, and Nebrodi Mountains of the Northeast coast and Etna. This mountainous area was a hindrance to Muslim settlement, and the isolation of its people might mean that they retain some of these old signatures, unlike the people in the rest of Sicily. Again, according to Chairelli, during the Moorish period, the "native" Sicilians of that isolated area were allowed to continue to live "in either autonomous communities or under nominative Muslim authority. Greek influences remain in the dialects of the peoples of this region", Chiarelli, p. XXXV.

 

[Sile]

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.

from the paper
Going back to the issue of the Etruscans’ origins, if the genetic resemblance between Turks and Tuscans reflects a common origin just before the onset of the Etruscan culture, as hypothesized by Herodotus and as considered in some recent studies [2], [6], [18], we would expect that the two populations separated about 3,000 years ago. To discriminate between the potentially similar effects of remote common origin and recent gene flow, we ran four independent analyses based on the IM method [19], [20]. In the model we tested, the two populations originate from a common ancestor, and may or may not exchange migrants after the split (Figure S7A). Assuming an average generation time of 25 years [16], [21] and no migration after the split from the common ancestors, the most likely separation time between Tuscany and Western Anatolia falls around 7,600 years ago, with a 95% credible interval between 5,000 and 10,000 (Figure 5).

where did the etruscans go between 7600 years and 2800 years ( time they arrived in Italy ) ...........maybe to the moon. The departure from anatolia was 7600 years ago.

The villanova proves nothing because the etruscans cremated their dead...........

 

[Nobody1]

I find your comments rather contradictory. DiGaetano shows that autosomally, Sicilians are very similar to Southern Italians, something which is also clear from the Dodecad analyses done by Dienekes. (It's a good thing we have that confirmation, as I think the DiGaetano results on their own shouldn't be taken very literally for the make-up of the different geographic areas of Italy, given that for a large portion of their data, they never asked if all four grandparents came from the same area. That is because a lot of that data was collected from hospitals; all that is certain is that the samples lived in certain cities. Since very few northerners migrate south, the southern data is marginally o.k. in my opinion, but the central Italian and northern Italian data is highly questionable.)

You then go on to focus on the mtDNA and yDNA results which do reveal differenes. Those may be informative for population genetics purposes and the tracking of migrations, but it has little to do with genetic relatedness. The MDLP run figures I posted above (which I think are highly suspect anyway, since they're only using one central Sicilian, one southern Sicilian, and no eastern Sicilians) show 1 to 2 percent differences in components...even the more homogenous northern Europeans show more variation than that at times.

Where is the contradiction?
Y-DNA results, mtDNA results and autosomal-DNA results - all reveal a Genetic picture;
And the studies i posted contain these results of the atDNA/Y-DNA/mtDNA of the Sicilians;
Are the studies contradicted themselves of course not results for each field are the results for each field;
Maybe the results contradict your false conclusions and assumptions; but thats not my business;

 

[Sile]

Could you provide me with an academic source for the proposition that the "Elymians" were related to the Hittites or the Armenians? Thank-you.

they are phoenicians mixed ( northern levant mix) with ancient spartans ( after they lost their leader menelaus).
Trojan theory ? - there was suppose to have stopped there after Aeneas and the trojans left carthage and queen Dido.

Elmyian lands was a major phoenician city/area and remained so even when it "converted" to Carthaginian.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/phoenician-y-chromosomes.html

 

[Nobody1]

There is no yDNA, mtDNA or aDNA for the "Trojans". There's even controversy about which settlement level was involved in the "Trojan" War, and some scholars postulate an Indo-European intrusive origin for them, or to put it another way, they would NOT have been, according to these scholars, very Anatolian at all as we understand that term today.

aha;
I dont know about we; But I understand the term Anatolian today as in Turkish nation;
But the Turkish nation also has the Indo-European Anatolian branch as its heritage as also the Pelasgian;
The Sicilians of Castellammare share the same Anatolian (whether Pelasgian Trojans or Indo-European Trojans -thats not really important) as the modern day Turks from modern-day Turkey;
And isnt it a coincidence that Castellammare was the ancient port of Segesta a settlement of the Elymi who are recorded as being Trojans (whether Pelasgian Trojans or Indo-European Trojans -thats not really important);
No; I say it is not;

 

[oreo_cookie]

In fact, if someone wanted to see if they could distinguish between the pre-Moorish Sicilians, and the post-Moorish Sicilians, they might want to look at the people in the triangular region formed by the mountainous areas of the Peloritani, and Nebrodi Mountains of the Northeast coast and Etna.

