Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 300

Thread: Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

  1. #51
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    884
    Points
    18,232
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,232, Level: 41
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 718
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    We have Sicilian samples pre-Greek colonization. We've discussed them numerous times on other threads. What we need now are samples from Sicily right at the period of Greek colonization.

    Of course, we'll have to keep in mind that as with all these studies, the graves of the newly arriving elite will be the ones that survive the most, with attendant resurgence of "locals" later, but it should give us a much better idea.

    It may be the new Greek arrivals weren't that different from the locals anyway, given that some ancestry from the East was coming in during the Bronze Age, but even if they were, I am skeptical there was a "wipe out" of the locals. Even in the massively de-populated areas of Central Europe, and with a plague rampant, the steppe people are only 50% of the ancestry of the Bell Beakers. In Italy we can tell from the Parma Beakers that one barely had any steppe ancestry, and one had only a bit. Only in England would I apply that word, and also perhaps in the far northeast and north of Europe with Corded Ware, but that's because those places were inhospitable for the EEF neolithic package even as modified, so population levels were very low there. Plus, we can see that EEF like ancestry rebounded, so were they really annihilated even in those areas, or just absent from the archaeological record because they weren't given decent burials?

    I don't understand the emphasis on the WHG in the larger scheme of things. They're a small part of any European's ancestry except to the far northeast and east, not west, unless they mean the Iberians have a bit more WHG than Italians and Greeks. So what? I don't see the significance.

    The preoccupations of the people at anthrogenica are a reflection of their world view. They're welcome to them. I'm only interested in debating these things with people who have some objectivity. When you lack it you can make huge errors, i.e. as they all made there with the Etruscans.

    From my perspective, the ancestry that arrived from the east either directly or through the Greeks is just mainly the same old, same old. The new arrivals carried Anatolia Neolithic, which had been in Europe for 7,000 years already. It carried more Iran Neo/CHG, but some of that was part of the genesis of the Anatolia Neolithic in the first place, and more had been dribbling in since the Bronze Age. It was just the arrival of some long separated distant cousins. It's not like the Han Chinese suddenly migrated in, for heaven's sake.

    Some people want to obfuscate this fact and label these newcomers as "alien", somehow, not people very similar to whose who make up 40-50% of their own ancestry, but now alien "Middle Easterners" who would pollute their blood. Is it the additional Iran Neo which is so objectionable? Yet that makes no sense to me because it was extremely similar to the ancestry which formed 40-50% of the ancestry of the steppe people whom they so want to share ancestry with...

    Maybe all the fuss is because of some minor amount of "Levant" Bronze Age ancestry which slipped in. Is antisemitism really still so virulent in some of these people, that and hatred of Middle Eastern refugees, that they'll distort history and population genetics to find it only in people in Europe they can label the "other". Just think what would happen if these kinds of people came into power again, and what a tool genetic testing would be for them.

    I find it bizarre but not really surprising.

    There was population mixing throughout human history: Neanderthals and Denisovans with each other and with modern humans (and who knows how many other hominids), Levant Neolithic with Anatolia Neolithic, both with Iran Neolithic, Anatolia Neolithic with WHG, EHG with Iran Neo/CHG, steppe people with Middle Neolithic people, etc. all mixtures of far more different people from one another than any incoming Aegean like people with local inhabitants of the Italic peninsula and Sicily. That 's more akin to somebody saying the Danes were a brand new population from the Angles and Saxons, or even the Saxons from the Britons. These are just shades of difference.



    Far more important to me than these minor genetic differences are what incoming people brought with them. Did they bring new crops, new innovation, architecture, art, literacy, or rape, rapine, the mass destruction of infrastructure, death and disease?
    This is a recent one, and it looks related.

    Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D3C4F5B84AC593

  2. #52
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,856
    Points
    389,370
    Level
    100
    Points: 389,370, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    This is a recent one, and it looks related.
    Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D3C4F5B84AC593
    It may be related, but I completely disagree with him.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #53
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,856
    Points
    389,370
    Level
    100
    Points: 389,370, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    I believe I understand what you mean by "Roman people", and it looks very possible, but as a side note, I'd say that, strictly, it just makes sense talking on "Romans" from after the foundation of Rome, right? They must descend also from the kind of people you referred to, but according to the current data it looks like the founders proper were something else already, different even from any modern pop, since the bulk plotted between modern NW. Italians and (non-N.) Spanish (there were also Southern-shifted samples).

    So, the current (few) samples from Iron Age and Republican period around that area don't seem Central Euro-like, as you certainly know.
    Interestingly, while these Central Euro groups caused increase of Steppe ancestry in areas to the South, IIRC they would have caused increase of EEF ancestry in areas to the North, such UK, in Iron Age.
    I very much agree. The "Romans" of the Roman Republic, who then conquered Italy were already Southern European like.

