Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

[Angela]

It does not bother me at all. It's just that if Cretans have a substantial Minoan ancestry then it's very likely that Sicilians have a substanial pre-900BC Sicilian ancestry given the ratio shown in the PCA. Why no one mentioned a large replacement in Minoan Crete?
A nearly complete replacement means that Sicilians have little to very little native ancestry, which is what I disagree with.

A large replacement does not necessarily mean a nearly complete replacement. Modern Sicilians might still have 25% to 30% native ancestry.

Good points. How dare you introduce logic into the discussion???

They don't mention Crete because they're not interested in Crete. They WANT to prove replacement in Sicily both bkz of the agendas they share, and because some of them have posted tens and thousands of posts proclaiming it. They want to "save" their reputations. They don't care about Crete. It's not part of the "history" they've written.

It may even be more.

People can speculate all they want. Doesn't mean it happened or that they can ever prove it happened. Doesn't matter, though, because people believe what they choose to believe.

You'd think people would have learned a little humility after the fiascos of the past.

 

[Ygorcs]

It does not bother me at all. It's just that if Cretans have a substantial Minoan ancestry then it's very likely that Sicilians have a substanial pre-900BC Sicilian ancestry given the ratio shown in the PCA. Why no one mentioned a large replacement in Minoan Crete?
A nearly complete replacement means that Sicilians have little to very little native ancestry, which is what I disagree with.

A large replacement does not necessarily mean a nearly complete replacement. Modern Sicilians might still have 25% to 30% native ancestry. Some people try to inflate the impact of their favorite ancient civilisations.

But who exactly was talking about a nearly complete replacement? It seems to be that that study's reference about genetic replacement after the BA in Sicily was simply confirming the evidences that a significant gene flow altered the local gene pool, it didn't go so far as to claim a nearly complete​ replacement, did it?

 

[ihype02]

But who exactly was talking about a nearly complete replacement? It seems to be that that study's reference about genetic replacement after the BA in Sicily was simply confirming the evidences that a significant gene flow altered the local gene pool, it didn't go so far as to claim a nearly complete​ replacement, did it?

I admit that in my head I remembered the study impying a nearly complete replacement, but that was a mistake as I rechecked the study.
But in my defense if one believes modern Sicilians to have the vast majority of their ancestry from the old Greeks, then when one takes other populations in consideration it can be interperted as a ''nearly complete'' replacement so my point still stands.

 

[ratchet_fan]

If this is true I doubt there is Iran_Neo in Europe.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20792-who-were-Neolithic-Iranians&p=679314#post679314

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Angela/Ihype02/Ygorcs: Thanks for your comments in this thread. Who are the people that keep claiming this "Replacement nonsense". I don't buy it. WHG were in Sicily but nobody today is 100% WHG, EEF-Neolithic Farmers came in and nobody is 100% EEF . There is some good research in Ancient Sicily, all of you are aware of it so I don't have to repeat it and there is 1 new published paper I referenced in post 152 (Catalano et al 2020, with David Reich) that documents WHG in Favignana is from the WHG cluster in Southern Italy and similar to the Villabruna cluster. The paper by VandeLoosdrecht et al 2020 (with Krause and Haak on it) has 17/18 new samples from Grotta Del Uzzo in Trapani (The samples are described in post 152) and as I noted in post 279 the Early Neolithic_Sicily samples (N-7) were genetically similar to the peoples from The Balkans (Croatia, Greece), Hungary and Anatolia. These 7 individuals were Early European Farmers with some residual HG ancestry (I think the paper indicates about 7%). So 3,000 years later, Sicilian_Bell Beaker_I4930 I think is still basically EEF (no Steppe) and then we have the Sicilian samples in Fernandes et al 2020, which have some Steppe ancestry (Circa 2,200 BC).

So 2,200 BC is 1,200 years, maybe 1100 before the Phoenicians founded port cities in the NW and 1,400-1350 before the Greek colonization in Sicily and 1,900 before the Roman period. So in this historical context, I am going to do the following experiment. I used sub-samples from specific time periods and populations and estimated distances using Dodecad 12B.


