Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

[oreo_cookie]

What is this, kindergarden? Teacher, why are you picking on me? What about him?

I don’t see any evidence in this thread that Hauteville distorted any data…

He did above, because while people say I try to make Sicilians more "exotic" he is invested in doing the opposite. Also, his statement the Elymians were from Italy is also not verified -- right now, their language is unclassifiable, but the little evidence existing is that they may have been Anatolian. With that said, I read your above post, will take heed of it, and will just move on and do better from now on.

If Cretans were included in this study I think they would have overlapped with some of the Peloponnesians and with Sicily, which is what has been the case in other studies.

 

[Hauteville]

You're the only one who gave a distorted vision about Sicily and Southern Italy in these forums, Peloponneses are not much more northern than Sicilians in these PCAs because the position change in both figures, in the figure a the Peloponneseans appeared to be more northern but in the figure b it's the opposite. Of course you in your thread of Apricity shows only the figure a but not the figure b who was hided by you of course. Because of it doesn't fit in your agenda, that's clear all over the forums.

image hosting

 

[Hauteville]

"The geographic proximity and partial overlap in the PCA of Crete and Sicily is also compatible with gene flow from Crete to Italy and to Southern Europe through population movements along the Southern Mediterranean coast."

[FONT=&quot]

From the last study: a) [/FONT]Notice the north to south distribution of the populations and that the Peloponneseans are placed to the far right of the graph and overlap with the Sicilians[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

 

[Azzurro]

I thought this was supposed to a Greek Peleponnesian thread, anyways the connection between the Peleponnese, Sicily and Crete probably stems from different sources all having a role, first being that Cretans (along with Rhodes) were involved in colonizing Gela which in turn formed Akragas (Agrigento), both were pretty populated. Secondly the Dorics (or Doric speakers) came into the Peleponnese and formed the majority, they also colonized Crete and Sicily (along with other colonies in Southern Italy) later, thirdly the non Indo-European connection (Southern Italy, Crete, Greece in General are higher in J2a, T, E (non V13), and J1). I am not including J2a-L70, T-CTS54, J2b-Z597 and E-V13 .

 

[Hauteville]

Also, his statement the Elymians were from Italy is also not verified -- right now, their language is unclassifiable, but the little evidence existing is that they may have been Anatolian. With that said, I read your above post, will take heed of it, and will just move on and do better from now on.

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Scrittura&id=49&lang=en

[FONT=&quot]The language used to engrave the vase inscriptions and to write the coin markings belongs to the Indo-European family, and in most of the academic world today this language is considered part of the Italic group instead of Anatolian.[/FONT]

 

[Angela]

I'm losing my patience. No more squabbling. My only concern is that what's posted here is fact based and that only logical conclusions be drawn from those facts. I don't care what things are posted on anthrofora.

The absurd statements made here have been addressed. For the rest, if someone has some new data to submit, great, but don't spam the same points over and over again. Repetition doesn't correct the errors of a false analysis.

Also, the topic is Greek genetics within the parameters set up by the paper. I'm going to start removing off-topic posts.

 

[oreo_cookie]

Peloponneses are not much more northern than Sicilians in these PCAs because the position change in both figures, in the figure a the Peloponneseans appeared to be more northern but in the figure b it's the opposite. Of course you in your thread of Apricity shows only the figure a but not the figure b who was hided by you of course. Because of it doesn't fit in your agenda, that's clear all over the forums.

image hosting

Since this is about this study I will address it. There are, in figure b, no "northern" populations, it is not a European-wide PCA but just Southern Europeans so the axes are different, so you cannot determine from that who is or is not more "northern". If anything it appears to be showing the populations on an eastern to western scale, which means that since Sicilians have some NW European and Peloponnese some NE European, you'll see the Sicilians going more west. This is just common sense. It is not telling you northern-ness. As for figure c, it also does not measure genetic proximity (so again you cannot gauge who is and is not more "northern"), but direct gene flow. Notice the Sicilians received gene flow from France, Italy, Crete, Dodecanese, and SOME of the Peloponnesians.