    I wonder if the majority of the ancestry entering Italy from the northeast may have been a different stream from the Bell Beakers who went to, say, England.

    Also, in terms of southeastern ancestry. It was already showing up in Rome in 800 BC.

  4. #54
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,038
    Points
    11,821
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,821, Level: 32
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 40.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It may be related, but I completely disagree with him.
    Totally Angela! People in these forums and elsewhere get caught up in the purity wars, us vs them, invent all kinds of weird theories to make their ancestors more heroic than what they were. The reality is that we are all a mixture of different people at different eras. Genetics does not point out how different we all are but how similar we are. After all it is a minuscule part of our genome that is differentiates us. Genetics and archaeology can work together to tell us all about the people that populated a place in time.

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends25000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    Duarte's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-19
    Location
    Belo Horizonte
    Posts
    1,457
    Points
    49,699
    Level
    68
    Points: 49,699, Level: 68
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27-FGC35133

    Ethnic group
    Portuguese-Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    This is a recent one, and it looks related.
    Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D3C4F5B84AC593
    I prefer not to go into the merits of the question presented in the text of the link. I just made a conversion to “editable text”, for those who can be interested in copying it.

    Cheers ;)

    Michael Blakey presents a principled attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism , which , as he argues , is seeping into the work of the most highly rated , best - regarded authorities of the international scientific community . Blakey attacks , powerfully , the old and clearly debunked idea of races as a biological thing , and points to the structural socio - economic background for its repeated zombie - like return . The paper will probably spark controversy , because it situates this observation in a broad sociopolitical context of overt and hidden racism and the ideological justification of old and current social inequality and injustice . It fiercely criticizes attempts by leading geneticists , most notably David Reich , to reconsider race science as an attempt to roll back the post - war scientific consensus that human races are socially constructed entities , by falsely claiming to pursue an unideological , objective look at what would be ' biological facts ” . Blakey iden tifies this as part of the larger contradictory , yet interconnected , trends of , on the one hand , claim ing to ignore the existence of the social category of race and denying the effects of racism , while , on the other hand , trying to naturalize social inequalities by referring to different , supposedly genet ically determined qualities of individuals ' , or ' groups ' , which are thinly veiled euphemisms for race . Blakey contextualizes this historically , showing how the invention of modern racism is tightly connected to the emergence of colonialism and capitalism , serving as ideological justifica tion for both systems of exploitation . In a similar manner , the current attempt to explain social differences in educational or economic success and in sociocultural patterns as being grounded in supposed biological differences is a political endeavour , whether or not it is intended by its protagonists , which plays into the hands of those political forces that want to justify and further intensify current levels of inequality ( both nationally and globally ) . This is not a new argument , and Blakey himself has published on these issues before , but in the light of the new importance of genetics in many fields of research , including archaeology , what he has to say is clearly important . I do not want to engage here in detail with all of Blakey's arguments . Instead , given the theme of this journal and my role as a prehistoric archaeologist , I would like to consider Blakey's paper in the wider context of interdisciplinarity between geneticists and archaeologists , a context for which Blakey's more directed attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism is highly relevant . This relevance is , I believe , first of all to be found in Blakey's fundamental critique of biodeterminism as an ideological mindset with severe political connotations , and second in the notion of scientific objectivity in general . Both issues speak to central points of conflict , or misunderstandings , between geneticists and archaeologists in the newly emerging field of archaeogenetics .

    We archaeologists have found ourselves facing a veritable rollback of seemingly long - overcome notions of static cultures and a biologization of social identities , something that is clearly con nected to the idea of races ( Müller 2013 ; Heyd 2017 ; Furholt 2018 ; Frieman and Hofmann 2019 ) . And this rollback is connected to the massive impact of ancient - DNA studies on archae ology . The premise that prehistoric communities were closed , internally homogeneous social entities with a shared uniform culture and a shared genetic ancestry , collectively migrating across the Eurasian continent , was invented by fascist ideologues such as Gustaf Kossinna in order to further right - wing , nationalist and racist political goals and to justify territorial claims in”

  6. #56
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,887
    Points
    157,762
    Level
    100
    Points: 157,762, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    3 members found this post helpful.
    I think what I call, racialist-lysenkoism is worse than what this Michael Blakey is purporting. There are dark parts of the internet where people reject human population genetics, as political propaganda. While promoting espousing racial purity, based on benighted ideas of the past. Usually, they are anti-intellectual nordicist, or afrocentric loons.
    There can be no covenants between men and lions

  7. #57
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,856
    Points
    389,370
    Level
    100
    Points: 389,370, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I think what I call, racialist-lysenkoism is worse than what this Michael Blakey is purporting. There are dark parts of the internet where people reject human population genetics, as political propaganda. While promoting espousing racial purity, based on benighted ideas of the past. Usually, they are anti-intellectual nordicist, or afrocentric loons.
    Well, I didn't know who he was and had to look him up. If ever a face matched up with evil ideology, it was his.

