Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

[Jovialis]

There is no rule which says there could be just one migration from a land to another land. As I said we read in Fernandes et al 2020 paper: "In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry was present during the Middle Bronze Age, showing that this ancestry which was widespread in the Aegean around this time (in association with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures), also reached further west." And we read in Lazaridis et al (Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans), "Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran." So this Iranian-related people were those who lived in Iran at the time of Minoans and Mycenaeans, not those ones who lived in Iran 9,000 years ago. As you know Mycenaeans were an Indo-European people, so those Iranian-related people could be Indo-European too.

What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. Now drop it.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Shahmiri: No the Mycenaean's were not Indo-European people. Your statement is inconsistent with what the authors found. Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar having three-quarters of their ancestry from the First Neolithic Farmers of Western Anatolia. Are you saying the Neolithic Farmers are "Steppe-Herder" people. As for Indo-European, I usually think of that as a Linguistic term. From what I gathered, and I am not one who has spent tons of time researching the Yamnaya Culture, the Steppe Herder peoples are largely related to Eastern European Hunter Gathers from Russia/Ukraine and maybe some from ancient Siberia. As that culture spread South, some Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG) admixture was added and the peoples of the Caucuses adapted Indo-European languages and as the Steppe Herder people moved West the Indo-European Language spread but the Ancient Greeks in Lazaridis were clearly Early European Farmer Neolithic predominant genetically with some additional Caucus and Iran ancestry, as you noted. However, what you did not note was Mycenaean's differed from the Minoans with respect to some additional Eastern European Hunter Gather (EHG) type ancestry

"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6–8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

So sorry, I don't agree that the Mycenaeans were "Indo-European" ancestry wise. The paper you are citing clearly refutes that. The Greek Language is an Indo European Language. That and only that I agree with.

 

[ratchet_fan]

What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are radically different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. LIVE WITH IT!

I'm pretty sure the southern steppe ancestry is from CHG not even Iran_N to begin with. CHG is just related to Iran_N. There's too much ANE, ENA and AASI in Iran_N for it to exist in most Europeans.

 

[ihype02]

Now we can discuss what population movements (I really doubt it was just one major admixture event and nothing else) caused that change and how that relates (or not) to cultural, archaeological and linguistic changes in the island, but it did happen. IMO it's clear that Sicilians aren't just very Ancient Greek (Mycenaean + Minoan)-shifted Bronze Age Sicilians (for if they were they would plot differently in the PCA chart and have less Natufian-related and Maykop-related admixtures), so other relevant populations must also have contributed to the genetics of modern Sicilians after the LBA (considering the main components involved, we could consider early Italics, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks not just from Greece but also from Anatolian and Cyprus, Italians from the mainland, Normans, North Africans during the Roman Era as well as during the Muslim rule, Byzantines from Anatolia and Levant, etc.).That doesn't make Sicilians any more or less European, of couse, not just due to historical and cultural fators, but also because the bulk of their ancestry, at least in terms of really ancient and more distinctive admixtures (e.g. Anatolia_N, Iran_N, WHG, Steppe_EMBA, etc.) is still overwhelmingly formed by the same main components that shape the European genetics elsewhere.

All of the Ionic colonies in Sicily are from Euboea, and the Doric ones are from Corinth, Megara, Rhodes and Crete. The biggest demographic change came with Magna Greacians, as Syracuse was one of the most populous Greek city in Classical antiquity. But others contributed too. The greatest component but not the absolute majority is the ancient Greek ancestry, IMO. But this nearly complete replacement is very exaggerated.

Greeks from Anatolia and Cyprus rarely came to Sicily, as for Moors, Arbereshe and Normans, their contribution each was a 1 digit percentage. I have all the statistics for Arbereshe, they don't extend 3%, and were slightly above 1% in 15th century.

IMO, there might have been an ancient Greek-like population which poured into Sicily, possibly related with southern mainland Italians which pushed native Sicilians really close to Minoans. I believe the Bell Beaker Sicily sample might be what Sicilians were right before the Greek colonization, from which time frame was it taken?


