Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

[Nik]

The peloponnese when venetians took over had its population reduced in half because a lot of people fled because of the war.They followed a policy in order to convice them to return.
They did return and a lot of other greeks followed as well so the population was quickly restored .But i do not see how this event can drastically change the genetics of peloponnese as even the non peloponneseans were greeks as well.

Fair enough. I didn't say it drastically changed the genetic makeup, but simply seems logical that it did contribute to the changes we see in the study. Obviously they might have been Greeks in majority, but from different regions, therefore they got closer to the average Greek and slightly farther from the typical Pelopennesean population. That's all I meant. Plus consider that the presence of Cretans, Aegeans, and Asia Minor Greeks definitely diversified their genetic admixture as they're not identical to the mainland Greeks, not to mention Peloponneseans. That's why I suggested that part of the dilemma about the difference between Peloponnese and Mani is because of this event.

Reguarding messenia: why are you so sure that the higher slavic percentage is because of the albanians (that they are not slavs to begin with) and not because of the slavic settlements of west taygetos.You see taygetos is the border between laconia and messenia so the east part belongs to laconia while the west in messenia.So maybe slavic tribes over time prefered to move towards the richer valley of messenia were they did not have to deal with war-like tribes like the maniots and the spartans.Or maybe they had settled less in the laconian part of the mountain (that is more wild) right from the start.
There can be dozens of explanations...

I never said "it's because of the Albanians", I said the Albanians definitely contributed to it. Since Slavic admixture means NE European admixture and since Albanians have higher levels than Southern Greeks, and that admixture can also be mostly pre-Slavic, it is again logical to simply assume that they did contribute to it. All such similar little contributions such as Mycenaeans, Dorians, Illyrians, Thracians, Scythian slaves, Goths, Vandals, Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, etc. are the final result of this study, not just Slavs or just Albanians. No need to analyze the Mycenaeans and Dorians though, I just used them as an example. I don't know if originating from the North is enough to prove that they had NE admixture at that time.

Out of curiosity though, I find it strange that these early Slavs settled in the mountains and not mostly in the fields or valleys like they did elsewhere in the Balkans. It could indicate that they were already mixed with mountainous Balkan communities, or it could mean absolutely nothing.

 

[spartan owl]

You have to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniots

Seems that Christianity was know and practiced among Maniots before slavic invasion. The interruption of Christianity in Mani coincide with this slavic invasion. After that the Byzantine power was restored, started the conversion of the inhabitants of Mani in Christianity.

do i really have to answer that?
do i really have to explaine that the term hellenes was used ONLY for the PAGAN GREEKS and not for slavs?
do you really belive that they used the term hellenes (meaning greeks) also for the pagan vikings of the varagian guard?
and if not, why should they use it for the slavs and not for the vikings?
why you do not care about the fact that the constantine VII de administrando imperio, that i had already mentioned, clearly says that maniots are not slavs?
you do prefered to forget it? or do you think you know better?
Be it known that the inhabitants of Castle Maina are not from the race of aforesaid Slavs (Melingoi and Ezeritai dwelling on the Taygetus) but from the older Romaioi, who up to the present time are termed Hellenes by the local inhabitants on account of their being in olden times idolaters and worshippers of idols like the ancient Greeks, and who were baptized and became Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil. The place in which they live is waterless and inaccessible, but has olives from which they gain some consolation.
Of course there were cristians maniots right from the begining of cristianity.In fact corinth (who is located in n.e peloponnese)was one of the first cristian churches as we can see from saint pauls epistles (first and second to corinthians) and also from the fact that he personaly preached there.So if cristianism had arrived to the germans and to the irish of course would have arrived in mani.
The fact is that the MAJIORITY of the maniots resisted the conversion and prefered to worship the old gods.