    Incredible that he is enjoying a resurgence in Russia.

  8. #58
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    884
    Points
    18,232
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,232, Level: 41
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 718
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duarte View Post
    I prefer not to go into the merits of the question presented in the text of the link. I just made a conversion to “editable text”, for those who can be interested in copying it.
    Cheers ;)
    Michael Blakey presents a principled attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism , which , as he argues , is seeping into the work of the most highly rated , best - regarded authorities of the international scientific community . Blakey attacks , powerfully , the old and clearly debunked idea of races as a biological thing , and points to the structural socio - economic background for its repeated zombie - like return . The paper will probably spark controversy , because it situates this observation in a broad sociopolitical context of overt and hidden racism and the ideological justification of old and current social inequality and injustice . It fiercely criticizes attempts by leading geneticists , most notably David Reich , to reconsider race science as an attempt to roll back the post - war scientific consensus that human races are socially constructed entities , by falsely claiming to pursue an unideological , objective look at what would be ' biological facts ” . Blakey iden tifies this as part of the larger contradictory , yet interconnected , trends of , on the one hand , claim ing to ignore the existence of the social category of race and denying the effects of racism , while , on the other hand , trying to naturalize social inequalities by referring to different , supposedly genet ically determined qualities of individuals ' , or ' groups ' , which are thinly veiled euphemisms for race . Blakey contextualizes this historically , showing how the invention of modern racism is tightly connected to the emergence of colonialism and capitalism , serving as ideological justifica tion for both systems of exploitation . In a similar manner , the current attempt to explain social differences in educational or economic success and in sociocultural patterns as being grounded in supposed biological differences is a political endeavour , whether or not it is intended by its protagonists , which plays into the hands of those political forces that want to justify and further intensify current levels of inequality ( both nationally and globally ) . This is not a new argument , and Blakey himself has published on these issues before , but in the light of the new importance of genetics in many fields of research , including archaeology , what he has to say is clearly important . I do not want to engage here in detail with all of Blakey's arguments . Instead , given the theme of this journal and my role as a prehistoric archaeologist , I would like to consider Blakey's paper in the wider context of interdisciplinarity between geneticists and archaeologists , a context for which Blakey's more directed attack on the resurgence of pseudoscientific racism is highly relevant . This relevance is , I believe , first of all to be found in Blakey's fundamental critique of biodeterminism as an ideological mindset with severe political connotations , and second in the notion of scientific objectivity in general . Both issues speak to central points of conflict , or misunderstandings , between geneticists and archaeologists in the newly emerging field of archaeogenetics .

    We archaeologists have found ourselves facing a veritable rollback of seemingly long - overcome notions of static cultures and a biologization of social identities , something that is clearly con nected to the idea of races ( Müller 2013 ; Heyd 2017 ; Furholt 2018 ; Frieman and Hofmann 2019 ) . And this rollback is connected to the massive impact of ancient - DNA studies on archae ology . The premise that prehistoric communities were closed , internally homogeneous social entities with a shared uniform culture and a shared genetic ancestry , collectively migrating across the Eurasian continent , was invented by fascist ideologues such as Gustaf Kossinna in order to further right - wing , nationalist and racist political goals and to justify territorial claims in”
    Thanks, Duarte. I could read it now. It was shared elsewhere, and I "forwarded" after reading just a little part of it, "hurried". Guilty! I thought they criticized the way genetics is being used in certain "environments", and wouldn't have imagined it reached Reich (who didn't attempt what they say), the very field of populational genetics and even capitalism. Nah. You know what I think about it. Reading it all, particularly I found it, say, "pamphleteer". Now I understand Angela.
    It may be a good idea reading texts before sharing them. Lol
    Sorry all. Probably better to return to the topic.
    Last edited by Regio X; 20-05-20 at 22:54.

  9. #59
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,605
    Points
    46,403
    Level
    66
    Points: 46,403, Level: 66
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 547
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It may be related, but I completely disagree with him.
    This paper seems to me carrying a good charge of prejudice or biased interpretations, what is funny when speaking of "pseudo-objectivity". Every attempt to study demic moves along history is only a tentative to rehabilitate old racism?