"We detected Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the MiddleBronze Age 1800–1500 bc, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals towards Minoans and Mycenaeans in the PCA(Fig. 2b); in distal modelling, Sicily_MBA requires 15.7±2.6% o fIran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry (P=0.060; Fig. 4,Supplementary Table 14). Sources closer in time always require Minoan_Lassithi or Anatolia_EBA as a source (SupplementaryTable 21). Modern southern Italians harbour Iranian-related ancestry71, and our results show that this ancestry must have reached Sicily before the period of Greek political control when Sicily and southern Italy were part of Magna Graecia."

"We modelled Sicily_LBA as 81.5±1.6% Anatolia_Neolithic,5.9±1.6% WHG and 12.7±2.1% Yamnaya_Samara (Fig. 4b,Supplementary Table 14). Although this distal modelling providesno hint of Iranian-related ancestry, modelling with sources closer intime supports Sicily_LBA having such ancestry through groups suchas Anatolia_EBA or Minoan_Lassithi (Supplementary Table 22)."

"Our distal modelling of modern Sicilians requires not only thatthe two eastern ancestry sources that we have shown were presentby the Bronze Age—10.0±2.6% Yamnaya_Samara and 19.9±1.4%Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic—but also a predominant component of North African ancestry (46.9±5.6% Morocco_LN). These results are consistent with most ofthe North-African-related ancestry having come into Sicily duringthe Iron Age and afterwards—a scenario that is further supportedby our observation that modern Sicilians form a clade with Ibiza_Phoenician (P=0.060) and the three most recent Sardinian individuals in our time series (Supplementary Information). Althoughthese results are consistent in principle with a nearly completeancestry turnover on the island since the Bronze Age, we cannotrule out the possibility that Bronze Age Sicilians made a more modest ancestry contribution to modern Sicilians."

This was not the case with Campia, Apulia and Basilicata. Most of their ancestry comes from Italic people.

What do think is % of the 900BC Sicilians in modern Sicilians?

 

[Jovialis]

What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. Now drop it.

What is it with this hobby, do people pick the component they are mostly desended from, and champion just that, inspite of other significant admixture they have? This isn't picking your favorite soccer club, guys.

 

[Jovialis]

I'm pretty sure the southern steppe ancestry is from CHG not even Iran_N to begin with. CHG is just related to Iran_N. There's too much ANE, ENA and AASI in Iran_N for it to exist in most Europeans.

Despite my reservations with the modeling in the chart I posted above, they were able to do it with Iran_N.

 

[Shahmiri]

What are you even arguing about? Iran-Neolithic ancestry existed outside of the land known today as Iran, for a very long time. The main reason why it is in Europe today is due to admixture with EHG that created Steppe ancestry, and admixture with Anatolian_N to create Anatolian_ChL/BA ancestry.

What are you getting at here? Are you trying to say, just because you Iranian, we should bow down to you? Are you some kind of racist/supremacist? Do you have a problem with Europeans? Get a clue, you are different from Iran_N, for the reasons I had previously mentioned. Now drop it.

I'm here just because I love European culture and I believe Iranian culture relates to it, I actually believe the original Iranian culture is what we already see in Europe, not what we see in modern Iran.

 

[ihype02]

What is it with this hobby, do people pick the component they are mostly desended from, and champion just that, inspite of other significant admixture they have? This isn't picking your favorite soccer club, guys.

IMO means in my opinion.

 

[Jovialis]

I'm here just because I love European culture and I believe Iranian culture relates to it, I actually believe the original Iranian culture is what we already see in Europe, not what we see in modern Iran.

​

There is no doubt some overlap, culturally, and even genetically. We're all here to learn.

 

[Jovialis]

IMO means in my opinion.

?