 

[spartan owl]

Can you quote any credibile source about this policy followed by Venetians that restored quickly the Greek population in Peloponnesus?

yes the census of the venetians them selves...
census of 1688,1691, 1692 ,1700
in the census of 1688 the population was less than half of the last pre-war ottoman census
do you belive that they doubled the population of the peloponnese just for fun?
do you belive that half of the population was killed and that they did not just fled?
and if so who killed them? the turks or the venetians and why?
of course a lot of non peloponnese came also and even some bulgarians but most of them was just people returning home.
the fact that venetians mention that most settlers were from athens confirms that too because athens is the first region that you meet outside peloponnese.
so most of the peloponnesean refugees would have settled there.
And if you want the details of the policy you can read the biografy of the venetian governer giacomo corner

 

[spartan owl]

Fair enough. I didn't say it drastically changed the genetic makeup, but simply seems logical that it did contribute to the changes we see in the study. Obviously they might have been Greeks in majority, but from different regions, therefore they got closer to the average Greek and slightly farther from the typical Pelopennesean population. That's all I meant. Plus consider that the presence of Cretans, Aegeans, and Asia Minor Greeks definitely diversified their genetic admixture as they're not identical to the mainland Greeks, not to mention Peloponneseans. That's why I suggested that part of the dilemma about the difference between Peloponnese and Mani is because of this event.


I never said "it's because of the Albanians", I said the Albanians definitely contributed to it. Since Slavic admixture means NE European admixture and since Albanians have higher levels than Southern Greeks, and that admixture can also be mostly pre-Slavic, it is again logical to simply assume that they did contribute to it. All such similar little contributions such as Mycenaeans, Dorians, Illyrians, Thracians, Scythian slaves, Goths, Vandals, Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, etc. are the final result of this study, not just Slavs or just Albanians. No need to analyze the Mycenaeans and Dorians though, I just used them as an example. I don't know if originating from the North is enough to prove that they had NE admixture at that time.

Out of curiosity though, I find it strange that these early Slavs settled in the mountains and not mostly in the fields or valleys like they did elsewhere in the Balkans. It could indicate that they were already mixed with mountainous Balkan communities, or it could mean absolutely nothing.

yes i agree they might have cotributed to that even if the albanians do not have high slavic admixture so what you say can not be proved.
But if i just for the sake of argument agreed with everything you say.If infact the slavs replaced (more or less) native greeks as you claim, then the albanians shouldn't actualy decrease the slavic admixture?
i think that your logic have a lot of holes and falacies.
Have you thought that maybe the slavs lived in the mountains because they couldn't conquer and then hold and run a big greco-roman style city?
Usualy you choose the mountain when you have to and not by choise and corinth sparta athens etc in that period were not just like every city in the balkans

 

[LATGAL]

Hmm, I posted something that doesn't seem to have made it through (I didn't notice why exactly) but I think MarkoZ comment is relevant for this issue. If there were significant post-Classical "Near Eastern" influx in the Balkans, it seems to have affected the other pre-Roman linguistic population as well - the Albanians, who are too more South Balkan-like than Iberian-like. This must have likely happened before their historical appearance during the 11th century, unless one consider some weird scenario of late medieval Albanians assimilating Balkan Slavic and Greek speakers and turning South Balkan that way...

One can make up all sorts of scenaria for those processes (and these theories have been debated for almost 200 years, not based on just textual evidence but also certain theories of white/Nordic supremacy) but the only way to solve it is Classical-era data from various places of the Balkans. Who knows, we might even see a gradual "Near Easternization" that was already the case for the Aegean and slowly moved northwards in later times. Or we might not see any of that and instead those populations looked already like the contemporary mixture (even if there were later population replacements and additions of broadly similar elements from various regions) by Classical times.

If we're lucky, in 2-3 years we might have a decent ancient Balkan data-set.

 

[Nik]

yes i agree they might have cotributed to that even if the albanians do not have high slavic admixture so what you say can not be proved.
But if i just for the sake of argument agreed with everything you say.If infact the slavs replaced (more or less) native greeks as you claim, then the albanians shouldn't actualy decrease the slavic admixture?
i think that your logic have a lot of holes and falacies.
Have you thought that maybe the slavs lived in the mountains because they couldn't conquer and then hold and run a big greco-roman style city?
Usualy you choose the mountain when you have to and not by choise and corinth sparta athens etc in that period were not just like every city in the balkans

Bro, i think you're confusing me with someone else. I actually said the extreme opposite, believing that Slavic admixture is less than 1%.