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    884
    Points
    18,232
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,232, Level: 41
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 718
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    This paper seems to me carrying a good charge of prejudice or biased interpretations, what is funny when speaking of "pseudo-objectivity". Every attempt to study demic moves along history is only a tentative to rehabilitate old racism?
    Perfect! I agree!

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    587
    Points
    7,545
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,545, Level: 25
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 5
    Overall activity: 90.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I think what I call, racialist-lysenkoism is worse than what this Michael Blakey is purporting. There are dark parts of the internet where people reject human population genetics, as political propaganda. While promoting espousing racial purity, based on benighted ideas of the past. Usually, they are anti-intellectual nordicist, or afrocentric loons.
    In my experience, the two groups you cited, while obviously different on the DNA spectrum or in terms of their ideology, analytical skills, scholarship etc, 100% in agreement, that is they both engage in pseudo-science.

  12. #62
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,605
    Points
    46,403
    Level
    66
    Points: 46,403, Level: 66
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 547
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I very much agree. The "Romans" of the Roman Republic, who then conquered Italy were already Southern European like.

    I wonder if the majority of the ancestry entering Italy from the northeast may have been a different stream from the Bell Beakers who went to, say, England.

    Also, in terms of southeastern ancestry. It was already showing up in Rome in 800 BC.

    to you @angela and @Reggio

    Agree, this post of mine was very bad, imprecise and hastly written.
    True, "Romans" began with the foundation of Rome, and were surely no more the first Italics, if these ones were still homogenous when reaching N-Italy, what is still to prove.
    Yes the Republic Romans were southern shifted, in the modern sense (they were no more neither the first Anatolians "babies", but they tended to be between today N-Italians and Iberians as you said.
    There has been, I think, a big enough gap between some northern Italian BB's (not the >Sicilian one, very southern quasi "autochtonous") and Italics. Yet, the IA Romans were a bit more Steppes and Iran shifted compared to today Spanyards. And distinct from the S. Italians, ancient and modern, and from Mycenians. I wonder how were the first Italics entering Italy? Like proto-Villanovians?
    &: this PCA seems a bit weird concerning distances, compared to a lot of others. But PCA's are PCA's...

  13. #63
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    27


    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).

  14. #64
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,856
    Points
    389,370
    Level
    100
    Points: 389,370, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    to you @angela and @Reggio

    Agree, this post of mine was very bad, imprecise and hastly written.
    True, "Romans" began with the foundation of Rome, and were surely no more the first Italics, if these ones were still homogenous when reaching N-Italy, what is still to prove.
    Yes the Republic Romans were southern shifted, in the modern sense (they were no more neither the first Anatolians "babies", but they tended to be between today N-Italians and Iberians as you said.
    There has been, I think, a big enough gap between some northern Italian BB's (not the >Sicilian one, very southern quasi "autochtonous") and Italics. Yet, the IA Romans were a bit more Steppes and Iran shifted compared to today Spanyards. And distinct from the S. Italians, ancient and modern, and from Mycenians. I wonder how were the first Italics entering Italy? Like proto-Villanovians?
    &: this PCA seems a bit weird concerning distances, compared to a lot of others. But PCA's are PCA's...
    We do have one proto-Villanovan sample, and he isn't all that far from some of us (according to one analysis I'm at a distance of 6.2 to him, but others are closer), but one sample really isn't enough.

    Plus, we're talking about Iron Age. There was quite a span of time since the Italics first entered Italy.

    So, another one which is still to be determined. :)

  15. #65
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,856
    Points
    389,370
    Level
    100
    Points: 389,370, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).
    Completely agree. If anyone needed further proof, just look at how abysmally wrong they were about the Etruscans. That's what happens when you completely ignore the archaeology and focus only on the myths of ancient authors because it supports your agenda.

    Academics are human, like everyone else, and must have their own biases, but they also have a livelihood to maintain. They can't stray too far from objectivity for very selfish motives. Of course, they're not all equally competent.

    Still, much better than some "enthusiast" sitting in his mom's basement obsessing about these things, or worse yet being paid by some shady racist organization.

  16. #66
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    443
    Points
    3,795
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,795, Level: 17
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 19.0%


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).
    Cretans are shifted 20% towards Levant compared to Myceanans and Minoans in both academic and non academic PCAs it's even more for some other islands.
    On the other hand I have never seen historical data to support it so I don't why is it that way. You can find people in many different ethnicities who claim pureness nothing special about Jews in that case. IMO some Jews tend to propose that they are of Hellenic ancestry plus lots of Levant (I don't believe it though).