1) Dodecad 12B distances using only Iron Age Roman samples from Antonio et al 2019. Using Eurogenes K15 (Iron Age samples only as source, distance is 5.10)

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 2.0134% / 2.01340808 | ADC: 0.25x
57.2 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
24.4 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
13.4 R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia
5.0 R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

2) Dodecad 12B distances using Bronze Age and Chalcolithic samples from the Balkans and Anatolia (N=28)

Target: PalermoTrapani


Distance: 2.7904% / 2.79039155 | ADC: 0.25x
54.6 I2495_Bronze_Age_Anatolian_Harman?ren-G?ndürleH?yük_Isparta
26.0 Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge
9.4 I2163_Balkans_BronzeAge
7.0 I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge
3.0 I2426_Balkans_Chalcolithic


3) Dodecad 12B Distances using Bronze Age Sicilian Samples (N=23) from Fernandes et al 2020 (which have some Steppe admixture). Note that Sicilian_Bell Beaker I4930 has a distance of 7.59 using 0.25X and can be modeled 48.8% I7796, 47.4% I10371 and 3.8% I4383. Me including Sicilian_Bell Beaker in the Source Data does not change me model fit for Dodecad 12B using 0.25X

Target: PalermoTrapani


Distance: 6.2704% / 6.27041187 | ADC: 0.25x
39.2 I4383_Sicily_EBA_lowcov_Vallone_Inferno
32.2 I11443_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
28.6 I7796_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana

4) Dodecad 12B distances using Minoan and Mycenaean Samples from Lazaridis et al 2017

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 8.5519% / 8.55188147 | ADC: 0.25x
58.0	I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete
24.4	I9131_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_Crete
17.6	I9041_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Galatas_Apatheia_Peloponnese

So my best fit is 1) Using the 11 Iron Age Samples from Antonio et al 2019, 2) Second best fit is using the Bronze Age and Chalcolithic Balkans and Anatolia samples (N=28). You can see the distances using just those 2 distinct sub-samples gives me very good fits. 3) Third, I get a good fit using just the Bronze Age Sicilian samples (n-23) which have Steppe ancestry, 4) Using just the Minoan and Mycenaean Samples from Lazaridis et al 2017, I can get a a distance of 8.55%. While this experiment is just that, something I did to see if I can get distances using ancient samples from areas that match my ancestral history, they all work well. So not sure about "Replacement" in the sense that it apparently is being used in "some circles." Of course I am where I am right now, was there some admixture here, changes there but it seems like today where I am, I am not to far off from Bronze age Sicilians, Bronze Age Balkans, Ancient Greeks and Iron Age Romans.

And I think it is not controversial for anyone here that Antonio et al 2019 documents Imperial Romans in general plotted closely with Modern Southern Italy and Sicily. So just for the heck of it, using just the 53 Imperial Roman Samples, the distance with Dodecad 12B is < 1%. Per MTA Chroma Analysis, R131 and R49 are in my top 100 Matches for shared DNA.

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 0.9051% / 0.90514964 | ADC: 0.25x
39.6	R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
38.0	R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
10.0	R80_Imperial_Era_Viale_Rossini_Necropolis
8.6	R45_Imperial_Era_Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
3.6	R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
0.2	R111_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis

 

[ihype02]

But who exactly was talking about a nearly complete replacement? It seems to be that that study's reference about genetic replacement after the BA in Sicily was simply confirming the evidences that a significant gene flow altered the local gene pool, it didn't go so far as to claim a nearly complete​ replacement, did it?

Actually it does say nearly complete replacement.
[...] our analysis documents the impact of the Phoenician and Greek colonial periods as well as subsequent immigration on the islands of the western Mediterranean93. For example, all six individuals in our analysis dataset from the Balearic Islands and post-Bronze Age period are consistent with having no ancestry from earlier local groups. In conjunction with previous findings, the emerging picture is that, from the Iron Age onward, the coastal regions of the western Mediterranean were characterized by ethnically segregated populations of immigrants and local groups who co-existed in geographical proximity; indeed, there is direct documentation of this from the Greek colony of Empúries in northeast Iberia, where two clusters of genetically distinct individuals coexisted, consistent with the historical descriptions by Strabo25. In some regions, such as the Balearic Islands and Sicily, our data are consistent with a nearly complete replacement of the pre-Iron-Age populations (although we cannot rule out a degree of local continuity for either set of islands).