Like I said, what the authors call Slavic admixture is in fact North Eastern European admixture, so it isn't necessarily Slavic and it's definitely present in the Balkans even during pre-Roman times. That can even be a original Dorian admixture for all i care.

 

[Tomenable]

A problem I have is that non-Slavic Balkan populations survived in numbers enough to have altered the Slavic gene pool to such a degree that it looks "Greek-like" today

I made a PCA based on MDLP K16 calculator (actually I'm still in the process of making it, adding new samples).

As you can see below South Slavic populations form a gradient between West Slavs and Albanians (and Greeks).

Slovenes and Croats plot very close to West Slavs, while Bulgarians and Macedonians closer to Albanians/Greeks:

http://i.imgur.com/6TcI7V5.png

Bul = Bulgarians
Mac = Macedonians
Bos = Bosnians
Mon = Montenegrin
Ser = Serbians
Cro = Croatians
Slov = Slovenians

Empty circles = Polish samples
Pluses = Czechs, Slovak, Sorb
Stars = Ukraine, Belarus, Russia

Full circles = Non-Slavic samples

 

[Angela]

yes i agree they might have cotributed to that even if the albanians do not have high slavic admixture so what you say can not be proved.
But if i just for the sake of argument agreed with everything you say.If infact the slavs replaced (more or less) native greeks as you claim, then the albanians shouldn't actualy decrease the slavic admixture?
i think that your logic have a lot of holes and falacies.
Have you thought that maybe the slavs lived in the mountains because they couldn't conquer and then hold and run a big greco-roman style city?
Usualy you choose the mountain when you have to and not by choise and corinth sparta athens etc in that period were not just like every city in the balkans

That's a good observation.

We had a similar situation with some of the cultures which moved into Italy in the Bronze Age. They chose poor mountain land instead of land on the valley floors. The reason might be as you suggest.

It's also possible that they were primarily herders, with farming being secondary, and so they chose the terrain for which their subsistence strategies were more adapted.

 

[Tomenable]

That PCA shows that Slovenes and Croats are the most "genetically Slavic" South Slavic groups.

While Bulgarians and Macedonians are the least "genetically Slavic" groups among South Slavs.

North-Eastern Italian samples are considerably separated from neighbouring Slovene samples.

=========

RISE598 = Late Bronze Age Lithuania (the only ancient sample I added to that PCA so far).

 

[spartan owl]

Bro, i think you're confusing me with someone else. I actually said the extreme opposite, believing that Slavic admixture is less than 1%.

Like I said, what the authors call Slavic admixture is in fact North Eastern European admixture, so it isn't necessarily Slavic and it's definitely present in the Balkans even during pre-Roman times. That can even be a original Dorian admixture for all i care.

if by the term slavic or balkan you mean "dinaric" admixture then i should advise you to use more precise terms as even in the term balcan admixture greeks romanians and bulgarians are also included.But even in the case that the slavs of peloponnese were more like the croatian slavs, the albanians should decrease that admixture anyway as they are closer to the greeks than the croatians.
It is also rather unfortunate that you used the example of the messenia for that, as messenia haves the highest slavic (northeastern european) admixture of peloponnese.
On the other hand the dinaric-slavs hypothesis is valid but the research would have sown bigger northeast european admixture anyway (if they had replaced the local population), at least in similar levels that croatians and serbs do.And if the dinarics or the northeasterners had been heavily mixed before settling peloponnese to a degree that they were geneticaly indistinguishable from greeks.If their main difference from greeks was language, i do not see the point of discusing it in a genetics forum.
And one last thing.The authors use corectly the term slavic.You on the other hand seem cofused about it.

 

[Nik]

if by the term slavic or balkan you mean "dinaric" admixture then i should advise you to use more precise terms as even in the term balcan admixture greeks romanians and bulgarians are also included.

By the term Balkans I mean the Balkans (geographically). Where in my post did you read about Balkan admixture? My term was precise enough, that being Balkans. Meaning the Balkans (geographically) have shared ancestry with NE Europe before the Slavs and even the Romans. Simple as that.

But even in the case that the slavs of peloponnese were more like the croatian slavs, the albanians should decrease that admixture anyway as they are closer to the greeks than the croatians.
It is also rather unfortunate that you used the example of the messenia for that, as messenia haves the highest slavic (northeastern european) admixture of peloponnese.

You do realize that having a 15% IBD shared with NE Europeans doesn't make you 15% Slavic, right? By that logical you're calling the Peloponneseans 90% Italian. Although the Romans and Venetians could have contributed to the IBD between the Italians and Peloponneseans, it's definitely not 90%, nor 50%, and I believe not even 5%.

On the other hand the dinaric-slavs hypothesis is valid but the research would have sown bigger northeast european admixture anyway (if they had replaced the local population), at least in similar levels that croatians and serbs do.And if the dinarics or the northeasterners had been heavily mixed before settling peloponnese to a degree that they were geneticaly indistinguishable from greeks.If their main difference from greeks was language, i do not see the point of discusing it in a genetics forum.
And one last thing.The authors use corectly the term slavic.You on the other hand seem cofused about it.

I still don't know why you're trying to convince me that the Peloponneseans are not Hellenized Slavs.

 

[spartan owl]

Another fact I would like to add is that the area of Messenia with towns such as Koroni and Methoni were vastly settled by Arvanites, some of whom migrated to Italy, some converted to Islam, and some remained Orthodox, which could have further increased the Balkan or so-called Slavic admixture and differentiated them even more from the Maniotes, but not much from Laconia due to it being also settled by Arvanites too.
so how can a balcan population furter increase the balkanic admixture of another balkan population? and why you used the term balkan or so-called slavic admixture?.
slavic and balkanic it is not the same thing.SO or are talking about the balkanic slavs like the croatians or the word slavic shouldn't be in that sentence.On the other hand as the maniots are a balkanic population if you meant that the albanian admixture further differentiated them from the maniots you shouldn't have used the term balkanic admixture.
We agree in one thing anyway that even if phenotypically greeks and albanians are very different, genotypically are less different.
but explain me what do you belive?
fallmerayer was right or wrong?
this research is wright or wrong?
peloponneseans are greeks or not?

 

[Tomenable]

"Identity by descent and the Völkerwanderung":

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/identity-by-descent-the-volkerwanderung/#.WNqHRWhSDIU

"Clues to migrations across Europe from the Iron Age to the present":

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/06/long-ibd-gives-clues-to-migrations.html

"The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe":

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

"Recent Admixture in Forming the Contemporary West Eurasian Genomic Landscape":

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00949-5

See how closely Poles are related to Slovenes (big green circle) compared to Italians (small blue circle):

 

[spartan owl]

By the term Balkans I mean the Balkans (geographically). Where in my post did you read about Balkan admixture? My term was precise enough, that being Balkans. Meaning the Balkans (geographically) have shared ancestry with NE Europe before the Slavs and even the Romans. Simple as that.


You do realize that having a 15% IBD shared with NE Europeans doesn't make you 15% Slavic, right? By that logical you're calling the Peloponneseans 90% Italian. Although the Romans and Venetians could have contributed to the IBD between the Italians and Peloponneseans, it's definitely not 90%, nor 50%, and I believe not even 5%.


I still don't know why you're trying to convince me that the Peloponneseans are not Hellenized Slavs.

and you do realize that by saing: You do realize that having a 15% IBD shared with NE Europeans doesn't make you 15% Slavic, right? you are only beating a strawman i have never said that.

 

[Nik]

so how can a balcan population furter increase the balkanic admixture of another balkan population? and why you used the term balkan or so-called slavic admixture?.

I asked in a previous post if by Slavic admixture the authors mean NE European shared IBD or simply the levels of R1a and I2a, because they were being mentioned as to what event elevated their levels. In the end I went ahead with the idea that Slavic admixture meant NE European shared IBD.

I dont know how much shared IBD Albanians have with NE Europeans, but since we're way more North than Peloponnese and appearance wise probably in between Poland and Peloponnese, I believed Albanians should have higher shared IBD.

If anyone has data about the shared IBD, please share as I am interested to see the results.

We agree in one thing anyway that even if phenotypically greeks and albanians are very different, genotypically are less different.
but explain me what do you belive?
fallmerayer was right or wrong?
this research is wright or wrong?
peloponneseans are greeks or not?

Yes its strange how we're very similar genetically but phenotipically not so much, although I believe not at all if we take away some populations that serve as a bridge between the 2 nations. And I believe Fallmerayer was wrong, this research was a waste of time and money, Peloponneseans are Peloponneseans and just like every region in the whole world changed and will continue to change with time.

 

[LABERIA]

I asked in a previous post if by Slavic admixture the authors mean NE European shared IBD or simply the levels of R1a and I2a, because they were being mentioned as to what event elevated their levels. In the end I went ahead with the idea that Slavic admixture meant NE European shared IBD.

I dont know how much shared IBD Albanians have with NE Europeans, but since we're way more North than Peloponnese and appearance wise probably in between Poland and Peloponnese, I believed Albanians should have higher shared IBD.

If anyone has data about the shared IBD, please share as I am interested to see the results.


Yes its strange how we're very similar genetically but phenotipically not so much, although I believe not at all if we take away some populations that serve as a bridge between the 2 nations. And I believe Fallmerayer was wrong, this research was a waste of time and money, Peloponneseans are Peloponneseans and just like every region in the whole world changed and will continue to change with time.

Well, depends what you understand with the word change.

 

[LABERIA]

do i really have to answer that?
do i really have to explaine that the term hellenes was used ONLY for the PAGAN GREEKS and not for slavs?
do you really belive that they used the term hellenes (meaning greeks) also for the pagan vikings of the varagian guard?
and if not, why should they use it for the slavs and not for the vikings?
why you do not care about the fact that the constantine VII de administrando imperio, that i had already mentioned, clearly says that maniots are not slavs?
you do prefered to forget it? or do you think you know better?
Be it known that the inhabitants of Castle Maina are not from the race of aforesaid Slavs (Melingoi and Ezeritai dwelling on the Taygetus) but from the older Romaioi, who up to the present time are termed Hellenes by the local inhabitants on account of their being in olden times idolaters and worshippers of idols like the ancient Greeks, and who were baptized and became Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil. The place in which they live is waterless and inaccessible, but has olives from which they gain some consolation.
Of course there were cristians maniots right from the begining of cristianity.In fact corinth (who is located in n.e peloponnese)was one of the first cristian churches as we can see from saint pauls epistles (first and second to corinthians) and also from the fact that he personaly preached there.So if cristianism had arrived to the germans and to the irish of course would have arrived in mani.
The fact is that the MAJIORITY of the maniots resisted the conversion and prefered to worship the old gods.

No, if you do not have an answer, you do not necessarily need to answer. There are evidences that Christianity was practiced in Mani before Slavice invasions. Then, after this invasion there is a lack of the presence of Christianity in the region.
About the origin of Maniates there are many theories. There is this romantic theory, a constant mantra in Mani history, who consider Maniates as descendants of ancient Spartans. There is the theory that Mani was invaded by slavs, slavic toponyms are present in Mani.
There is a greek theory who consider Maniates as descendant of Illyrian tribe with the same name from the territory of today Montenegro. Or as Albanians mixed with Vlachs(here i am not talking about the migration of Albanians during the late middle age. During this migration some Arvanite infiltration are registred in this region), etc. Some greek scholars see a connection between the name of the region Mani with the medieval name of Peloponnesus, Morea and explain this connection with an Albanian word. So, there are many theories.
We don't know where was this castle of Maina. May have been at the tip of the Tigani promontory in Deep MANI, or the deserted hill-top Byzantine citadel of Old Kariopoulis in Kato Mani.

 

[Angela]

The answers have and will come from genetics, so I don't see how talking about the endless speculations of the past is of much use.

 

[spartan owl]

No, if you do not have an answer, you do not necessarily need to answer. There are evidences that Christianity was practiced in Mani before Slavice invasions. Then, after this invasion there is a lack of the presence of Christianity in the region.
About the origin of Maniates there are many theories. There is this romantic theory, a constant mantra in Mani history, who consider Maniates as descendants of ancient Spartans. There is the theory that Mani was invaded by slavs, slavic toponyms are present in Mani.
There is a greek theory who consider Maniates as descendant of Illyrian tribe with the same name from the territory of today Montenegro. Or as Albanians mixed with Vlachs(here i am not talking about the migration of Albanians during the late middle age. During this migration some Arvanite infiltration are registred in this region), etc. Some greek scholars see a connection between the name of the region Mani with the medieval name of Peloponnesus, Morea and explain this connection with an Albanian word. So, there are many theories.
We don't know where was this castle of Maina. May have been at the tip of the Tigani promontory in Deep MANI, or the deserted hill-top Byzantine citadel of Old Kariopoulis in Kato Mani.

you did not even bother to read my answer did you?
And there are not slavic toponyms in deep mani only in outer mani and in north mani and thats why they were tested separately as west and east taygetos.

 

[LABERIA]

yes the census of the venetians them selves...
census of 1688,1691, 1692 ,1700
in the census of 1688 the population was less than half of the last pre-war ottoman census
do you belive that they doubled the population of the peloponnese just for fun?
do you belive that half of the population was killed and that they did not just fled?
and if so who killed them? the turks or the venetians and why?
of course a lot of non peloponnese came also and even some bulgarians but most of them was just people returning home.
the fact that venetians mention that most settlers were from athens confirms that too because athens is the first region that you meet outside peloponnese.
so most of the peloponnesean refugees would have settled there.
And if you want the details of the policy you can read the biografy of the venetian governer giacomo corner

I don't have access in this Venetian census. If you can post a link this can be helpful. Tbh, i don't agree with you when you call this populations greeks. We know from many sources, starting from Ottoman defter, etc, who was the dominant population in Peloponnesus and Attica at the moment when Greece was invaded by Ottomans and at the moment when Greece was liberated, but i don't want to debate about this.
Seems that you are talking about the Kingdom of the Morea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Morea
Large part of the article of Wiki is based in the work of a greek historian Apostolos Vakalopoulos. According to this article of Wiki, we learn that

The Kingdom of the Morea (Italian: Regno di Morea) was the official name the Republic of Venice gave to the Peloponnese peninsula in southern Greece (which was more widely known as the Morea until the 19th century) when it was conquered from the Ottoman Empire during the Morean War in 1684–99. The Venetians tried, with considerable success, to repopulate the country and reinvigorate its agriculture and economy, but were unable to gain the allegiance of the bulk of the population, nor to secure their new possession militarily. As a result, it was lost again to the Ottomans in a brief campaign in June–September 1715.
Apart from the region of Corinthia and the autonomous Mani Peninsula, the Venetians counted only 86,468 inhabitants in 1688, out of an estimated pre-war population of 200,000.[6][7].......
To restore the province, settlers were encouraged to immigrate from the other Greek lands with the lure of considerable land grants, chiefly from Attica but also from other parts of Central Greece, especially the areas that suffered during the war. 2,000 Cretans, and also Catholic Chians, Venetian citizens from the Ionian Islands and even some Bulgarians answered this call. In addition, mention is made of 1,317 Muslim families that remained behind, converted to Christianity and were given lands or enterprises as concessions. As a result of these policies, the population recovered rapidly: apart from Mani, the Venetian registers record 97,118 inhabitants in 1691, 116,000 a year later and 176,844 by 1700. Due to the relative privileges granted the urban population, the period was also marked by an influx of the agrarian population to the cities.[9][12][13]

According to the article of Wiki, in less than thirty years, according to your source, we have a replacement of more than half of the population. And this is just one case. During the medieval history, large part of Greece and of course Peloponnese was literally emptied of its population and was refilled again. How we can prove through this genetic study that the Slavs have not replaced the ancient Greeks and then the Byzantines on their side didn't replaced the same Slavs with populations from Asia Minor, etc?
This is like you want to make a study about the natives of America and use as a sample the European emigrants in America.