    Tbh I find even 70% a very high estimate for the Greek impact in Sicily.
    For Apulia it's not even arguable:
    Last edited by ihype02; 23-05-20 at 18:31.

  17. #67
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,734
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,734, Level: 40
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 316
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).
    the first know "greeks" into Italy where the Myceneans , then later the bulk where corinthian Greeks ...................apart from sicliy and north italy, the rest of italy was inhabited by tribes that came out of 2 groups, the Etruscans and Umbri and I am talking bronze age and earlier

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    443
    Points
    3,795
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,795, Level: 17
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 19.0%


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    the first know "greeks" into Italy where the Myceneans , then later the bulk where corinthian Greeks ...................apart from sicliy and north italy, the rest of italy was inhabited by tribes that came out of 2 groups, the Etruscans and Umbri and I am talking bronze age and earlier
    There is no strong evidence of a Greek colonization in Italy prior to the Archaic age, some cultural similarites in pottery cannot always be attributed to colonization.
    The first colony colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily were from Euboea where they founded Cumae (Campania) and Naxos (Sicily).

  19. #69
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,734
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,734, Level: 40
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 316
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    There is no strong evidence of a Greek colonization in Italy prior to the Archaic age, some cultural similarites in pottery cannot always be attributed to colonization.
    The first colony colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily were from Euboea where they founded Cumae (Campania) and Naxos (Sicily).
    Every race that had access to the med. sea had a navy for trading etc .............the myceneans did not just got east from their homeland to trade and war...........
    there are greek settlements in France, Corsica and Spain, why not other places ?

    Euboea is in the northern Aegean area .........as I said , in bold above

    Yes and corinthian greeks discovered/created or began very many towns in Albania and Montenegro ................plus Ancona in Italy was a corinthian/spartan mixture town set up for trading

  20. #70
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,038
    Points
    11,821
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,821, Level: 32
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 40.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    There was a lot of trade in the Med during the Bronze Age. The trade was disrupted after 1200BC but we have no idea why. Famine, plague, war?

    BTW, they can localize the pottery or weaponry whether it is local or as a result of trade by using isotope ratios.

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    587
    Points
    7,545
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,545, Level: 25
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 5
    Overall activity: 90.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    As for when Sicily was colonized by Greeks, the documented date in the research literature is 8th century BC, which is the same time in Southern Italian mainland. As for Pheonicians, they started building Sea ports in the era 1000BC-900 BC in the coastal areas of NW Sicily (modern Trapani and Palermo provinces), again, that is what the scholarly consensus documents. As for Trading between different areas of the Med. world and Sicily in particular before 1,000 BC (Bronze Age in Europe dates from 3,2000 BC to about 700/600 BC), yes it is plausible it occurred and likely it did occur. This map shows the spread of Bronze materials showing its movement from the East (Anatolia, Southern Caucusus region, Ancient Iran) to the Levant and Europe. How that impacted populations is a good question and we do have some 24 Ancient Sicilians and DNA from them. Dodecad 12B has the coordinates for 23 of the non Bell Beaker ancient Sicilians and the 1 Bell Beaker ancient Sicilian. I just took the 24 ancient Sicilians and put them in the target and ran closest distances. I ran it up to 30, but that would be too much to post here so I dropped it to "top 10 closest for each". The Bell Beaker Sicilian looks very Neolithic EEF type, very close to ancient Greeks but also to Neolithic Central Europe (Hungary). Overall, the Ancient Sicilians look very much like Neolithic European Populations from various regions. Sicily I-8561 looks like an Iron Age Roman. Ancient Sicilians I-7774, 4064, 4063, 4062, 3122, and 3071 look very close to various Roman samples from Antonio et al 2020. Ancient Sicilian I-4383 is closer to Ancient Levant.

    So my take on what we know based on the ancient data we have from Sicily before the Pheonicians built ports on West Coast (1,000-900BC), Greek Colonization (800-750BC) and Roman Province (circa 260 BC) is that the ancestry already in Sicily doesn't look too different than what is there today. Furthermore, the ancestry that was in Sicily is what was also in Ancient Lazio before Roman Republic and in fact the ancestry that was in the Roman Republic was also there. In addition, R473 is one of the 3 Estruscan samples and Ancient Sicilian I-8561 is only 5.4 distance away which indicates "Etruscan like" ancestry was also in Sicily back then. So what happens during the period from 1,000 BC to Roman Imperial Age (1,000 year period), I don't know but my hypothesis is by the early 1st Century AD, Sicily is not much different than it was before 1,000 BC, only slight movements here our there, but still in genetic continuity. I am not going to post it here but I get close distances to many of those same ancient Roman and Greek sample that these ancient Sicilians get, maybe not the same exact ones, but ones from the same time periods.