Plato on Sicily:
[353ε]τούτουκινδυνεύσεικαὶτὸτυραννικὸνἅπανκαὶτὸδημοτικὸνγένος, ἥξειδέ, ἐάνπερτῶνεἰκότωνγίγνηταίτικαὶἀπευκτῶν, σχεδὸνεἰςἐρημίαντῆςἙλληνικῆςφωνῆςΣικελίαπᾶσα, ΦοινίκωνἢὈπικῶνμεταβαλοῦσαεἴςτιναδυναστείανκαὶκράτος. τούτωνδὴχρὴπάσῃπροθυμίᾳπάνταςτοὺςἝλληναςτέμνεινφάρμακον. εἰμὲνδήτιςὀρθότερονἄμεινόντ᾽ἔχειτοῦὑπ᾽ἐμοῦῥηθησομένου, ἐνεγκὼνεἰςτὸμέσον

[353e] the whole tribe of tyrants and democrats alike will be in danger of destruction. But should any of these consequences—likely as they are though lamentable—come to pass, hardly a trace of the Greek tongue will remain in all Sicily, since it will have been transformed into a province or dependency of Phoenicians or Opicians.¹ Against this all the Greeks must with all zeal provide a remedy. If, therefore, any man knows of a remedy that is truer and better than that which I am now about to propose,

Plato>That bad quality PCA.

It may even be more.

Well it may be more, but I was talking about native Sicilian ancestry specifically, Sicily has recievied other Italian ancestry.

''A few years after the death of Hieron and the expulsion of Thrasybulus, the Syracusans combined with Ducetius, king of the Sicels, to expel the newly settled inhabitants of Catania, who went on to settle in the fortress of Inessa (to which they gave the name Aetna). The old Chalcidic citizens were reinstated to the city in 461 BC.[33]''

Would the title king of Sicels had any meaning for a population that mostly wiped centuries ago?

''However, the Siculi, to whom the Naxian territory was assigned, soon formed a new settlement on the nearby Mount Taurus and this gradually grew up into the city of Tauromenium.[18] This took place about 396 BC and the Siculi were still in possession of this stronghold some years later.''

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ihype2: Your are correct (post 286). The Siculi (Sicels) are indeed an Italic tribe, from Southern most Italy, but are a different Tribe from the Opicians (from Campania), the Mamertines were the tribe that were great mercenaries and were in Sicily in the Wars between various Greek States, eventually they took over Messina for themselves and conquered territory as far as Gela on the Coast in SE Sicily ( Caltanissetta Province)

Another Opician tribe was the Ausones who settled the Lipari Islands of Sicily and set up trading networks between Campania and Sicily on NE Coast. So when the Mamertines decided to take over territory from Greek-Syracuse, they had Ausonian allies (fellow tribes from Campania) already there. Not sure who the Siculi sided with but just before the First Punic War in Sicily, Campania was incorporated into the Roman Republic. So when Syracuse launched a war against the Opicians, and allied with Carthage who had ports on the West of Sicily, the Opicians formed an alliance with Rome as their fellow Campanians were now part of the Republic and Rome came into Sicily with Italic allies (Mamertines and Ausonians) already there.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Good points. How dare you introduce logic into the discussion???

They don't mention Crete because they're not interested in Crete. They WANT to prove replacement in Sicily both bkz of the agendas they share, and because some of them have posted tens and thousands of posts proclaiming it. They want to "save" their reputations. They don't care about Crete. It's not part of the "history" they've written.

It may even be more.

People can speculate all they want. Doesn't mean it happened or that they can ever prove it happened. Doesn't matter, though, because people believe what they choose to believe.

You'd think people would have learned a little humility after the fiascos of the past.

