Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

Nobody is saying that Slavs didn't settle in the Peloponnese. Even the authors of this study say Slavs settled in the area, through their data. What they're saying is that the modern Greeks are genetically distant from certain other Slavic populations. This is valid because the Balkans didn't have the Slavic language until medieval times. That means Slavs came from somewhere else, or at the very least, the northern fringes of the Balkans.

As far as Slavs being already mixed with native Balkan populations when they entered the Peloponnese, that's possible. There are studies in which Greeks are not too distant genetically from other modern Balkan populations--which as others have said is because of many hundreds if not thousands of years of interaction.

This is a good study to me because of the closeness of Peloponnesians and southern Italians and Sicilians. It has strong implications of the survival of native Balkan populations, as opposed to the region being overrun by Turks and Slavs, and the locals dying out through attrition, migration or being killed off outright.
 
That's a straw man argument.
It`is not necessary to read through data as someone suggest here, just read the conclusion of the study.
Our results reject the theory of extinction of medieval Peloponnesean Greeks and their replacement by Slavic and Asia Minor settlers.
And according to some members here, the slavic presence in Greece can be explained:
I believe that Y-DNA haplogroup I-Dinaric in Greeks is associated with Slavs, and that's fairly present in Greeks, but some or a lot of that could have been brought by others after the Slavs as well.
So, if we accept this theories, we can conclude that there was not an slavic invasion of Greece, merely some insignificant infiltrations.
Do you think you're on Eurogenes or something? :)
What`s this?
 
So, if we accept this theories, we can conclude that there was not an slavic invasion of Greece, merely some insignificant infiltrations.

What`s this?

Indeed


From the historical data we know how much it was , and where they settle,
even by usage of toponyms, and except some parts among Greece-Makedonia and FYROM-Slavo-Macedonia it is not a significant %.
it is different the story of raid and sack an area than to change the major % of genetics,

IF we follow the logic that every place which was raid and sacked change its genetics and replace all older population
Then modern Rome is habited by Huns, and Goths,
ex-Yugoslavia Bulgaria and Albania by Turks etc etc South Spain by Arabs etc etc
Alexander conquer raid and sacked half of the world,
and he Built Huge cities moving Greek population, some still exist, some are remnants

We know that these changes left marks, who knows how much? from 0,01% to unknown xx %
BUT CAN WE SAY THAT MODERN EGYPT SYRIA AND wider IRANIANS ARE GREEKS ??? surely NOT
AS FALLMAYER CLAIM ABOUT GREEKS, it is same thing


Cause if I follow Fallmayer's sense of Logic, about Slavs their raids and their 1-3 generations of certian castle occupation, max 80 years
Then what result should have Ottoman occupation for 400 years in Greece and 500 in other Balkan countries????
simple Logic directs Fallmayer to Atopon


History is to teach us and direct us,
History can not be changed,
but the combo of History, Archaiology, and Genetics give us clear view of the past.
 
@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.

View attachment 8561

You might also want to take a look at this:
Paschou et al Admixture analysis 2.jpg

The thicker the line the more important the connection.

Paschou et al Admixture K8 based network analysis.jpg

In terms of the samples from Paschou et al, the "Peloponnesian" sample is from Tripoli, Arcadia.

"In the Middle Ages the place was known as Drobolitsa, Droboltsá, or Dorboglitza, either from the Greek Hydropolitsa, 'Water City' or perhaps from the South Slavic for 'Plain of Oaks'."

The S.E. Lakonia sample is from the very tip of the right leg of Lakonia. It's neither Deep Mani nor the Taygetos area. It was part of the city state of Sparta. The name Neapoli or New City was adopted for the new city built there around 1837.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapoli_Voion

This is the most informative PCA from Paschou et al because it includes more of the relevant populations. The more such populations, the better the conclusions you can draw. As you can see it refutes what some people have tried to promote as the narrative.

2ai3tcg.jpg


These things have to be checked before large conclusions are drawn, people. Don't accept what any one tells you about the results of a paper without reading it yourself and finding out if information has been withheld or even if the graphs have been cherry picked to support one agenda or another.