That is why I think the "Central Sicily" sample, if it was larger, would be more telling of pre-Moorish Sicilians, and I think the slight differences in the samples would become more pronounced. From what a Sicilian friend of mine says who is very well-versed on the history, and from 23andme results, the coastal area from Trapani along the south to Ragusa, has a stronger North African and Moorish influence (and Levantine), and Palermo and the north coast has more Norman.

Therefore, I think the inland areas would have less North African, less Northern European/Norman, and a higher West Asian/Caucasus prevalence related to the Neolithic.

 

[Angela]

Where is the contradiction?
Y-DNA results, mtDNA results and autosomal-DNA results - all reveal a Genetic picture;
And the studies i posted contain these results of the atDNA/Y-DNA/mtDNA of the Sicilians;
Are the studies contradicted themselves of course not results for each field are the results for each field;
Maybe the results contradict your false conclusions and assumptions; but thats not my business;

MtDNA and yDNA account for only a very minor percentage of a person's total genome and represent only two lineages in a person's family tree. There's a nice hotspot of R1b in Africa; that doesn't mean there's much genetic similarity between them and the Irish. Autosomal DNA is a much, much, better indicator of genetic relatedness, in my opinon, and in terms of autosomal DNA, Sicilians and southern Italians, as you correctly pointed out, are very similar. Therefore, if you were saying that different parts of Sicily are very different from one another autosomally that would seem contradictory. But perhaps that is not what you intended to say...

Btw, blanket statements about someone else's "false conclusions" should be backed up by data and logically explained. Also, the way to reach the "truth" in population genetics as in any other academic field, requires that hypotheses be challenged...an emotional reaction to any criticism of one's statements is not conducive to any constructive search for answers.

 

[Angela]

aha;
I dont know about we; But I understand the term Anatolian today as in Turkish nation;
But the Turkish nation also has the Indo-European Anatolian branch as its heritage as also the Pelasgian;
The Sicilians of Castellammare share the same Anatolian (whether Pelasgian Trojans or Indo-European Trojans -thats not really important) as the modern day Turks from modern-day Turkey;
And isnt it a coincidence that Castellammare was the ancient port of Segesta a settlement of the Elymi who are recorded as being Trojans (whether Pelasgian Trojans or Indo-European Trojans -thats not really important);
No; I say it is not;

Well, I was assuming we are both people interested in population genetics. So far as I am aware, in population genetics terms "Anatolia" and "Anatolians" clearly refer to pre-Turkic and Ottoman invasion Turkey...

Obviously, there were Indo-European incursions into the land mass known today as Turkey...there are attested early Indo-European languages there...and autosomally, western Turkey sort of "blends" into the Aegean islands...

However, at the time of the Trojan-Greek wars, the Trojans, if they were indeed an intrusive element ( a hypothesis to which I don't necessarily subscribe), would have been different autosomally from the prior Neolithic inhabitants.

Your point, as I understood it, was that there was a specifically distinct "Trojan" group which you could identify as impacting parts of Sicily more than others. I don't see the basis for that. It would seem to me you would have to know the genetics of the specific Troy level that was engaged in the Greek wars in order to arrive at a conclusion like that. Otherwise, you might only be tracking a Neolithic era "Anatolian" component, or, perhaps, a mixed Neolithic and Indo-European component that might have nothing to do with the specific "Trojans" at all.

You are, of course, entitled to believe in a theory for which we don't yet have genetic evidence, but to convince others of its "truth" usually requires more than an authoritative statement that "I say it is not"! At least, it's not enough to convince me.

Btw, my point in all these exchanges is not to say that your theories are necessarily incorrect; it is to question them because there is not yet genetic proof for them.

 

[Nobody1]

As for your "Moorish Sicily";
It was not the Moors that conquered Sicily - it was the Ifriqiyans;
The Moors are Saracens (Saracen simply means Muslim) from the ancient Roman prov. of Mauritania;
The Ifriqiyans (Africans) are Saracens from the ancient Roman prov. of Africa;
There was even a caliphate that was called Ifriqiya that corresponded to the old Roman province of Africa and it was these Ifriqiyan Saracens that conquered Sicily;

Sicily also never belonged to any Moorish kingdoms (whether Almohad, Almoravid etc.) - Sicily belonged to the Caliphate of Ifriqiya and under the rule of al-Qayrawan;

