PDA

View Full Version : Ancient DNA from Greece



kostop
30-07-15, 11:02
A very interesing conference is taking place in Thessaloniki today, where the findings of a DNA analysis carried out on a number of samples from Neolithic/Bronze Age Greece are going to be revealed.
So far the only information that has been released, mentions that the tested individuals were lactose intolerant and had brown eyes. No info on haplogroups, etc.
The conference takes place at the Archaeological Musem of Thessaloniki and it is lead by the Department of Physical Anthropology, faculty of History and Ethnology of the Democritus University.

Some info here (in Greek) http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22784&subid=2&pubid=64225380
The Conference programme and list of speakers: http://www.amth.gr/images/Programm_DNA.png

I will try to find our more and post an update.

dodona
30-07-15, 13:59
I will try to find our more and post an update.
thanx a lot in advance. :good_job:

arvistro
30-07-15, 14:24
Looking forward!

LeBrok
30-07-15, 15:57
I hope they have one or two from Sesklo.

bicicleur
30-07-15, 16:04
and mycenians
many questions could be resolved with the right DNA
but if we're lucky we get a good peep and a lot more new questions

we should get some E-V13 too

Fire Haired14
30-07-15, 19:29
The Bronze age Montenegron(I think from 1000 BC) from Allentoft is said to be Spanish-like by Davidski. So, it'll be interesting to see older, contemporary, and more recent Greeks.

Fire Haired14
30-07-15, 22:11
Google translation of Greek article(See here (http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22784&subid=2&pubid=64225380)) linked by Kostop.


RESEARCH ON DNA 5.500 YEARS
Farmers of Macedonia before 5500 years

Lactose intolerance were the village residents of the Bronze Age (2500 BC - 1850 BC ) to position Xeropigado Valley Kozani and therefore could not digest milk.

Moreover they had brown eyes and dark skin. The new data revealed DNA analysis of skeletal remains found in the cemetery of the Bronze Age , one of the few such periods were investigated systematically in the area of Macedonia.

The ancient DNA opens a new window on archaeological research and analysis provides valuable data , such as those in the cemetery Xeropigado spanning 1,500 square meters , retained 214 graves and " hosted " 22 dead. More will be known at a workshop organized in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki , on Thursday ( 30/7 ) , at the exhibition entitled " Ancient DNA. Window to the past and the future " , which will last until May 2016 .

the data

Distinguished palaiogenetistes from around the world will give complementary information and details on the collection of data and the responses to the DNA in a series of issues.

" The analysis of ancient DNA gives us the morphological characteristics, pathologies , the functioning of the body and movements of the population of ancient human ," explains the " Nation ", the assistant professor of Physical Anthropology in the Department of History and Ethnology , Democritus University of Thrace scientific responsible of the workshop , Christina Papageorgopoulou. An equally important finding for Greece is the recovery of entire genomes of three prehistoric farmers who lived in northern Greece 7500-5500 thousand years ago . These farmers from Neolithic settlements in Paliampela Kolindrou and Revenia Korinou Pieria and the Kleitos Kozanis so scientists have now concentrated their whole DNA."

" These data are analyzed and will certainly shed light on the ancestral relationships of the first Europeans and provide a wealth of information related to functional and morphological characteristics ," noted Ms . Papageorgopoulou. The ancient DNA is any amount of DNA that can be recovered from dead organisms skeletons , mummies , prehistoric remains and extinct animals . Through complex and time-consuming laboratory analyzes reconstructed biological history and evolution of ancient and modern populations , humans and animals.

By studying the scientists can now understand the genetic relationship of modern humans with extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals , seek answers to questions such as the introduction of the Neolithic way of production , to study the evolution of morphological characteristics , to determine the degree of relatedness among ancient skeletons to certify the existence of pathologies and longitudinal study on the development of diseases."

"We can reconstruct a real biography of prehistoric people ," say the scientists .

RICH VISUAL MATERIAL

The exhibition " Ancient DNA. Window on the Past and Future " introduces the visitor in a simple and concise manner , without compromising the scientific validity , the study of ancient DNA and its results. With concise way shows all successive stages of palaiogenetikis investigation, ie the collection and sampling of the material, the laboratory analysis , processing and interpretation of data , as well as all categories of results that may be offered.

It also includes rich visual material, film projection and display of objects used in the laboratory in the process of analysis of ancient DNA. The material is framed by ancient objects discovered during archaeological investigations in the same places in northern Greece from which comes the skeletal material underlying the research of the Democritus University of Thrace ."

LeBrok
31-07-15, 02:09
Google translation of Greek article(See here (http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22784&subid=2&pubid=64225380)) linked by Kostop.
A lot of blablabla in the cited text, but when the results are coming I can't find from official wording. Thanks for posting anyway.

Fire Haired14
31-07-15, 05:03
Posted by thrax at Anthrogencia. 200 samples

I have just found an interview with the greek professor Christina Papageorgopoulou.
She said that it's impossible to analyze DNA from skeletal remains that have been cremated, so no DNA from Philip B has been studied.
200 samples have been studied and the results are going to be published soon. No sample from the Amphipolis tomb have been studied due to high cost.

I think this is another abstract about the same ancient Greek DNA.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/03/live-reports-from-aapa-2015.html

Poster Chad Rohlfsen was at a conference that discussed this Ancient Greek DNA.

The origin of the Aegean palatial civilizations from a population genetic perspective

Unterlander

Focusing on the Neolithic 6600-3200BCE and the Bronze Age, after 3200BCE
A place of early urbanization, palaces, coastal settlements, an exchange networks.

cultural or genetic changes?

37 sites
3 Mesolithic
23 Neolithic
11 Bronze Age
~180 individuals
~ are Bronze Age
mostly low endogenous dna <2%
mtDNA from 53 samples
9 Early Neolithic
23 Middle Neolithic
21 Bronze Age

So far, no real genetic difference between North and South Greeks
fst -.007 pvalue ~ .53?

Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic. Mid/Late Neo to Bronze Age has a low fst

Fu FS in Bronze age is -13+, showing a population expansion.

No structure in the Bronze Age, to this point. Possibly Neo to Bronze continuity. Going to do more testing of Bronze Age Cultures and eventual shotgun testing.

I spoke with her afterwards. She said that they have yet to test the samples against the neighbors. I mentioned the possible Catacomb influence and Bulgarian V2 sample that was Yamnaya like. She said that she will look into it. The project is still in the early stages.

bicicleur
31-07-15, 09:08
Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic. Mid/Late Neo to Bronze Age has a low fst
Possibly Neo to Bronze continuity.

that is a surprise

MOESAN
31-07-15, 12:15
Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic. Mid/Late Neo to Bronze Age has a low fst
Possibly Neo to Bronze continuity.

that is a surprise

It depends on the sources of Bronze in Greece; I suspect 2 possible sources for it: a "steppes" one and an anatolian one (some other Y-J2?) or rather a Cucuteni influenced population receding before Steppic people towards Egea Sea? in the two late cases, the differences for auDNA could not be to strong, could it?

bicicleur
31-07-15, 13:55
It depends on the sources of Bronze in Greece; I suspect 2 possible sources for it: a "steppes" one and an anatolian one (some other Y-J2?) or rather a Cucuteni influenced population receding before Steppic people towards Egea Sea? in the two late cases, the differences for auDNA could not be to strong, could it?

if it is a population receding to Greece, what about this then :

Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic

MOESAN
31-07-15, 15:44
The Bronze age Montenegron(I think from 1000 BC) from Allentoft is said to be Spanish-like by Davidski. So, it'll be interesting to see older, contemporary, and more recent Greeks.

I don't remember where it was, but I already posted about this Montenegro remnant(s); I red in an other froum that finally these remnants would have been older and pertaining to a megalithic chalcolithic culture. I 'll search for more details...Sorry for the unprecise my post is.

MOESAN
31-07-15, 18:58
I found my source: it was in For they were we are, and the link they gave is another blog!
seemingly the tumulus is based upon a stone 'dolmen' and the dates would be 2400 BC, but bronze artefacts were found; the other blog reports they are a huge number (thousands)of this kind of tumuli or barrows, and that the culture would be akin to a Lulbjiana culture in Slovenia if I red well some lines. Maybe some sirprises for us in the coming days???
here under the blog abstract: you can go on it for more:

hat they were... we are
Prehistory, Anthropology and Genetics
· Home (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/)
· Ancient mtDNA maps of Europe (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html)
· Early Kurgan expansion (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/p/blog-page.html)
· Iberian Chalcolithic (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/p/iberian-chalcolithic.html)
· Y-DNA ages (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/p/y-dna-ages.html)
· Links (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/p/links.html)
· The colonization of Eurasia by H. sapiens (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/p/continuing-with-joint-series-in-spanish.html)

July 14, 2015
Montenegro was part of the Dolmenic Megalithic phenomenon (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/2015/07/montenegro-was-part-of-dolmenic.html)
Just read a most interesting article (http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/2015/07/bjelopavlici-tumulus.html), with many beautiful images at Old European culture blog: the excavation of a tumulus at Danilovgrad showed it was not a Bronze Age Indoeuropean/Kurgan thing but a true dolmen (trilithon) and many centuries older than expected: c. 2400 BCE.

file:///C:/Users/Joachim/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YlcUDwtdj4U/VZaODbIL1tI/AAAAAAAAEs8/gLVoFuWI-wg/s640/dolmens+danilovgrad2.jpg)


There are thousands of similar tumuli awaiting excavation, most in the same rich area of Central Montenegro. This finding puts the Balcanic country (and probably also neighboring regions of the Western Balcans) fully within the Dolmenic Megalithic tradition in the late Copper Age.

Also an intriguing bronze artifact was part of the grave goods, as well as zig-zag decorated pottery.

Yetos
31-07-15, 20:53
I am certain they will find some G2a3a,
Since I am one, and 2 places are nearby

joeyc
31-07-15, 21:52
So they found no evidence of any massive bronze age invasion of Etruscan J2 carriers. That will be a real pain in the ass for certain people.

Yetos
01-08-15, 07:37
So they found no evidence of any massive bronze age invasion of Etruscan J2 carriers. That will be a real pain in the ass for certain people.

no but it seems J2 was before 5.1 ky in Aegean,
unatested (leaks and rumors)
75% are palaiolithic and 25% are neolithic population from minor asia,
but that numbers have a statistical mistake sinece minor Asia and Balkans was eternal devastation, up and down west and east,
all the above are unofficial yet,
the strange is that in these leaks R pre-existed J and T is missing in neolithic, and G seems came after I

I repeat not to be taken serious, rumors,

the only sure is that mt H5 was abutant

Brennos
01-08-15, 14:40
no but it seems J2 was before 5.1 ky in Aegean,
unatested (leaks and rumors)
75% are palaiolithic and 25% are neolithic population from minor asia,
but that numbers have a statistical mistake sinece minor Asia and Balkans was eternal devastation, up and down west and east,
all the above are unofficial yet,
the strange is that in these leaks R pre-existed J and T is missing in neolithic, and G seems came after I

I repeat not to be taken serious, rumors,

the only sure is that mt H5 was abutant

So R could be from early Neolithic Greece?

MOESAN
01-08-15, 16:28
if it is a population receding to Greece, what about this then :

Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic

It was a supposition of mine, not an affirmation - but it could explain the few differences alleged (according to a short mention) between Neolithic and Bronze in Greece; the problem is the unprecision of terminology like 'Neolithic': what we often call 'Neolithic' is Eneolithic/Chalcolithic, when even tribes not knowing Copper had already contacts with tribes or states knowing copper; or even bronze - naming Corded's or BBs cultures "Neolithical" is a nonsense and is confusing.
where did you find this mention of highest genetic differences between Early to Late Neolithic, and when exactly? It interest me. Thanks beforehand.

Brennos
07-08-15, 07:47
It was a supposition of mine, not an affirmation - but it could explain the few differences alleged (according to a short mention) between Neolithic and Bronze in Greece; the problem is the unprecision of terminology like 'Neolithic': what we often call 'Neolithic' is Eneolithic/Chalcolithic, when even tribes not knowing Copper had already contacts with tribes or states knowing copper; or even bronze - naming Corded's or BBs cultures "Neolithical" is a nonsense and is confusing.
where did you find this mention of highest genetic differences between Early to Late Neolithic, and when exactly? It interest me. Thanks beforehand.

Probably, the copper age was the age of great change in Europe and not - as previously believed - the bronze age. Any new about the conference?

bicicleur
07-08-15, 08:40
It was a supposition of mine, not an affirmation - but it could explain the few differences alleged (according to a short mention) between Neolithic and Bronze in Greece; the problem is the unprecision of terminology like 'Neolithic': what we often call 'Neolithic' is Eneolithic/Chalcolithic, when even tribes not knowing Copper had already contacts with tribes or states knowing copper; or even bronze - naming Corded's or BBs cultures "Neolithical" is a nonsense and is confusing.
where did you find this mention of highest genetic differences between Early to Late Neolithic, and when exactly? It interest me. Thanks beforehand.

it is in post nr 9

kostop
04-03-16, 09:22
A new article on this subject popped up today. (in Greek) http://www.ethnos.gr/politismos/arthro/oi_agrotes_tis_europis_irthan_apo_to_aigaio-64340684/
Apparently the full findings of the research and analysis carried out on the 3 neolithic individuals will be presented today in Thessaloniki.
The article repeats the information previously mentioned, i.e. that the individual(s) had white skin, brown eyes and were lactose intolerant. Nothing new so far.
I will keep an eye in case more info is released after the presentation.

Tomenable
04-03-16, 15:34
i.e. that the individual(s) had white skin, brown eyes and were lactose intolerant.

White or dark ??? In post #7 there is "dark skin".

Greying Wanderer
04-03-16, 18:28
if it is a population receding to Greece, what about this then :

Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic

Anatolian farmers being swamped by C-T people getting away from IE?

kostop
04-03-16, 19:43
White or dark ??? In post #7 there is "dark skin".

It is indeed confusing. The latest article clearly says "ανοιχτόχρωμο δέρμα" (light skin), which contradicts the earlier publication. However, we should keep in mind that "dark" is a relative term. My guess is that they would be similar to modern day Mediterraneans, or perhaps a bit darker.

Angela
04-03-16, 19:59
It is indeed confusing. The latest article clearly says "ανοιχτόχρωμο δέρμα" (light skin), which contradicts the earlier publication. However, we should keep in mind that "dark" is a relative term. My guess is that they would be similar to modern day Mediterraneans, or perhaps a bit darker.

We'll have to wait for the snps, but that makes sense. Maybe they were like the Yamnaya people tested by Sandra Wilde.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full.pdf

It will also be interesting to see what they mean by Late Neolithic. Is it what some scholars call the Chalcolithic? Also very important, what was the direction of the gene flow?

Brennos
04-03-16, 20:21
And what about Y and Mt DNA?

Greying Wanderer
04-03-16, 21:32
Speculation but I think it would be cool if modern Greeks etc turned out to be descended from C-T moving away from the I-E.

(so Anatolian farmers there first but then displaced)

MOESAN
06-03-16, 20:09
We'll have to wait for the snps, but that makes sense. Maybe they were like the Yamnaya people tested by Sandra Wilde.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full.pdf

It will also be interesting to see what they mean by Late Neolithic. Is it what some scholars call the Chalcolithic? Also very important, what was the direction of the gene flow?

You're right Angela!
Very often Chalcolithic is confused with Late Neolithic spite some Chalcolithoc people had already been in contact with metals producers even if they were not always good metallurgists themselves.
I think Europe saw big demic moves during Chalcolithic, more than during true Bronze.
concerning Greeks and Balkans / Carpathians and Bronze, I think the new population arrived West the Black Sea from Anatolia were part of a wave distinct from the one of the first Neolithic farmers, and surely slightly different (but not too much). The evolved culture they surely had can explain they acquired metals by themselves ot by egalitarian contacts without any important demic wave from Anatolia. So differences (+ already some ANE ?) between Early and Late Neolithic, and no heavy apport after?

MOESAN
10-03-16, 19:23
You're right Angela!
Very often Chalcolithic is confused with Late Neolithic spite some Chalcolithoc people had already been in contact with metals producers even if they were not always good metallurgists themselves.
I think Europe saw big demic moves during Chalcolithic, more than during true Bronze.
concerning Greeks and Balkans / Carpathians and Bronze, I think the new population arrived West the Black Sea from Anatolia were part of a wave distinct from the one of the first Neolithic farmers, and surely slightly different (but not too much). The evolved culture they surely had can explain they acquired metals by themselves ot by egalitarian contacts without any important demic wave from Anatolia. So differences (+ already some ANE ?) between Early and Late Neolithic, and no heavy apport after?

I'll answer myself with great kindness (I love myself and the contrary is true)
Even if not this very thread, some thoughts:
I re-red a handbook about greek language history and I saw greek language had underwent strong palatalizations in its early stages, a phenomenon linked to satemization as a whole spite greek is not classified satem. Could ancient or proto-greek had been phonetically close enough to thracian ond dacian? It could prove they were come down from teh western shores of the Black See. All the way the language later lost the diverse sometimes very curious consonantal results of this palatalization, lost maybe due to the learning by other I-Ean OR non-I-Ean speakers. I had always considered Greek as for the most an I-Eanized population, with low imput of steppic people (reinforced later - a bit - by some contacts with Slavs?) at the first historic times.
apparently the Greeks were well identified only around the 1900-1800 BC in Bronze Age but here again I-Eans could have been well mixed, not only in Greece but before, in old Tripolye territories; it could explain the partly drown steppic imput? I wonder if the maximum of palatalization was not acquired in the lands between S-Poland, Slovakia, NE Romania, W Ukraina.
The south slavic languages show less 'yodization' of vowels, phenomenon linked to consonnants palatization at a first stage as if they were languages acquired by firstly non-slavic populations(?). Only speculations.

Yetos
10-03-16, 20:49
I'll answer myself with great kindness (I love myself and the contrary is true)
Even if not this very thread, some thoughts:
I re-red a handbook about greek language history and I saw greek language had underwent strong palatalizations in its early stages, a phenomenon linked to satemization as a whole spite greek is not classified satem. Could ancient or proto-greek had been phonetically close enough to thracian ond dacian? It could prove they were come down from teh western shores of the Black See. All the way the language later lost the diverse sometimes very curious consonantal results of this palatalization, lost maybe due to the learning by other I-Ean OR non-I-Ean speakers. I had always considered Greek as for the most an I-Eanized population, with low imput of steppic people (reinforced later - a bit - by some contacts with Slavs?) at the first historic times.
apparently the Greeks were well identified only around the 1900-1800 BC in Bronze Age but here again I-Eans could have been well mixed, not only in Greece but before, in old Tripolye territories; it could explain the partly drown steppic imput? I wonder if the maximum of palatalization was not acquired in the lands between S-Poland, Slovakia, NE Romania, W Ukraina.
The south slavic languages show less 'yodization' of vowels, phenomenon linked to consonnants palatization at a first stage as if they were languages acquired by firstly non-slavic populations(?). Only speculations.

by what I know the archaiological discoveries who are connecting IE Greeks with IE 'invasion-devastation' from North call it as you like they are not with black sea it shelf, but from Vatin and Vucocar Serbo-Croatia areas,
it seems Cotofeni created Thracian and Vatin Greek and Vucocar paraCeltic or Illyrian
and although we are sure that Baltic Slavic Germanic, The Northern languages, created at North,
Thracian from around Black sea, source/proto areas
where you can put the whole Celtic families? from North? from Istros straight to Alps? from Vucocar?

about copper might been known from Cyprus before bronze come from North, and surely Gold Mettalurgy is elder at Balkans, than everywhere else,
the pelasgian brunch is well discussed at other thread,
another subject is if Arzawa spoke IE or Not, cause Arzawa are considered older population at area than Mycaneans
some believe that at West parts of minor Asia IE were spoken before Hettits, but it is just a thought,
many still believe that Tocharians were centuries before Hettits at minor Asia

but at linguistic part as far I know true Homeric is connecting with Aryan, an old theory of linguists called Greco-Aryan

South Slavic populations once spoke another IE called Thracian

if it helps, :laughing: or just to put you more questions :innocent:

MOESAN
11-03-16, 19:59
Thanks Yetos. It was only speculation (but phonetic strong evolution is rarely only a hazard in history).
I have not great knowledge of the proto-Greeks history and the few I red is not sufficiant: seemingly there not any accord concerning the one or the diverse element(s) which worked at the Greece creation... I have to search some good readings.

Yetos
11-03-16, 21:07
@ Moesan

well there are many, and each has a qood point of view, and each is different.

the most closer to IE of black sea as it is expressed on this Forum is this

http://www.cup.gr/«ΠΟΘΕΝ-ΚΑΙ-ΠΟΤΕ-ΟΙ-ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ;»_p-279928.aspx?LangId=1


we also know that Arcadians were before or same time with Myceneans

if you connect Arcadians with Arzawa then you have another theory

Cretans, many linguists believe that Minoans and minyans were the same,
reason Γρεττα could mean what remained at Pontic dialects as Γρηκω-εγρικησα (Ι understand, I speak the language)
then Greeks and Cretan might comes from γλωσσα γλωττα γρουσσα (doric). tongue

Anyway the linguist Georgiev and many other puts Greek language to be started at around areas of lake Ohnid (Λυχνιτης) and south till Thessaly,
Areas were Brygians exist, BUT not Pelasgians,
the spirit of Pelasgians can be found when compare Makedonian dialect and Phrygian language with Attic or Doric with Aeolian

linguist searchers as I said connect Homer with Aryan.

and if Crete means tongue/language then surely it has to do with East and not North,
it seems to many that the Anatolian theory can fit very well to south Balkans,

Archaiology can connect both,
Myceneans with Vatin, Arcadians or Cretan or Driopes with East,
I exclued pelasgians cause I consider them non IE speakers


PS2 hope you will find an answer, it is complicated, not as North Europe

PS

to hlep you more,
mtDNA U is missing from Crete and is rare at continental Greece (no mesolithic?)
Greek mesolithic Fst 0.19-0.2 !!!!!
Greek linerband Fst 0.03-0.05 !!!!

it seems that paleolithic and neolithic population were and are majority at Greece,
the genetic influences to some are 10% min and to others 30% from 2000 BC till today
and considering some tribes, we have an interesting group simmilar to Sardinians
if you understand Greek I link videos

http://www.livemedia.gr/video/33052

another book is

https://www.ianos.gr/i-genetiki-istoria-tis-elladas-0301615.html

and finally at Nature magazine, if remember correct may or June 2014

Fire Haired14
11-03-16, 22:55
@Yetos,

You have ancient DNA results from Greece?

Yetos
11-03-16, 23:24
@Yetos,

You have ancient DNA results from Greece?

no
nothing official more than the above from 2014,
yet some blogs and pages write about y-I1 and connection with Nordic, but not officially,
but officially Saracatsans I1 are the oldest in continental Greece
both AUTh and DUTh published only summaries till now,
The minoan research is older.
you see Geneticks are not new but not very developed in Greece,
and too many blogs and sites write what ever,
the only sure is Y-T is missing from both palaiolithic and neolithic,
Y-I is the oldest in area and y-G is after and y-J has an age of more than 5ky
the Fst I wrote are from the book I link above and a reasearch on 24 Minoans DNA about 4ky from now.
in Greece they are searching too much through blood conectivity and specialities
the mt results give high mt-H specially mt-H5 and mt-X

Brennos
12-03-16, 13:37
no
nothing official more than the above from 2014,
yet some blogs and pages write about y-I1 and connection with Nordic, but not officially,
but officially Saracatsans I1 are the oldest in continental Greece
both AUTh and DUTh published only summaries till now,
The minoan research is older.
you see Geneticks are not new but not very developed in Greece,
and too many blogs and sites write what ever,
the only sure is Y-T is missing from both palaiolithic and neolithic,
Y-I is the oldest in area and y-G is after and y-J has an age of more than 5ky
the Fst I wrote are from the book I link above and a reasearch on 24 Minoans DNA about 4ky from now.
in Greece they are searching too much through blood conectivity and specialities
the mt results give high mt-H specially mt-H5 and mt-X

Thanks for informations...nothing about y-dna haplogroup R?

Yetos
12-03-16, 15:06
Thanks for informations...nothing about y-dna haplogroup R?

No
the rumor about Y-R being old enough in continental Greece still is rumor, Nothing offcial
at Crete some Y-R seems to be imported, not indigenous

Angela
07-06-16, 23:45
A new paper discussing these results can be found here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32342-New-data-from-Greek-amp-Anatolian-Neolithic

Brennos
22-01-17, 15:22
More than 6 months passed after the last post... any new about the results from our Greek friends?

I was wondering if the results will be in the Lazaridis paper about Balkan Neolithic presented in the late 2016.

ihype02
25-08-17, 15:11
It is indeed confusing. The latest article clearly says "ανοιχτόχρωμο δέρμα" (light skin), which contradicts the earlier publication. However, we should keep in mind that "dark" is a relative term. My guess is that they would be similar to modern day Mediterraneans, or perhaps a bit darker.

I think so too.