Figure A, in fact, does have northern populations on it, so you can. If someone else would please indicate or verify if I am reading these correctly, I would appreciate it.

Also, since Angela said PCA is only one way and it has limitations, I then want to know: what is the more accurate way of measuring genetic proximity? IBD? How do we address the limitations of PCA plots to improve upon them?

 

[Angela]

Since this is about this study I will address it. There are, in figure b, no "northern" populations, it is not a European-wide PCA but just Southern Europeans so the axes are different, so you cannot determine from that who is or is not more "northern". If anything it appears to be showing the populations on an eastern to western scale, which means that since Sicilians have some NW European and Peloponnese some NE European, you'll see the Sicilians going more west. This is just common sense. It is not telling you northern-ness. As for figure c, it also does not measure genetic proximity (so again you cannot gauge who is and is not more "northern"), but direct gene flow. Notice the Sicilians received gene flow from France, Italy, Crete, Dodecanese, and SOME of the Peloponnesians.

Figure A, in fact, does have northern populations on it, so you can. If someone else would please indicate or verify if I am reading these correctly, I would appreciate it.

Also, since Angela said PCA is only one way and it has limitations, I then want to know: what is the more accurate way of measuring genetic proximity? IBD? How do we address the limitations of PCA plots to improve upon them?

You've made your point about the PCAs at least three times. It's spam. Make it again and I'll remove the post and issue an infraction.

Plus, you are obfuscating...again! The comment about northern plotting populations was in post number 214. In that figure, Finns, Estonians etc. are indeed included and are to the left. Get it?

I have said a couple of times before in this thread that imo formal stats are the best way of analyzing autosomal dna, at least if the people using the programs know what the heck they're doing, which isn't at all clear to me when amateurs are involved.

PCA is PCA. It has its uses or academics wouldn't turn to it, but it has to be interpreted carefully, and in conjunction with fst, ADMIXTURE, and formal stats.

Now stop trying to continue the argument by talking about the same PCA and asking the same questions over and over again. It's spamming.

This is your last warning. Stop making the same comments over and over again.

 

[oreo_cookie]

You've made your point about the PCAs at least three times. It's spam. Make it again and I'll remove the post and issue an infraction.

Fine. Hopefully Hauteville will do the same. I am not going to post it again, but hopefully the whole conversation shifts so there is nothing that needs to be countered.

 

[Angela]

You're the only one still posting false statements and resisting moderation. Cut it out now!

 

[oreo_cookie]

Ok, got it.

 

[Ralphie Boy]

What sticks out to me in this study is the authors' implication that modern Peloponnesians are largely direct descendants of Slavic-invasion era Greeks. If that turns out to be true, that would be a lethal blow to the Greek extinction theories.

 

[Nik]

I see you guys share some history together but I dont see anything wrong with oreo's first post. I don't see him making any claims rather than simply broadening the spectrum by mentioning a few more events that we can consider.

Obviously u can play the "not proven" card for everything but it is indeed true that in South Peloponnese u find Cretan surnames and that South Italian and Sicilian "Greeks" could have been resettled in Peloponnese just like the Byzantines invited the Albanians in the first place. Even Venetians could have played their minor part by bringing the Peloponneseans and Italians even closer. Fun fact for you, the Arvanites/Albanians of Greece adopted several Italian words while in Greece like "tutti" (meaning "all").

Again, before someone plans to attack, I'm just stating what I know as the truth is the product of all these little facts altogether, not a competition between them.

 

[LABERIA]

What sticks out to me in this study is the authors' implication that modern Peloponnesians are largely direct descendants of Slavic-invasion era Greeks. If that turns out to be true, that would be a lethal blow to the Greek extinction theories.

What we can understand from this study is that it seems there has never been a Slavic invasion of Greece.

 

[Boreas]

I don't know how this research can be a proof to deny Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer's theory.