We must have cross posted, and you mistook me, I wasn't referring to your post.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

ihype02: Probably quite a bit. The Sicilian Bell Beaker (I4930) is mostly EEF type ancestry. Has No Steppe. Ygorcs in post 155 modeled him as 72% Anatolian-Neolithic, 22% Maykop (CHG type) and 5.2% WHG. But that is just 1 individual. This new paper by VanDeLooschret et al 2020, which I refered to in post 156 has 18 new samples that pre-date the Bell Beaker Sicilian and the Bronze Age Sicilian Samples from Fernandes et al 2020 but post date the Sicilian_WHG (OrientaleC) from Favignana. The Catalano et al 2020 paper document that the Sicilian_WHG were from the WHG from the Southern Italian Mainland.


Post 152 provides some additional information. If you compare now these ancient Sicilian samples we have starting with the Sicilian_WHG from Favignana, the new samples from the Grotta Del Uzzo Site (near San Vito Lopo, Trapani) dating up to 5,200 BC, the Sicilian Bell Beaker from circa 2,200 BC, the Bronze Age Sicilians from Fernandes et al 2020 BC. I think you see all the ancient ancestries in Sicily that show up in modern Sicilians as documented by Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2.

So what exactly are you trying to say about Sicilians? I am having a hard time seeing what you are getting at.

 

[ihype02]

See the PCA chart (I don't know why but apparently I can't post any pictures in my posts here yet): https://imgur.com/a/pbpPKao

The MBA/LBA ones seem to be closer to modern Sicilians than Minoans are.

 

[ihype02]

So what exactly are you trying to say about Sicilians? I am having a hard time seeing what you are getting at.

I think Sicilians might have been more similar to the old Greeks, by the time passed and before the colonization started. So I believe that native Sicilians might been Minoan-like by 900BC.

 

[ihype02]

?

We must have cross posted, and you mistook me, I wasn't referring to your post.

Oh I'm sorry.

 

[Ailchu]

Many Kurds have posted their DNA tests on you tube. As you know Kurds are an Iranic people stock and they report on average from 10 to 12% South Asian ancestry which is India, Pakistan. So my guess is Iran should have higher percentage of south Asian ancestry due to its proximity and trade and cultural exchanges. Its not hard to see in Iranian phenotype south Asian ancestry

in other tests they score close to 100% westasian. these 10 to 12% do not have to be real south asian. could also be because this ancestry went from iran to south asia.

 

[Shahmiri]

Shahmiri: No the Mycenaean's were not Indo-European people. Your statement is inconsistent with what the authors found. Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar having three-quarters of their ancestry from the First Neolithic Farmers of Western Anatolia. Are you saying the Neolithic Farmers are "Steppe-Herder" people. As for Indo-European, I usually think of that as a Linguistic term. From what I gathered, and I am not one who has spent tons of time researching the Yamnaya Culture, the Steppe Herder peoples are largely related to Eastern European Hunter Gathers from Russia/Ukraine and maybe some from ancient Siberia. As that culture spread South, some Caucus Hunter Gather (CHG) admixture was added and the peoples of the Caucuses adapted Indo-European languages and as the Steppe Herder people moved West the Indo-European Language spread but the Ancient Greeks in Lazaridis were clearly Early European Farmer Neolithic predominant genetically with some additional Caucus and Iran ancestry, as you noted. However, what you did not note was Mycenaean's differed from the Minoans with respect to some additional Eastern European Hunter Gather (EHG) type ancestry

"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6–8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

So sorry, I don't agree that the Mycenaeans were "Indo-European" ancestry wise. The paper you are citing clearly refutes that. The Greek Language is an Indo European Language. That and only that I agree with.

If genetics matters then we should look at what the greatest geneticists say, David Reich says "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia.", so when we read "However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe, or Armenia.", Indo-European origin could be from Armenia, not the Eurasian steppe, especially because we read in the same study: "Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasian steppe in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2)."

 

[Palermo Trapani]

I think Sicilians might have become more similar to the old Greeks, by the time passed and before the colonization started. So I believe that native Sicilians might been Minoan-like by 900BC.