That happens when your hobby is more intellectually taxing than you can afford... (I am not referring to Ygorcs), it is as if some people cannot accept that "swarthy" southern Italians have a genetic profile very similar to the fathers of western civilization, the ancient Greeks, and others can't accept that the ethnogenesis of their people, whose history as a diaspora is well known, took place outside their "spiritual" homeland. Returning to the topic, I think that the following is the question one ought to ask: we know from the paper about Rome that iran_neolithic ancestry was present at least up to Latium, thus Italy, at least south of Tuscany and before the iron age, was populated by a "minoan-like" people, but how and when did today's Italian cline form? I think that either it was a massive migration of proto-italic from north Italy ( and thus there was a very massive migration and replacement all across Italy and Sicily, keeping in mind that in this scenario a population with 30% steppe would have created a cline whose lower end in east Sicily/Calabria has still 15% of such ancestry) or it was created during the bell beaker expansion and the following italic migration would just bring the language and the culture with minor genetic impact ( and maybe that could explain why west Sicily has a bit more steppe than east Sicily, whereas assumung the previous scenario it ought to be the contrary ). I know that something similar happened in Britain and Ireland, when a first "steppe" migration was responsible for the modern genetic make up of the natives but the celtic languages were brought by a subsequent migration, that left little genetic traces ( sorry but I can't recall the sources now).

 

[Palermo Trapani]

That happens when your hobby is more intellectually taxing than you can afford... (I am not referring to Ygorcs), it is as if some people cannot accept that "swarthy" southern Italians have a genetic profile very similar to the fathers of western civilization, the ancient Greeks, and others can't accept that the ethnogenesis of their people, whose history as a diaspora is well known, took place outside their "spiritual" homeland. Returning to the topic, I think that the following is the question one ought to ask: we know from the paper about Rome that iran_neolithic ancestry was present at least up to Latium, thus Italy, at least south of Tuscany and before the iron age, was populated by a "minoan-like" people, but how and when did today's Italian cline form? I think that either it was a massive migration of proto-italic from north Italy ( and thus there was a very massive migration and replacement all across Italy and Sicily, keeping in mind that in this scenario a population with 30% steppe would have created a cline whose lower end in east Sicily/Calabria has still 15% of such ancestry) or it was created during the bell beaker expansion and the following italic migration would just bring the language and the culture with minor genetic impact ( and maybe that could explain why west Sicily has a bit more steppe than east Sicily, whereas assumung the previous scenario it ought to be the contrary ). I know that something similar happened in Britain and Ireland, when a first "steppe" migration was responsible for the modern genetic make up of the natives but the celtic languages were brought by a subsequent migration, that left little genetic traces ( sorry but I can't recall the sources now).

I agree in substance with what you wrote. What follows in my post is just my take on ancient Italy based on the extant literature to date and some of "my own conjecture added in."

As you note, Antonio et al 2019 (Figure 2) documents in Lazio/Rome WHG in Mesolithic then during the Neolithic to Copper Age, huge EEF-Anatolian ancestry along with Iran_Neolithic. Not until Iron Age that some Steppe-Herder ancestry comes in, but it never is near the dominant ancestry. I think the pattern is similar all over Italy and as I noted in earlier posts with respect to Sicily, I think the evidence is clear from researchers (Mannino et al 2012 "Origin and Diet of the Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers on the Mediterranean Island of Favignana E`gadi Islands, Sicily; Catalano et al 2020 "Late Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers in the Central Mediterranean: New archaeological and genetic data from the Late Epigravettian burial Oriente C Favignana, Sicily) documenting a WHG ancestry in Mesolithic Sicily and that the WHG in Sicily were most closely related to the WHG in Peninsular Italy ranging up to the Villabruna cluster., then during Neolithic an EEF-Anatolian and Iran_Neolithic influx (See pre-print paper by VandeLoosdrecht et al 2020 analyzing 18 ancient samples from Grotta del Uzzo site in Trapani) and by Bronze Age an influx of Steppe ancestry with again some CHG/Iran_Neolithic type ancestry in Western Sicily (Fernandes et al 2020). So in totality, those 4 papers to me suggest a DNA admixture timeline in Sicily that mirrors what happened in Lazio. My guess, samples from other regions of Central and Southern Italy will document the same thing Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 documented.

More specifically with respect to Northern Italy, I think the picture is "likely the same" as what was documented by Antonio et al 2019-Figure 2 for Lazio and what the research has documented in Sicily. We know there were WHG in Northern Italy (Villabruna Cluster) during Mesolithic. So during Neolithic, I think we can use Otzi as an example or proxy for Neolithic EEF type ancestry. While Otzi was killed in the Italian Alps, all the research shows his tools indicate he probably came from Tuscany. While I know Tuscany is geographically Central Italy, I think it tends to cluster with Emilia and Liguria. What I think is needed is more Neolithic samples from Tuscany to Po Valley region and analyze whether the data shows a similar pattern that Figure 2 in Antonio et al 2019 shows for Lazio. So starting in Iron Age, maybe slightly earlier, some Steppe ancestry enters Italian peninsula from NE Italy/Croatia border and the data resembles what we see in Iron Age for Lazio, although maybe not, maybe the Steppe migrants went to Lazio and the Steppe ancestry in Northern Italy is as you say due to other migrations like more recent Germanic peoples coming in during the Fall of Rome period (which is indicated in Rome by Antonio et al 2019 as well).

Finally, from my personal reading of Antonio et al 2019, there is enough there for anyone whose ancestors are 100% from somewhere in Italy. Some of those 127 samples cluster with Northern Italy, some Southern Italy and Sicily, some close to Sardinia, some Central Italy. Those samples that plot outside of modern Italy tend to drift towards Southern France and Iberia.

None plot with Scandinavia or Denmark, Germany or the UK.

 

[Philjames100]

None plot with Scandinavia or Denmark, Germany or the UK.

"The Iron Age witnessed a striking shift in the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups compared to previous periods, indicative of large-scale immigration before the Iron Age (our dataset did not contain any Bronze Age individual from central Italy). Five of the seven male individuals in this time period belong to the R-M269 (R1b1a2) group, which is not observed in the nine earlier male samples. Unlike the general R-M343 (R1b) haplogroup, the R-M269 subgroup is thought to be tightly associated with Steppe related ancestry, as it was absent in ancient individuals in western Europe before 3,000 BCE but found in all Bronze Age Yamnaya males from Russia (c. 3,500-3,000 BCE), >90% males associated with the Beaker-complex in Bronze Age Britain (c. 2,700-2,500) and nearly 100% of males in Iberia after 2,000 BCE. Therefore, the appearance of R-M269 at high frequency (5 out of 7) in central Italy is consistent with the arrival of Steppe ancestry detected based on autosomal SNPs, via migration of Steppe pastoralists or intermediary populations in the preceding Bronze Age.”

Antonio et al. 2019


Analysis from Eurogenes:


The cluster made up of four early Italic speakers can be modeled with minor Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry, but, perhaps crucially, it doesn't need to be. Indeed, judging by the qpAdm output below, it's possible that almost all of its steppe ancestry came from the Bell Beaker complex, and, thus, the Corded Ware culture complex before that.


ITA_Italic_IA
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.480±0.055
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.411±0.042
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.109±0.084


https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/open-analysis-and-discussion-thread.html

 

[Palermo Trapani]

"The Iron Age witnessed a striking shift in the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups compared to previous periods, indicative of large-scale immigration before the Iron Age (our dataset did not contain any Bronze Age individual from central Italy). Five of the seven male individuals in this time period belong to the R-M269 (R1b1a2) group, which is not observed in the nine earlier male samples. Unlike the general R-M343 (R1b) haplogroup, the R-M269 subgroup is thought to be tightly associated with Steppe related ancestry, as it was absent in ancient individuals in western Europe before 3,000 BCE but found in all Bronze Age Yamnaya males from Russia (c. 3,500-3,000 BCE), >90% males associated with the Beaker-complex in Bronze Age Britain (c. 2,700-2,500) and nearly 100% of males in Iberia after 2,000 BCE. Therefore, the appearance of R-M269 at high frequency (5 out of 7) in central Italy is consistent with the arrival of Steppe ancestry detected based on autosomal SNPs, via migration of Steppe pastoralists or intermediary populations in the preceding Bronze Age.”

Antonio et al. 2019

What you are indicating is that just before Iron Age, some new ancestry came in to Rome (Steppe type). So that does not negate the substance of what I wrote. What it says in my view is that some of the source ancestry (admixture) came from that regions in Central Europe into R475, but 475's entire ancestry was not North of the Alps, all it means is there is some Steppe ancestry that entered into Iron Age Rome and admixed with the predominate Source ancestries, which was Neolithic-EEF type ancestry, some others like WHG and Iran_Neolithic. I am not saying none of those Roman Samples had "some Steppe" ancestry, all Europe has some, but I think the Figures in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 shows where the Samples plot. FIgure 3 which you are citing is just showing where the source ancestries came from. Figure 1 states that in the Iron Age they document presence of Steppe ancestry but with increased Iran_Neolithic ancestry. I was referring to the Figure 2 plots and the related Figure 4 plots.

 

[Philjames100]

What you are indicating is that just before Iron Age, some new ancestry came in to Rome (Steppe type). So that does not negate the substance of what I wrote. What it says in my view is that some of the source ancestry (admixture) came from that regions in Central Europe into R475, but 475's entire ancestry was not North of the Alps, all it means is there is some Steppe ancestry that entered into Iron Age Rome and admixed with the predominate Source ancestries, which was Neolithic-EEF type ancestry, some others like WHG and Iran_Neolithic. I am not saying none of those Roman Samples had "some Steppe" ancestry, all Europe has some, but I think the Figures in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 shows where the Samples plot. FIgure 3 which you are citing is just showing where the source ancestries came from. Figure 1 states that in the Iron Age they document presence of Steppe ancestry but with increased Iran_Neolithic ancestry. I was referring to the Figure 2 plots and the related Figure 4 plots.

The Romans came about when people carrying Y-DNA R1b migrated from central Europe/north of the Alps into Italy, and mixed with earlier populations, largely replacing earlier male lineages.

Another way of putting this is that 'some steppe ancestry magically appeared in everyone's genomes, along with a new set of Y-DNA lineages'.

 

[blevins13]

The Romans came about when people carrying Y-DNA R1b migrated from central Europe/north of the Alps into Italy, and mixed with earlier populations, largely replacing earlier male lineages.

Another way of putting this is that 'some steppe ancestry magically appeared in everyone's genomes, along with a new set of Y-DNA lineages'.

This is obviously urnfield culture


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Palermo Trapani]

The Romans came about when people carrying Y-DNA R1b migrated from central Europe/north of the Alps into Italy, and mixed with earlier populations, largely replacing earlier male lineages.

Another way of putting this is that 'some steppe ancestry magically appeared in everyone's genomes, along with a new set of Y-DNA lineages'.

I don't dispute Steppe admixture came into Italy around circa 2500-2000 BC, etc, but my point is it never resulted in Romans genetically being shifted to your neck of the woods or Scandanavia. Anyone still pushing that theory is well? Modern Latium is only 29% R1b, heck Sicily is 26% R1b, so I don't doubt those Y-DNA Haplogroups came in to Rome, as other parts of Italy. But Y-DNA does not tell the entire story, wouldn't you agree. All of my ancestors immigrated to the USA from Sicily between 1890 and 1903. I am Y-DNA I-M223, I think we all agree Y-DNA I and its sub-clades I1, I2 were all related to Mesolithic WHG pre and post Ice age, but I am not WHG dominate in terms of admixture. In fact, 2 of the 3 Mesolithic WHG in Antonio et al 2019 were I-M223 (which I am), and all 3 were I. Rome became Rome in 8th Century, so the peoples who were in Rome by then reflect the ancestry that Antonio et al 2019 Documents in Figure 2. Look where Steppe plots relative to Central Italy (Latium) and look which peoples plot closer towards Steppe. The 11 Iron Age Romans are plotting, 8 of them in area between N.Italy, Tuscany and West towards Southern France and Iberia. 3 of them Central Italy to Southern Italy. So did the R1b lineages totally replace earlier Neolithic ones?

Sometimes when the ancient Romans are discussed, I feel like I am a kid again listening to all the country club Episcopalians and Presbyterians in the 1970's when I was growing up (American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry and Catholic boy) telling me Romans sounded like Laurence Olivier as Crassus and all the English Actors on the BBC show I Cladius, both of which were great shows, well acted, and well done.

 

[ratchet_fan]

I don't dispute Steppe admixture came into Europe, but my point is it never resulted in Romans genetically being shifted to your neck of the woods or Scandanavia. Anyone still pushing that theory is well? Modern Latium is only 29% R1b, heck Sicily is 26% R1b, so I don't doubt those Y-DNA Haplogroups came in to Rome, as other parts of Italy. But Y-DNA does not tell the entire story, wouldn't you agree. All of my ancestors immigrated to the USA from Sicily between 1890 and 1903. I am Y-DNA I-M223, I think we all agree Y-DNA I and its sub-clades I1, I2 were all related to Mesolithic WHG pre and post Ice age, but I am not WHG dominate in terms of admixture. In fact, 2 of the 3 Mesolithic WHG in Antonio et al 2019 were I-M223 (which I am), and all 3 were I. Rome became Rome in 8th Century, so the peoples who were in Rome by then reflect the ancestry that Antonio et al 2019 Documents in Figure 2. Look where Steppe pots relative to Central Italy (Latium) and look which peoples plot closer towards Steppe. The 11 Iron Age Romans are plotting, 8 of them in area between N.Italy, Tuscany and West towards Southern France and Iberia. 3 of them Central Italy to Southern Italy. So did the R1b lineages totally replace earlier Neolithic ones?

Sometimes when the ancient Romans are discussed, I feel like I am a kid again listening to all the country club Episcopalians and Presbyterians in the 1970's when I was growing up (American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry and Catholic boy) telling me Romans sounded like Laurence Olivier as Crassus and all the English Actors on the BBC show I Cladius, both of which were great shows, well acted, and well done.

I wasn't aware there R1b frequencies so low in some parts of Western Europe. So the situation was more akin to a place like Armenia/Iran/Anatolia where Indo-European R1 didn't obliterate the local lineages rather assimilated in than a place like Northern Europe/Central Asia where the Indo-European lineages had a large majority and largely replaced local lineages. It makes sense given population densities.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

ratchet_fan. Sicily and Lazio are relatively close in terms of R1b, as are Campania (26%), Calabria (26.5%), Apulia (27.5%). Umbria which borders Lazio in Central Italy is 38% and Molise and Marche are 24% and 34%, respectively, both in Central Italy. Y-DNA I and sub-clades are 7.5% in Sicily (Me as I am I-M223) but there really isn't one Y-DNA Haplogroup anywhere in Italy that dominates like some other countries as I will note below,

Here are the Y-DNA Haplogroups for all 20 Italian Political Regions. Nowhere in Italy is R1b1 > 60% and only 4 regions are above 50%.

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

Interestingly, Sicily has 4.5% R1a which is higher than most other regions in Italy (highest in Poland at 58%), as for R1b, the highest frequencies are in the British Isles, England 69%, Scotland 72%, Wales 74% and Ireland 81% (per Maciamo's article here at Eupedia dated June 2017) . Spain also has 69% R1b and given the clustering of some of the Iron Age Romans between Tuscany/Northern Italy and Spain, there may be some close connection between the Steppe ancestry that entered Italy and what entered Spain. I think the plot in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 is consistent with that statement. There may be 1 or 2 countries that are around 60%, or maybe regions in Countries that rival the British Isles and Spain.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml



Cheers.

 

[ratchet_fan]

ratchet_fan. Sicily and Lazio are relatively close in terms of R1b, as are Campania (26%), Calabria (26.5%), Apulia (27.5%). Umbria which borders Lazio in Central Italy is 38% and Molise and Marche are 24% and 34%, respectively, both in Central Italy. Y-DNA I and sub-clades are 7.5% in Sicily (Me as I am I-M223) but there really isn't one Y-DNA Haplogroup anywhere in Italy that dominates like some other countries as I will note below,

Here are the Y-DNA Haplogroups for all 20 Italian Political Regions. Nowhere in Italy is R1b1 > 60% and only 4 regions are above 50%.

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

Interestingly, Sicily has 4.5% R1a which is higher than most other regions in Italy (highest in Poland at 58%), as for R1b, the highest frequencies are in the British Isles, England 69%, Scotland 72%, Wales 74% and Ireland 81% (per Maciamo's article here at Eupedia dated June 2017) . Spain also has 69% R1b and given the clustering of some of the Iron Age Romans between Tuscany/Northern Italy and Spain, there may be some close connection between the Steppe ancestry that entered Italy and what entered Spain. I think the plot in Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 is consistent with that statement. There may be 1 or 2 countries that are around 60%, or maybe regions in Countries that rival the British Isles and Spain.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml



Cheers.

Thank you. Your posts are very informative. Scandinavian countries have high combined R1a + R1b frequencies probably rivaling NW Europe.

 

[Angela]

Actually, that data is a bit outdated, and so it is incorrect in terms of some sub-regions of Italy.

The highest frequency of R1b is found in Garfagnana (76.2%) in Tuscany and in the Bergamo Valleys (80.8%) in Lombardy, Northern regions.[25][26] This percentage lowers at the south of Italy in Calabria (26.5%).[27] On the other hand, the majority of the Sardinians belong to Mesolithic European haplogroup I2a1a.[28]

My father's Parma valleys are undoubtedly as high, and there are other areas where the total goes way above 60%.

The percentages in the following recent paper are pretty informative. Many places in the north are above 60%,
https://www.researchgate.net/public...insights_from_a_male_Y-chromosome_perspective

Not that I understand the point of this in terms of Sicily pre-Greek-colonization.

 

[ihype02]

Syracuse -> Corinth
Casmenai -> Syracuse -> Corinth
Kamarina -> Syracuse -> Corinth
Megara Hyblaea -> Megara
Selinunte -> Megara Hyblaea -> Megara
Heraclea Minoa -> ?
Gela -> Rhodes and Crete
Akragas -> Gela -> Rhodes and Crete

Ionic colonies of Sicily:
Zancle -> Euboea
Himaera -> Zancle -> Euboea
Calacte -> Zancle -> Euboea
Naxos -> Euboea
Catania -> Euboea
Leoniti -> Naxos -> Euboea

Italian wiki places overall 20 cities in Sicily while the English wiki around 13/14. Found it on Anthrogenica.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Actually, that data is a bit outdated, and so it is incorrect in terms of some sub-regions of Italy.

The highest frequency of R1b is found in Garfagnana (76.2%) in Tuscany and in the Bergamo Valleys (80.8%) in Lombardy, Northern regions.[25][26] This percentage lowers at the south of Italy in Calabria (26.5%).[27] On the other hand, the majority of the Sardinians belong to Mesolithic European haplogroup I2a1a.[28]

My father's Parma valleys are undoubtedly as high, and there are other areas where the total goes way above 60%.

The percentages in the following recent paper are pretty informative. Many places in the north are above 60%,
https://www.researchgate.net/public...insights_from_a_male_Y-chromosome_perspective

Not that I understand the point of this in terms of Sicily pre-Greek-colonization.

I think there was a question about R1b being so low in parts of Italy or maybe an earlier discussion on Steppe Herder into Italy?. Not sure the reason it came up. I was just answering the question based on the what I thought was the most recent data on Italian Y-DNA. I was not aware of that paper and I appreciate you mentioning it. I need to track it down, does it have complete samples for regions and wasn't aware the data in the Eupedia article was outdated. The high I2a1a in Sardinia is interesting, not to far from my neck of the woods.