Apparently, some comment has surfaced from Razib Khan where he says that his analysis of FTDNA samples shows from 10-20% "Slavic" admixture for "Greeks". I didn't read it myself so maybe it's been garbled, but I fail to see how that contradicts the findings of the study that is the subject of this thread, which actually found for the Peloponnesus: almost none for deep Mani, but a high of 14.5% found in some other Peloponnesians. I would think, given where Central Greeks from Eurogenes plot, that they are probably around that too, and would probably plot somewhere from Abruzzi to Campania, as I've always maintained. The 20% figure probably comes from Thessaly. Also, I don't think it needs to be said that samples from FTDNA are self-selected and self-reported. Who knows how many samples are from people with all four grandparents from Peloponnesus and whether there is some skew in terms of areas within that peninsula.
 
Sicilians plot north of Maniotes and Taygetos, and in the group of Laconians and other Peloponnesians except the Tsakonians who probably are the only one Peloponnesians with some Slavic and Albanian admixture (maximum 14.4%) (see the intra-Peloponnesian map down)
note: omitting a comment does not mean i agree with your other assertions. and my left shift key died so no/few capitalized letters for now.

i do not understand the last of the quoted material ".... except the Tsakonians who probably are the only one Peloponnesians with some Slavic and Albanian admixture (maximum 14.4%) (see the intra-Peloponnesian map down)". the figures/images you provided do not support that. plus several study quotes plus figures 4c and 4 d and Table 3 contradict your 'slav' assertion. and where were the albanians in this study?

were you trying to say something else? otherwise please explain/defend what you said.
 
As far as Slavs being already mixed with native Balkan populations when they entered the Peloponnese, that's possible. There are studies in which Greeks are not too distant genetically from other modern Balkan populations--which as others have said is because of many hundreds if not thousands of years of interaction.



How much admixture with previous populations could have the Slavs when they enter until Peloponese when all this happens at max 2 generations 60-70 years?
and surely endogamous until full Hellenization? isolated from the other Slavs.

Slavic entrance was a fast move, these Slavic Tribes that entered Greece are not connected with Later Dusan or Cymeon Slavs,
they were tribes and moved fast like Goths and Huns at the West Europe,
Slavization in Balkans is not as some mention millions or Billions of Humans, and not so Fast as some could believe,
and that is why although entered they did not manage assimilate Latinophones of Balkans Romania, Remeni and Megle Aromanians,
At 1800 AD Latin Aromani were still spoken at Albania Serbia Bosnia Montenegro Bulgaria,

to understand this until today Greek are spoken in Bulgaria, and elsewhere at Balkans although 1,3 millenium of Slavs.
 
We're all pretty much agreeing with everything here at the moment.

I have a question though and would appreciate if someone can help me better understand.

What do they consider as Slavic admixture? Is it aDNA? Frequency of R1a and I2a? IBD?
 
Slavic entrance was a fast move, these Slavic Tribes that entered Greece are not connected with Later Dusan or Cymeon Slavs,
they were tribes and moved fast like Goths and Huns at the West Europe,
Slavization in Balkans is not as some mention millions or Billions of Humans, and not so Fast as some could believe,
and that is why although entered they did not manage assimilate Latinophones of Balkans Romania, Remeni and Megle Aromanians,
At 1800 AD Latin Aromani were still spoken at Albania Serbia Bosnia Montenegro Bulgaria,
to understand this until today Greek are spoken in Bulgaria, and elsewhere at Balkans although 1,3 millenium of Slavs.

I think this is what most people fail to realize: the Slavization of the Balkans was a rather gradual process, largely driven by the comparative soft power - ultimately conferred by Greek contacts - the lowland Slavs had over the transhumant herders in the Balkans. Before the Ottoman invasions and the settlement of highlanders in the north-western plains, the differences between high- and lowland populations would probably have been more pronounced, as is still the case with the partly 'unconquered' Montenegrins.

Considering this, the decision to use a population purportedly representative of the original Slavs isn't so bewildering. Although the more 'southern' Ukrainians surely would have been much better representatives of that core population than Poles or Russians.
 
@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.

My Pardon :heart: but again I am still thinking your words could be translate as I did. :grin:


What are you seiing when you look at the chart?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to seperated non Slavs, I mean pre balkanians who have been forced to move Greece with Slav migration to reach the real Hellenic Greeks. But I don't think you can do that because similarity is too high between Greeks and those people

Also we should keep in mind that posibility of historical slav migration just as Slav migration as, Ottoman Period in Balkan was Mongol invasion.
 

Indeed


From the historical data we know how much it was , and where they settle,
even by usage of toponyms, and except some parts among Greece-Makedonia and FYROM-Slavo-Macedonia it is not a significant %.
it is different the story of raid and sack an area than to change the major % of genetics,

IF we follow the logic that every place which was raid and sacked change its genetics and replace all older population
Then modern Rome is habited by Huns, and Goths,
ex-Yugoslavia Bulgaria and Albania by Turks etc etc South Spain by Arabs etc etc
Alexander conquer raid and sacked half of the world,
and he Built Huge cities moving Greek population, some still exist, some are remnants

We know that these changes left marks, who knows how much? from 0,01% to unknown xx %
BUT CAN WE SAY THAT MODERN EGYPT SYRIA AND wider IRANIANS ARE GREEKS ??? surely NOT
AS FALLMAYER CLAIM ABOUT GREEKS, it is same thing


Cause if I follow Fallmayer's sense of Logic, about Slavs their raids and their 1-3 generations of certian castle occupation, max 80 years
Then what result should have Ottoman occupation for 400 years in Greece and 500 in other Balkan countries????
simple Logic directs Fallmayer to Atopon


History is to teach us and direct us,
History can not be changed,
but the combo of History, Archaiology, and Genetics give us clear view of the past.

I was going to make a long answer, but in the end i decided for a short answer.

Helene Ahrweiler
It's a short video with subs in English(subs start after 20 seconds). In the end of the video there is an interesting quote from Odissea Elitis and is the second greek winner of the Noble Prize in Literatura quoted by me in this thread. I hope this time nobody consider him insignificant.
 
My Pardon :heart: but again I am still thinking your words could be translate as I did. :grin:

Now you're going to tell me what I intended to say? Do we have another mind reader here? There's a big lottery coming up. Can we go halves? :)

What are you seiing when you look at the chart?

This is the discussion:

Spartan Owl made the following comment:
" 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."

My response was to post the Admixture analysis from Paschou et al.

View attachment 8564

This version is easier to read:
Paschou et al Admixture analysis 2.jpg

The differences between the populations we're discussing are, in many instances, very minor, imo, and basically show a cline from those two islands to Crete and then continuing all the way to the North Italians. However, it also seems from this Admixture analysis Sicilians are not Cretans, and Peloponnesians are not Tuscans. In fact, the closest population to Tuscans, other than Northern Italians, are Macedonians, and translated to a PCA they would still be a bit "south" of them. Serbia is informative because it's also on that cline, which means using it or populations like it as proxies for "Slavic" gene flow would be very difficult. Do you disagree?

It also has to be kept in mind that Spartan Owl is referring to the Admixture analysis in Paschou et al, where the S.E. Laconia sample is not from Mani or Taygetos or any of those areas. They might not be that different, but we can't be sure.

As for the rest, no one is ignoring the Slav migration, and that includes the authors of this paper.

As I've said repeatedly, we really need ancient dna.
 
angela you are probably right but in the data provided by sikeliot in the apricity seemed like it.
Thats sure for k=2 k=3 k=4 and maybe for what it should be k=8 (i do not know if those data are correct)
Of course i do not claiming they are the same people and for sure the differences are minimal but whith pointing that s.e lakonians are closer to tuscans than to sicilians i was responding to the claims that every peloponnesean that did not match to the genetic profile of the sicilians must be of slavic descent.
I had lived in neapolis for a couple of years and i know the region like the back of my hand.But i was always of the impresion that boeus whas an achean as most of the archeological sites are pre-doric sorry for that.(i hope that you did not miss the explanation that i gave for the various taygetos populations).
As for the admixture analysis am here to learn from the most experienced and not to impose my opininons.
 
I was going to make a long answer, but in the end i decided for a short answer.

It's a short video with subs in English(subs start after 20 seconds). In the end of the video there is an interesting quote from Odissea Elitis and is the second greek winner of the Noble Prize in Literatura quoted by me in this thread. I hope this time nobody consider him insignificant.

Correct,as
Correct as Ελυτης said Arbeler says the same, Επιστρωσεις, meaning coatings, plaster.
Arbanites Slavs Romans, Ottomans all are coatings comparing the mass of the wall
No body denies that, but from a coating to wall comparing the wall is a long decimals,
No body denies the admixtures, but from that to fallmayer's total anihilation is years of running with speed light.
 
Last edited:
Correct,as
Correct as Ελυτης said Arbeler says the same, Επιστρωσεις, meaning coatings, plaster.
Arbanites Slavs Romans, Ottomans all are coatings comparing the miss of the wall
No body denies that, but from a coating to wall comparing the wall is a long decimals,
No body denies the admixtures, but from that to fallmayer's total anihilation is years of running with speed light.
I get your point, and I know you're responding to someone else, but Albanians and their similarity to Greeks and their influence on Greek genetics is not the subject of this thread. That discussion just takes us way off course into things for which there is no genetic proof as of yet.
 
angela you are probably right but in the data provided by sikeliot in the apricity seemed like it.
Thats sure for k=2 k=3 k=4 and maybe for what it should be k=8 (i do not know if those data are correct)
Of course i do not claiming they are the same people and for sure the differences are minimal but whith pointing that s.e lakonians are closer to tuscans than to sicilians i was responding to the claims that every peloponnesean that did not match to the genetic profile of the sicilians must be of slavic descent.
I had lived in neapolis for a couple of years and i know the region like the back of my hand.But i was always of the impresion that boeus whas an achean as most of the archeological sites are pre-doric sorry for that.(i hope that you did not miss the explanation that i gave for the various taygetos populations).
As for the admixture analysis am here to learn from the most experienced and not to impose my opininons.

No problem, Spartan Owl. I figured that's where you got that interpretation of the Admixture analysis. That's why I suggested that you take a look at it yourself. K-3 and K-4 are not informative for these purposes; you have to look at 6,7, and 8, and particularly 8.

According to the findings of this paper, the "Slavic" ancestry, really the similarity to Slavic populations like Poland etc. is present everywhere in the Peloponnesus except perhaps Deep Mani. I wish people on the internet wouldn't post if they haven't read the paper and understood that. I don't know how similar the East Lakonia sample would be to them genetically. I take it you think they'd be pretty similar to those from Deep Mani if a comparison had been done?

Spartan Owl: i was responding to the claims that every peloponnesean that did not match to the genetic profile of the sicilians must be of slavic descent.

Perhaps you misunderstood what was meant. If someone really said that then they either didn't read the paper or they are distorting the findings.

The similarity to the actual "Slavic" speaking tribes who moved into the Peloponnesus we won't know until we get ancient dna.
 
This version is easier to read:
View attachment 8565

The differences between the populations we're discussing are, in many instances, very minor, imo, and basically show a cline from those two islands to Crete and then continuing all the way to the North Italians. However, it also seems from this Admixture analysis Sicilians are not Cretans, and Peloponnesians are not Tuscans.

This chart shows a small North African component among Sicilians not present in Crete, slightly less of the pink component peaking in Palestine, and everything else is roughly the same. The pink Druze component is lower in both Peloponnesians and Laconians, and the Peloponnesians have more of the blue component peaking in NE Europe (nothing here inconsistent with the new study).

It appears Macedonian Greeks are those closer to Tuscans to me, too.

With that said, I am unsure which version of the table I posted on Apricity and if it led to misleading information on this site being repeated on my behalf, I apologize and it was not my intent. If my interpretation over there was incorrect I'd quickly admit it and correct it.

Question for Angela: based on what you EXPECT from all the evidence we have thus far: what do you think ancient samples from Greece would show? If it is irrelevant and you do not know, that is fine. I just wanted to know your view.
 
... Sicilians are not Cretans, and Peloponnesians are not Tuscans...
Shock!!! With all those arguments I was already convinced that ...
Seriously, statistics has become here almost the same as the oracle of Delphi. Although Pythia always tells the truth, people run in their doom, just because they don't waste a second thought on what she said exactly.
... Serbia is informative because it's also on that cline, which means using it or populations like it as proxies for "Slavic" gene flow would be very difficult. Do you disagree?
Well, Balkan is Balkan, there's no chance to deny it, and whoever entered this region, forced into motion after Mother Earth made some big blurp, he will finally end at the coast, and especially in the southern Peloponnese, where he finds the sign-board "Stop or swim!" Every people which might have been around at the Balkans over millennia, you will always find their genes in this region.

What I wanted to see in this paper, how much of the Morean genes are Balkan, and how much unique elements (that is ... greek eventually?) could be squeezed out of the data. Instead Stammy just tried to disprove this storyteller, a task which has already made sufficiently someAlbert Thumb a hundred years ago. (Nice detail, that he found the Slavic admixture to be between 0.8 and 16.5 %, pretty close to the values of this new paper, just by counting names.)
... As I've said repeatedly, we really need ancient dna.
Seems that the museums don't have enough bones and teeth. On the other hand, I would be a bit careful at least with Mykenian DNA. Mythical genealogy describes the Achaean gens as a mixture of Egypt and Levantine people. In the graves of the rulers of that time may therefore be no real Greeks either.

Probably there is even a solution with modern people. The islands of the Aegean sea seem to be relatively untouched by non-greek populations. Slavic pirates hardly settled, just a few Albanians were known to hop the islands. Only the Venetians had a few real settlements, and that's documented. So, if I had the insatiable urge to find the Perikles, I'd try it there. Doesn't hurt at all, by the way - we are in serious lack of Aegean coverage anyway.
 
This chart shows a small North African component among Sicilians not present in Crete, slightly less of the pink component peaking in Palestine, and everything else is roughly the same. The pink Druze component is lower in both Peloponnesians and Laconians, and the Peloponnesians have more of the blue component peaking in NE Europe (nothing here inconsistent with the new study).

It appears Macedonian Greeks are those closer to Tuscans to me, too.

With that said, I am unsure which version of the table I posted on Apricity and if it led to misleading information on this site being repeated on my behalf, I apologize and it was not my intent. If my interpretation over there was incorrect I'd quickly admit it and correct it.

Question for Angela: based on what you EXPECT from all the evidence we have thus far: what do you think ancient samples from Greece would show? If it is irrelevant and you do not know, that is fine. I just wanted to know your view.

I guess you didn't read my post upthread. The "Peloponnesian" sample in that Admixture graph comes from one place in the Peloponnesus. You can't know what that graph would show if all of the Peloponnesus samples were included. We also don't know how close the S.E.Laconia samples are to the Peloponnesian samples in the subject paper.

If you're going to get hung up on details, then include all the details, or you're going to mislead people.

Plus, if I have to get out a microscope to find the differences, am I to consider them of great significance? Sorry, you can't save your thesis this way.

Yes, you misled people on the apricity or wherever by just posting low K admixture. If you're going to draw conclusions from Admixture you first have to understand how it works.

I don't know what the ancient samples from Greece will show. It will clarify a lot of things, but we're going to have to keep in mind that the samples will come from elites, and they'll have to be analyzed by people who know what they're doing. I'd be surprised if there's no change at all from the Classical Era Greeks to today's Greeks, I'd be surprised if there's a huge change as well. Other than that I don't know; I leave the crystal ball gazing to others.
 
I guess you didn't read my post upthread. The "Peloponnesian" sample in that Admixture graph comes from one place in the Peloponnesus. You can't know what that graph would show if all of the Peloponnesus samples were included. We also don't know how close the S.E.Laconia samples are to the Peloponnesian samples in the subject paper.

If you're going to get hung up on details, then include all the details, or you're going to mislead people.

Plus, if I have to get out a microscope to find the differences, am I to consider them of great significance? Sorry, you can't save your thesis this way.

Yes, you misled people on the apricity or wherever by just posting low K admixture. If you're going to draw conclusions from Admixture you first have to understand how it works.

I don't know what the ancient samples from Greece will show. It will clarify a lot of things, but we're going to have to keep in mind that the samples will come from elites, and they'll have to be analyzed by people who know what they're doing. I'd be surprised if there's no change at all from the Classical Era Greeks to today's Greeks, I'd be surprised if there's a huge change as well. Other than that I don't know; I leave the crystal ball gazing to others.

Understood. My issue is often jumping to the charts and not reading as much as I should about the sample sources, sample sizes, and so on. That is my own downfall and I will do better in the future. It was not purposeful on my end.

What is likely to me is differences existed across different regions of Greece even in "Ancient Greek" times (given proximity to Thrace, the fact of aboriginal populations on the islands before Hellenization, and so on), but again we'll have to wait to see. I generally find when there are conflicting theories, the truth often comes out somewhere in the middle.
 
Shock!!! With all those arguments I was already convinced that ...
Seriously, statistics has become here almost the same as the oracle of Delphi. Although Pythia always tells the truth, people run in their doom, just because they don't waste a second thought on what she said exactly.

Well, Balkan is Balkan, there's no chance to deny it, and whoever entered this region, forced into motion after Mother Earth made some big blurp, he will finally end at the coast, and especially in the southern Peloponnese, where he finds the sign-board "Stop or swim!" Every people which might have been around at the Balkans over millennia, you will always find their genes in this region.

What I wanted to see in this paper, how much of the Morean genes are Balkan, and how much unique elements (that is ... greek eventually?) could be squeezed out of the data. Instead Stammy just tried to disprove this storyteller, a task which has already made sufficiently someAlbert Thumb a hundred years ago. (Nice detail, that he found the Slavic admixture to be between 0.8 and 16.5 %, pretty close to the values of this new paper, just by counting names.)

Seems that the museums don't have enough bones and teeth. On the other hand, I would be a bit careful at least with Mykenian DNA. Mythical genealogy describes the Achaean gens as a mixture of Egypt and Levantine people. In the graves of the rulers of that time may therefore be no real Greeks either.

Probably there is even a solution with modern people. The islands of the Aegean sea seem to be relatively untouched by non-greek populations. Slavic pirates hardly settled, just a few Albanians were known to hop the islands. Only the Venetians had a few real settlements, and that's documented. So, if I had the insatiable urge to find the Perikles, I'd try it there. Doesn't hurt at all, by the way - we are in serious lack of Aegean coverage anyway.

You're having fun with it, but people have been saying exactly that. :)

It's as if the rules for vampires didn't exist, and no matter how many times that Nordicist German "historian" gets stabbed in the heart they bring him back to life again. Maybe it's like zombies, and you have to chop off his head or he won't die. :)

If I were to speculate ahead of the evidence, I'd bet it will probably turn out to be 20% only in Macedonia and some places in Thessaly. For years when people were drawing all these conclusions about Greek genetics from one sample taken in Thessaloniki I kept saying that there was a cline in Greece and that particular sample wasn't representative. Virtually no one listened, mostly because it didn't fit their agenda to consider that. The same is true for the IBS sample for Spain.

I don't give much credence to myths like that. Plus, the "Egyptian" thing was already debunked for Crete.

A Yale professor of Greek history would agree with your last comment, as that you tube clip I posted shows. He maintains that the "core" of Greece is the Aegean islands.
 

This thread has been viewed 368779 times.

Back
Top