Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

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.
 
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...
 
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. ).
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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:
10758330_c10009b105391c113065cef7a16732ae.jpg
 
Last edited:
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
 
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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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/realarchaeology/2017/09/30/bronze-age-interactions-the-tin-trade/


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


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


Distance to:I7805_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
7.30767405I3879_Malak_Preslavets
9.21722301I9128_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
10.21845879I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo
10.59093008I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
10.69100089I2426_Balkans_Chalcolithic
10.74459399I0025_LBK1992_LBK_EN_Viesenhäuser_Hof_Stuttgart-Mühlhausen_Germany_5500-4800_BCE
11.08821446I0046_HAL5_LBK_EN_Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld_Germany_5206-5004_calBCE
11.09567483I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
11.10822668I0560_QLB18A_Baalberge_MN_Quedlinburg_IX_Germany_3640-3510_calBCE
11.29180676SX30_Switzerland_LN


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


Distance to:I7796_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana
6.38157504I0071_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
6.40158574I9006_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Agia_Kyriaki_Salamis
6.64335006I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
7.13919463I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic
7.39129894Kumtepe006_Anatolian
7.54225430I8208_NE_Iberia_Hel_Empuries2
8.47769426I0070_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
8.57864208I2318_Peloponnese_Neolithic
8.63081688I0073_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
9.56215980I0679_Krepost_Neolithic


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Distance to:I3876_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
4.19796379I3125_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
5.53040686I10372_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
5.72220237I2431_Balkans_Chalcolithic
5.89556613I3878_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
5.93046373ANI159_ANI181_Varna
6.14047229I4109_Sicily_MBA_Buffa_Cave_II
6.25874588I10373_Sicily_LBA_Marcita
6.42632088I9033_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Peristeria_Tryfilia_Peloponnese
6.43125182I2424_Balkans_Chalcolithic
6.81532098I2430_Balkans_Chalcolithic


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Distance to:I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
5.09041256I9129_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
7.54527667Kumtepe006_Anatolian
8.19122701I3498_Balkans_Neolithic
8.48055423I0174_BAM25_Starcevo_EN_Alsónyék-Bátaszék_Mérnöki_telep_Hungary_5710-5530_calBCE
8.59672030I3709_Peloponnese_Neolithic
9.11530032Anatolia_N_Bar8_Barcin
9.18082785I0074_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
9.36654686I9005_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Hagios_Charalambos_Cave_Lasithi_Crete
9.45330630I2519_Balkans_Chalcolithic
9.63348846I3708_Peloponnese_Neolithic
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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

Both Yetos and you are misspelling Cappadocia :grin:.
 
Duplicate, sorry!
 
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.

Real expert: A guy was obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connection was banned. Well that statement in and off itself is BS that this guy made. Again, how the hell does Sicily cluster with other Southern Italian regions and modern Greeks, etc. Why is East Med treated differently for Sicily than other Southern European countries or any Country. How is that Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2 document Anatolian Neolithic ancestry ranging from 56% in SItaly1 to 72% in NItaly4. I don't have the supplements in front of me but SItaly1 I think were samples from Basilicata and maybe another Southern Region, one of the SItaly samples was a macro sample with all regions South of Rome included but it is clear Sicily1 and Sicily2 are "Sicily". So is it not accurate to say 56% (SItaly1) <= Sicily (Sicily1 and Sicily2) <= 72% (NItaly4) with respect to Anatolian Neolithic ancestry. What about the CHG and Iran Neolithic ancestry documented in that Study, as well as Antonio et al 2019. Is there some Levant type ancestry in Sicily from ancient the Levant, yes. Northern Levant Lebanon/Syria borders Anatolia. Still for this obsessed guy to make such claims he is either an ignorant as& or a troll, or both as those are many times observational equivalents.

The problem that I have seen is that many people go to these calculators and just lump all East-Med or Near East admixture and assume it is 100% the same under the term "MENA" and go on Youtube forums or blogs and spout BS. In 2020, it is clear that the CHG, Iran Neolithic, Levant-Neolithic, Anatolian Neolithic (EEF), all came from some earlier West-Eurasian cluster (45-50K years ago), as did other groups (WHG, EHG), and some have this hypothesized Basal Eurasian admixture as well, but by Neolithic period, all these groups were distinct populations and should be modeled as such. Some of these calculators seem to not do that to well.

But when you say Debate, expressing opinions under the guise of freedom of speech that are not substantiated by legitimate research is not a debate, that is Bull Crap. Now, I am not one for banning anyone either but that is not my say. However, calling someone's BS is an entirely different manner.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 85944 times.

Back
Top