    https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeo...the-tin-trade/


    Distance to: I8561_Sicily_EBA_Isnello
    5.40012963 R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
    5.58181870 IronAgeCatalan_I12640
    5.60164262 R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
    6.20312018 France_BA_PIR3037AB
    6.31986550 I1297_Malak_Preslavets
    7.12013343 MX299_Switzerland_LN
    7.33978883 I2215_Malak_Preslavets
    7.36342312 ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977
    7.38828126 R851_Iron_Age_Ardea
    7.44951005 R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima


    Distance to: I7807_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    1.66952089 I4089_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.19903110 I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.97108298 I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.99597297 I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.93265649 I1109_Malak_Preslavets
    5.32412434 I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    5.37071690 I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    5.49314118 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    5.57661187 ANI159_ANI181_Varna
    5.81320910 I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic


    Distance to: I7805_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    7.30767405 I3879_Malak_Preslavets
    9.21722301 I9128_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_C rete
    10.21845879 I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo
    10.59093008 I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    10.69100089 I2426_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    10.74459399 I0025_LBK1992_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE
    11.08821446 I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE
    11.09567483 I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    11.10822668 I0560_QLB18A_Baalberge_MN_Quedlinburg_IX_Germany_3 640-3510_calBCE
    11.29180676 SX30_Switzerland_LN


    Distance to: I7800_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    5.17469806 I2111_Trypillia
    6.93037517 HispanoRomanMaghrebiCordobaCaliphate_I7497
    8.64827150 I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge
    9.30288127 I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge
    9.32493968 Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge
    9.34563534 I3578_SE_Iberia_c.5-8CE
    9.49149619 LateRomanIberiaGranada_I3581
    9.50241022 I16163_Sardinia_IA_Anghelu_Ruju
    9.63873954 I3582_SE_Iberia_c.5-8CE
    9.68907632 I3579_SE_Iberia_c.5-8CE


    Distance to: I7796_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    6.38157504 I0071_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete
    6.40158574 I9006_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Agia_Kyriaki_Salamis
    6.64335006 I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete
    7.13919463 I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic
    7.39129894 Kumtepe006_Anatolian
    7.54225430 I8208_NE_Iberia_Hel_Empuries2
    8.47769426 I0070_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete
    8.57864208 I2318_Peloponnese_Neolithic
    8.63081688 I0073_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete
    9.56215980 I0679_Krepost_Neolithic


    Distance to: I7774_d_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    3.02145660 I0056_HAL14_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5052_calBCE
    3.96720304 I4168_Balkans_Neolithic
    4.55449229 I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    4.71360796 I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    4.92106696 I5205_LBK_Austria
    5.25256128 ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic
    5.48245383 I1109_Malak_Preslavets
    5.77051124 I5208_LBK_Austria
    5.78651017 R19_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
    5.78877362 R17_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado


    Distance to: I4383_Sicily_EBA_lowcov_Vallone_Inferno
    9.27571561 I1679_AG037C_early_PPNC_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan
    9.32486461 I1707_AG83_5_Late_MPPNB
    9.33427555 I1727_AG_83_3082_Early_MPPNB
    9.45480830 I0644_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant
    9.48284240 I1414_AG84/1_Early_MPPNB_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan
    9.65359519 I1710_AG83_6_Middle_MPPNB
    10.16158944 I1178_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant
    10.93192572 I1182_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant
    10.99811347 I0867_Motz1_Late_PPNB_Motza_Israel
    11.02119322 I1169_Peqi’in_Cave_Upper_Galilee_Chalcolithic_Le vant


    Distance to: I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    2.38574936 NE1_Hungary_5230BC
    2.82593347 I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    2.83151903 I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    3.05437391 I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.56512272 I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    3.62405850 I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.66387773 I2427_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.74030747 I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.77031829 ZMOJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic
    4.16468486 I5068_LBK_Austria


    Distance to: I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    2.78845836 SX29_Switzerland_LN
    4.26324993 I2425_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.98568952 I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    5.04007936 I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    5.32981238 I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    5.51390968 ANI160_Varna_Outlier
    6.09534248 I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo
    6.13104396 I1109_Malak_Preslavets
    6.19706382 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    6.42070090 I1295_Malak_Preslavets