The only clear way checking Peloponnesians dna with Byzantine, Roman and Hellenic samples from Peloponneia.

I don't believe Merayer's theory. Slavic elements didn't so strong to exterminate all Hellenic ones. Still top Y-dna is E1b in Greece. Just this is a proof.

However Making chart with Russians and Poles, it is just funny.

Why There is no South Slavs, let me tell you because if they did it, Greeks would be looking more close to them.

Sample

As a Turk, if I wanted to proof that Turks are European. I would use Greeks-Italians dna to compare with Turks
If I were white facist European and proof that Turks are not European, I would use Norwageians DNA.

It is that much simple.

For me, it seems that since the begining they have decided what to tell and choose comparison samples according to it.

As I told you, the certain way to proof Merayer or deny, checking Peloponnesians dna with Byzantine, Roman and Hellenic samples from Peloponneia. Otherwise all words will be just a theory.

 

[Angela]

@Boreas,
In case you missed it I've said numerous times in this thread that the only way to really know what happened is to compare the ancient dna of the people living in the Peloponnesus, all of Greece really, prior to the Slavic migrations and then afterwards, or to compare the ancient dna of people from these "Slavic" tribes to the dna of these ancient Greeks.

Since we don't have it yet, or these authors didn't have it when they did the paper, they used modern Poles and other Slavs as a proxy. It's not a great proxy, granted, but would a comparison with "South Slavs" have really been better? I don't know. A comparison with the modern day people of the northern Balkans would have been interesting, but since they already shared so much ancestry with the Greeks pre-the-Slavic migration era, would a comparison tell us how many nominally Slavic or Slavic speaking tribes moved into the Peloponnesus? I don't doubt that some did migrate, btw. I guess part of the confusion for historians and geneticists alike is that the "South Slavs" are not really "Slavs" genetically. If I had to guess I'd say that component is less than 50%. Perhaps part of the resistance to this paper is that some groups don't want to find out how little actual "Slav" is in them as well.

Looking at yDna would be another way of getting a handle on it, but, as I said, the total numbers of R1a and I2a in the Peloponnesus are very small, and the more likely to be specifically "Slavic" clades would, I think, be smaller yet. Did they carry stealth yDna or something? The levels in the northern Balkans are more respectable, so maybe that kind of comparison would be helpful. Does anyone have that data at their fingertips?

With reference to yDna, E-V13 is still around 40% or more in the Peloponnesus, and my understanding is that the papers which found those numbers did not test Albanians. So, how does that compare to the E-V13 in the areas in the northern Balkans from which any well mixed, nominally "Slavic" tribes would have come?

Laberia: What we can understand from this study is that it seems there has never been a Slavic invasion of Greece.

That's a straw man argument. Do you think you're on Eurogenes or something?

@Nik,
Sorry, but I think that's a total misreading of Sikeliot's point. This is what he said, to quote him verbatim:

Oreo Cookie: See my post above. They moved many Greek-speaking Sicilians, Calabrese, and Cretans to the Peloponnese to restore and solidify its Greek character. I attribute much of the similarity in the populations today to this.

That is not what his supposed source actually said, even if that source were reliable, which it isn't. It said that Greeks from Patras went to Sicily and then returned. Did you even read my post pointing all of this out? His conclusion is also completely different from the much more nuanced, sensible comment you're making.

I actually have stated, repeatedly, that the gene flow explaining similarities between Greeks and Italians went both ways and can't be attributed to one event, although it's clear that a lot of the gene flow went from Greece to Italy in many periods of history. Now, let's get back to the Greeks. As much as Sikeliot would like to make this about the Sicilians or southern Italians, it isn't.

It is amazing to me how well documented historical movements through archaeology like Greek colonization of southern Italy can be ignored or downplayed in favor of totally unreliable speculations based on absolutely nothing if it suits a certain agenda or national myth.

Also, again, please, no straw man arguments.

Ed. One of the things that has to be kept in mind is that the Greek cline has probably been created over thousands of years by differential gene flows from both the north and the south.