All Medieval chronicles (whether Norman, Byzantine, Arab or the Pope) record the muslims of Sicily as Ifriqiyans, Saracens (muslims) or from the Byzantines as Hagarenes;
Sicily [Siqilliyya] was even ruled by its own Shia Muslim Dynasty - Kalbids (Battle of Stilo);

And of course - not every Saracen (simply means Muslim) was a foreigner;
Many of the Sicilian Saracens were local converts (something you should know if you have read Chiarelli)

Ibn-Hawqal - Sūrat al-Ard - First visit to Sicily in 973 AD
Most of them are Barqajānah (Berbers) and mawālī (local converts)......Most people are bastardised Muslims (musha'midhūn) and think it is acceptable to marry Christians on the basis that their male child follows the father by being a bastardised Muslim, while the female child becomes a Christian like her mother.

Something also the Normannic census reveals (many are Berbers many are local):

El-Said M. Badawi - Understanding Arabic (1996)
The following list of Nisbas reflects some of the Muslim population movements during the Norman period.....al-cajami Persia (474), al-andalusi Spain (252), al-asfaqusi Sfax (Tunisia) (164), al-atrabulusi Tripoli (Libya) (264); al-baji Beja (Tunisia) (160), al-barbari Berber (136), al-barqi Barqa (Libya) (592), al-bartiniqi Partinico (Sicily) (168), al-batrali Petralia Soprana (Sicily) (145), al-bijawi Beja (Tunisia) (475), al-buni Bone (Tunisia) (575), branqat Broccato (Sicily).....(271); al-damunnashi Demona (Sicily).....al-hijazi Hijaz (574), al-ifriqi North Africa (248), al-jarbi Djerba (Tunisia) (264).....al-karkinti Agrigento (Sicily) (252).....al-madani Palermo (Sicily) (154), al-mahdawi Mahdia (Tunisia) (250), al-maliti Malta (260), al-mazari Mazara (Sicily) (248), al-minawi Mineo (141).....al-nabuli Napoli (Italy) (543).....al-qurulluni Corleone (Sicily) (137), al-raghusi Ragusa (Sicily) (285), al-rimatti Rametta (Sicily) (137), rum(a) Byzantine (543), al-shami Syria (476).....al-shaqqi Sciacca (Sicily) (138), al-saraqusi Syracuse (Sicily) (583), al-siqilli (Sicily) Palermo (166).....

And the list goes on;
Always insightful to read Medieval chronicles and documents (and the Normans had a lot);

The correct term is therefor Ifriqyan Sicily or simply Islamic Sicily (multitude of diff. muslims);

PS: The Barqajana were Berbers from the ancient Cyrenaica/Barqa (Creta et Cyrenaica)

Ma'had al-Malakī lil-Dirāsāt al-Dīnīyah (Jordan) - (2004)
- Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies: Vol.VI-VII
Ibn Hawqal reports that the inhabitants of Palermo included members of the Barqajana and mawali ('clients', that is, indigenous converts to Islam) claiming a connection with those who had conquered the island. According to al-Ya'qubi, the Barqajana were a Berber tribe which originally migrated west from the region of Barqa in Libya after the Arab advance into North Africa.

 

[adamo]

Either way all E3b is E-V13 in samples from genoa and Vicenza and Lecce in Apulia and all E3b from Aquila, Abruzzo; this should be indicative of one general movement I would speculate of Greeks as they must have arrived via The Balkans to have E3b ANYwAYS. On Sardinia 12% of men are E3b in central region f which 10% is E-M123. Tuscan E3b and Basilicata 3b tend to have more diversity in the subclades and Sicily as well.

 

[oreo_cookie]

What is clear is all Sicilians have a significant amount of Neolithic West Asian ancestry, wherever it came from; and Northern European elements are very, very small.

 

[adamo]

Sicily has about 30% R1b and J2 and 20% E3b with 10% G I guess. These an abnormal high of Neolithic middle eastern lineages on the island and inflated E3b values for Europe as well. Most E3b in Italy is E-V13, but rarer subclades can be found at much smaller frequencies (E-V12,E-V22, etc.)

 

[adamo]

Sicily is only second to Crete in terms of it's gold mine of agriculturalist lineages in Europe. I guess 25% of Sicilians are J2 whereas 40% of Cretans are. Crete doesn't even cluster much with Europe as a whole. To find the opposite of this one can visit western Ireland were more than 95% of men are R1b and were there are NO Neolithic lineages.