    Distance to: I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    1.92942997 I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE
    1.99060292 SX33_Switzerland_LN
    2.84371236 I0100_HAL4_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5032-4946_calBCE
    3.00153294 I5207_LBK_Austria
    3.25829710 I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    3.41218405 I4168_Balkans_Neolithic
    3.43778999 I5206_LBK_Austria
    3.96964734 I0025_LBK1992_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE
    4.00296140 I1131_Balkans_Neolithic
    4.03311294 R2_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza


    Distance to: I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    2.19961360 SX30_Switzerland_LN
    2.79646205 I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.65861996 R4_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza
    4.03759830 I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    4.21939569 I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE
    4.75331463 I5207_LBK_Austria
    5.11871078 R16_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
    5.35984142 SX33_Switzerland_LN
    5.81406054 I0100_HAL4_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5032-4946_calBCE
    6.04588290 ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic


    Distance to: I4062_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    1.74505014 ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic
    2.40339343 R19_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
    2.50836600 I4168_Balkans_Neolithic
    2.58663875 I5206_LBK_Austria
    2.72444490 R10_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
    2.76085132 R2_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
    2.79910700 I0100_HAL4_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5032-4946_calBCE
    2.97882527 I1131_Balkans_Neolithic
    3.12147401 R8_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
    3.12800256 I5208_LBK_Austria


    Distance to: I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    2.59638210 I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    3.10774838 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.41202286 I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.45666024 I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.46754957 I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.56512272 I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.92601579 I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.07361019 I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.35386036 NE1_Hungary_5230BC
    4.51811908 I1109_Malak_Preslavets


    Distance to: I3876_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.19796379 I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    5.53040686 I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    5.72220237 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    5.89556613 I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    5.93046373 ANI159_ANI181_Varna
    6.14047229 I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    6.25874588 I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    6.42632088 I9033_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Peristeria_Tryfilia_Pel oponnese
    6.43125182 I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    6.81532098 I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


    Distance to: I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    2.82593347 I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.69119222 I2427_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.19796379 I3876_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.42179828 I0026_LBK2155_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE
    4.42179828 I0054_UWS4_LBK_EN_Unterwiederstedt_Germany_5209-5070_calBCE
    4.55848659 I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.68846457 NE1_Hungary_5230BC
    4.80381099 I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.80741095 ZMOJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic
    4.81193308 I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic


    Distance to: I3124_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.74948418 I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.93095325 I1295_Malak_Preslavets
    5.24644642 I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge
    5.51750850 I0706_Balkans_Neolithic
    6.29726131 I2110_Trypillia
    6.56469344 I16163_Sardinia_IA_Anghelu_Ruju
    6.77674701 Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge
    7.60484056 I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    7.73796485 I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    7.76561009 R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia


    Distance to: I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    2.96270147 I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.16385639 I1295_Malak_Preslavets
    4.28827471 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.51478682 I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.74948418 I3124_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.98568952 I4065_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    5.32412434 I7807_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    5.88328990 I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    5.96274266 I0706_Balkans_Neolithic
    6.17085894 ANI160_Varna_Outlier


    Distance to: I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    1.48576580 SX30_Switzerland_LN
    2.79646205 I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    3.89434205 R4_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza
    4.77526963 SX21_Switzerland_LN
    4.89766271 R104_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
    4.91419373 I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo
    5.64912383 I1298_Balkans_Neolithic
    5.74703402 SX29_Switzerland_LN
    5.99037561 R16_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
    6.30038094 I4064_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna


    Distance to: I11443_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.40296929 Collegno94
    3.85862670 R1224_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
    4.02052235 France_IA_NOR2B6
    4.41479331 Collegno47
    4.48606732 NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120
    4.62529999 R1221_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
    4.93207867 Collegno102
    4.93511905 R108_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
    4.98007028 NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72
    5.28465704 I3866_NE_Iberia_c.6-8CE_ES


    Distance to: I11442_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    2.37804542 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    2.96270147 I3123_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.69582197 I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.92601579 I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    3.97108298 I7807_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
    4.38094739 I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.47598034 I4089_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.80716132 I1109_Malak_Preslavets
    4.90296849 ANI159_ANI181_Varna
    5.15879831 I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita


    Distance to: I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    2.08074506 I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    2.46432547 NE1_Hungary_5230BC
    2.54560405 I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    2.59638210 I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    2.78095307 I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    2.83151903 I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    3.33490630 I1109_Malak_Preslavets
    3.99248043 I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.08718730 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.09997561 I0022_LBK1976_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE


    Distance to: I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    3.76706783 ZHAJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic
    3.99248043 I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.02550618 ZMOJ_Boncuklu_Aceramic
    4.07361019 I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    4.12688745 I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.38588646 NE1_Hungary_5230BC
    4.43064329 I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.69982978 I2423_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    4.77678762 I1109_Malak_Preslavets
    4.83144906 ZKO_Boncuklu_Aceramic