I found this lecture about Greek colonization interesting. Much of northern Greece was actually colonized from further south in Greece. The professor also makes the point that in his view the "center" of Greece was the Aegean.

It's worth watching, I think, for anyone interested in this period of Greek history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z71ZmfYE08

 

[Ralphie Boy]

The authors of this study themselves say Slavs settled in the Peloponnese; nobody is saying they didn't. What is said is that Greeks are far apart from Slavs of certain countries. Nobody in his or her right mind would think that there's no admixture in the Peloponnese.

As far as Slavic Balkan countries, they probably plot relatively close to certain Peloponnesian populations, if not very close to them. Same with Albanians. We know Slavic was not spoken in much if not all of the Balkans until the Slavs arrived, which means they likely came from someplace else. If by the time they came to Greece they were admixed heavily with native Balkan populations, so be it.

Some people seem to want to see modern Greeks as having no deep ancestral Greek ancestry and want them to be descendants of Turks, Slavs, Vlachs, Roma, Albanians, etc. The Peloponnese is at the center of this, because of Fallmerayer.

Many are looking forward to more discoveries to understand the tangled genetic history of the Balkans and elsewhere.

 

[spartan owl]

sicilians and other south italians did come to peloponnese when byzantium lost its italian terittories as i mentioned before but in small numbers.
i also noticed that in paschou research that oreo cookie mentioned s.e lakonia matches better with tuscans and sicilians with cretans in the admixture analysis.
another usefull information is that s.e lakonia did not had dorian and had also fewer achean settlements than north lakonia (sparta).

 

[Boreas]

@Boreas,
In case you missed it I've said numerous times in this thread that the only way to really know what happened is to compare the ancient dna of the people living in the Peloponnesus, all of Greece really, prior to the Slavic migrations and then afterwards, or to compare the ancient dna of people from these "Slavic" tribes to the dna of these ancient Greeks.

First one: The only clear way checking Peloponnesians dna with Byzantine, Roman and Hellenic samples from Peloponneia.

Second one: As I told you, the certain way to proof Merayer or deny, checking Peloponnesians dna with Byzantine, Roman and Hellenic samples from Peloponneia. Otherwise all words will be just a theory.

I have told the only way checking ancient Dna from Peloponnesus. 2 times in one post. But still accuse of missing it


Also as in the Hun and Roman Empire case.

Before the Huns arrive to Roman Border and start to fight with them. They forced to move other tribes (Migration Period) and caused to split Empire as West and East

Similarly if the nations and tribes who lived on the road of the Slav, could be forced to move Greece or Anatolia too. You should able to seperate them from the actual old Helenic period Greeks as you will do it for Slavs Dna.

It is amazing to me how well documented historical movements through archaeology like Greek colonization of southern Italy can be ignored or downplayed in favor of totally unreliable speculations based on absolutely nothing if it suits a certain agenda or national myth.

İgnoring ? I don't know who are talking about but the only matter ancient Dna of Peloponnesian, if someone try to make argument about this study and Southern Italians, that person was a kind of speculator who use inreliable source for this case.

Btw I created Magna Graecia page in Turkish wikidepia so I know the basics :grin:

Also, again, please, no straw man arguments.

As you said, the only way to really know what happened is to compare the ancient dna of the people living in the Peloponnesus. But all we have this study, which makes all argument here straw man arguments.

and again I don't belive Merayer, but not because of this unmature study. The only way is obvious, but they have done this research. It can be just part of another research which has enough data to make arguments.

 

[Angela]

@Boreas,
I said you missed the fact that I had already said repeatedly that we need ancient dna. Before you get excited and start making accusations and repeat yourself ten times, make sure you're translating from English correctly.

@Spartan Owl,
I would take any conclusions about genetics from OreoCookie/Sikeliot with a Mack truck's worth of salt.

Do you mean this Admixture analysis from Paschou et al? I would take another hard look at it. You see big differences here? Informative that Serbia is included.