Ok, well I think the only way to confirm that is to get Sicilian Samples from the period between 900 BC and around 265 BC. So if the Sicilians shifted towards Minoans in that period, how far would that have moved them? But who exactly are the Old Greeks? Were there Greeks in the Neolithic period. I tend to think modern Ethnic Groups pretty much became close to what they are today by the Late Bronze to Iron Age. Distance Wise I am about 15 from Sicilian_Bell Beaker (2,200 BC) actually share DNA segments with Otzi (3,300 BC) and share DNA segments with both ancient Minoan and Mycenean Greek samples (again MTA Chroma analysis). However, I share DNA segments with like 26 of the 127 Ancient Roman Samples from Antonio et al 2019 (again MTA Chroma analysis).

Of course I am an American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry in 2020 and I can measure where I am today using DNA test (Ancestry an Nat Geo), various calculators and MTA. We have data from Sicily pre-Greek Colonization, and as I said it looks like we are getting 18 additional samples from the Grotta Del Uzzo site from San Vito Lopo, Trapani. My Fathers Paternal Grandparents (My Great Grandparents) were both born in Trapani Province so exciting to me on a personal level as well one of the Male samples has Y-DNA I2a2 (M436), which is an early I2a2 in Sicily (National Geographic tells me I am I-M223, which is a sub-clade of I-M436).

So yes it would be interesting to see what happened in Sicily between 900 BC and 265BC, a period when the Greek Colonization dominated, with some minor influence from Pheonicia and Carthage. It would then be interesting to see what happened over the Roman period till the collapse of Rome in the West in the 5th Century AD, the Byzantine_Eastern Empire to the Saracen period, then the Norman rule etc. I think, my hypothesis, is that you will see ebbs an flows within certain ranges but I don't think you will ever see Sicily clustering significantly away from where it clusters now in general.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

If genetics matters then we should look at what the greatest geneticists say, David Reich says "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia.", so when we read "However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe, or Armenia.", Indo-European origin could be from Armenia, not the Eurasian steppe, especially because we read in the same study: "Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasian steppe in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2)."

Well who is the greatest geneticist is subjective, but yes Reich is one of the best. As to where Indo-European languages were first spoken, that is a matter of intense debate and if it turns out to be Armenia then hey no issue for me. Now more to the point on a personal level, the fact that the Mycenaean's can't be modeled as having significant EHG ancestry is something I have no issue with. In fact, it actually is something that internally makes me smile because it refutes long held blog, you tube and internet theories about who the ancient Greeks were. So if you are saying that the ancient Greeks did not look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans then I am in agreement 100% as I have never said any such thing nor have I ever believed such a thing.

 

[ratchet_fan]

in other tests they score close to 100% westasian. these 10 to 12% do not have to be real south asian. could also be because this ancestry went from iran to south asia.

Honestly, I feel like people can manipulate their models depending on what they want for to be true.

 

[Shahmiri]

Well who is the greatest geneticist is subjective, but yes Reich is one of the best. As to where Indo-European languages were first spoken, that is a matter of intense debate and if it turns out to be Armenia then hey no issue for me. Now more to the point on a personal level, the fact that the Mycenaean's can't be modeled as having significant EHG ancestry is something I have no issue with. In fact, it actually is something that internally makes me smile because it refutes long held blog, you tube and internet theories about who the ancient Greeks were. So if you are saying that the ancient Greeks did not look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans then I am in agreement 100% as I have never said any such thing nor have I ever believed such a thing.

Do you mean they are Sicilians who look like modern Nordic/Germanic/English-Anglo Saxon type modern Northern Europeans? I just searched Sicilians in Google Images, this is the first image:

It really doesn't matter how ancient Greek and Italians look like, the ancient Greek and Roman cultures were much more advanced than north European cultures and they related to other advanced cultures in the Middle East, not north of Europe.