    Distance to: I10371_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
    3.24140402 I5068_LBK_Austria
    3.37772113 I2509_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    3.61868761 I3948_Balkans_Neolithic
    4.16461283 I3433_Balkans_Neolithic
    4.55655572 Anatolia_N_Bar8_Barcin
    4.61166998 I0698_Balkans_Neolithic
    4.70006383 I2521_Balkans_Neolithic
    4.84339757 I5069_LBK_Austria
    4.88729987 I0785_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    5.12469511 R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza


    Distance to: I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
    5.09041256 I9129_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_C rete
    7.54527667 Kumtepe006_Anatolian
    8.19122701 I3498_Balkans_Neolithic
    8.48055423 I0174_BAM25_Starcevo_EN_Alsónyék-Bátaszék_Mérnöki_telep_Hungary_5710-5530_calBCE
    8.59672030 I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic
    9.11530032 Anatolia_N_Bar8_Barcin
    9.18082785 I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete
    9.36654686 I9005_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_La sithi_Crete
    9.45330630 I2519_Balkans_Chalcolithic
    9.63348846 I3708_Peloponnese_Neolithic

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,663
    Points
    44,721
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,721, Level: 65
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 829
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    There is no strong evidence of a Greek colonization in Italy prior to the Archaic age, some cultural similarites in pottery cannot always be attributed to colonization.
    The first colony colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily were from Euboea where they founded Cumae (Campania) and Naxos (Sicily).
    first estimation of Greek colonisation is prior to 750 BC
    Pithicousae (Ischia island)

    but from Paschou et Al 2014 we know that Sicily had major the same genetic stuff of S Greece,
    mainly Anatolian Neolithic farmers,

    it is called the maritime conguest of Europe

    the Cappadokian mark is the key to understand the population geneticks before Greek and Phoenician colonisation,
    and it dates backs milleniums before Greeks or Phoenician colonise the island,

    this Farmers were from the stock of Anatolian neolithic.
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    587
    Points
    7,545
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,545, Level: 25
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 5
    Overall activity: 90.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    Yetos: I agree with you, the People in Sicily before any Pheonician trade/port centers were founded, again circa 1000-900BC or Greek Colonization from circa 800-750BC, were in terms of ancestry, predominate Early European Farmer (EEF) from ancient Anatolia, with I guess some WHG/CHG/Iran Neolithic type ancestry as secondary sources. Not that any one calculator is definitive, but In post 71 above, I took the ancient Sicilian Samples and put them in the Dodecad K12B target and wanted to see which ancient populations those 24 Ancient Sicilian samples are closest to. I think Neolithic EEF ancestry is clearly the major source, which for most on this board and forum is not surprising or anything new, but it doesn't hurt to re-state it. It doesn't mean these ancient Sicilians were Greeks, just means they both shared significant ancestry as you say from the Ancient Anatolians.

  24. #74
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,734
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,734, Level: 40
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 316
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    first estimation of Greek colonisation is prior to 750 BC
    Pithicousae (Ischia island)

    but from Paschou et Al 2014 we know that Sicily had major the same genetic stuff of S Greece,
    mainly Anatolian Neolithic farmers,

    it is called the maritime conguest of Europe

    the Cappadokian mark is the key to understand the population geneticks before Greek and Phoenician colonisation,
    and it dates backs milleniums before Greeks or Phoenician colonise the island,

    this Farmers were from the stock of Anatolian neolithic.

    Cappodician mark ?....what is that?

    Cappodicia is in eastern Asia Minor ( anatolia ), they are a mix of proto-cimmerian steppe people with IIRC the hatti people

    the black sea was smaller in size, and drinkable for humans

  25. #75
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    62
    Points
    3,405
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,405, Level: 16
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 45
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    What is the deal at Anthrogenica with Sicily?
    Anyway, my take on it but still what is the story the Anthrogenica folks are trying to tell about Sicily?

    Well, a guy who was very obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connections was banned. I wonder why???? On Anthrogenica it seems, that people right and left are getting banned including one moderator and people who wrote tons of comments for years there. It appears that debating there is like walking on eggshells. What's the point of a forum about genetics when people can't express what they think and debate studies without being so strongly under moderation? A compliment to the moderators from Eupedia who show lots of patience by allowing debates and discourse without heavy moderation and PC.
    To me debunking, refuting nonsense, or misconceptions and educating are better than just to ban people with fringe and crazy theories. Of course this only applies to people that are not about trolling for the sake of trolling. Freedom of speech is a great achievement.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •