Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
If the Moots paper taught us anything, it's that the "change" in the area of Rome started taking place in the time of the Republic, and was pretty complete by the Imperial Era. After that, in Late Antiquity to the Medieval period, the "tail to the Levant" disappeared.

Whether that wasn't the case in the South is something which must wait for ancient dna from the South ranging from the Neolithic to the present day, and including the Medieval period during which the Muslims dominated Sicily for over two hundred years.

I can say that my husband, whose account I manage, is mostly Calabrian (three-quarters). He is extremely close to many of the Imperial Era "Romans" found in the Moots sample, but not to the ones who place in the Levant. So, there's no evidence of any "open tap" which has continued to affect his genetics beyond that time, and his ancestry is from Reggio Calabria, so Sikeliot's musings about this supposed huge movement of Sicilians to Calabria certainly didn't affect him. (Fwiw, to my knowledge most of the migration was in the opposite direction, as when Calabrians went in to settle in Messina after it was destroyed in the earthquake.)

Big changes in genomic structure come from folk migrations, not a few thousand refugees.

Even the Longobardi, who did arrive as a folk migration, didn't make a huge dent in Italy. All one has to do is look at the ydna.

I know of no evidence whatsoever for the movement of such large numbers of Greeks, either from the mainland or "Syria", that they could change the genetic composition of Southern Italians.

These are the musings of people like Sikeliot, whatever name he goes by currently here, and maybe that racist mad man from Lombardia, but it's not science.
@Angela, @ Palermo Trapani

yes, it's true: the paper by Moots in the end concerns only the case of Rome. My imprecision, it was not the rule, is not a thing to generalize, but scrolling for example the late antiquity and Byzantine prosopographic lists a certain variety of allochthonous presences along the Peninsula is present (in the North as in the South), probably quite superficial but not even zero.
I didn't want to marry the thesis of Sikeliotis & co, but only to show some hypotheses that are often proposed in Byzantine history and linguistics to justify the persistent and almost stainless "Greekness" (or close proximity to "Greekness") of the 'Southern Italy.
Check the cards for example of various names in the Ethnicity section of the PBE by Martindale (list of Greek, Isaurian, Syrian) or in the List of locations (Sicily or other places ...).
The most famous case is perhaps Pope Sergius I and his father Tiberius, Syrian natives, but first documented in Palermo

Nothing apodictic, nothing definitive, but the Byzantinists split their brains over these matters :)