Ancient DNA, admx. history and endogamy in the prehistoricAegean Skourtaniotietal2022

[mount123]

great work
also this dude
GLI002- Glika Nera Attica - ( according to the ytree site he is E-S9621 an upstream branch to e-m84)
https://www.theytree.com/usersample/1e27887ee0abb47a9d5bcdaa9f987013.html

Thanks for letting me know, kingjohn! I will add him and a couple others to the tabel.

In regards to NST010:
If the read for L2-L595 is correct then that is a pretty cool find as this is an extremely rare haplogroup. Also, what a big gap between formation apprx. 23100 ybp and TMRCA of 6300 ybp date:

L2-L595

L595+
M22-

Maybe someone with more experience in using Yleaf (https://github.com/genid/Yleaf) than me can tell me if the assignments for these samples should be correct:

APO029 G2a2-PF3147
APO037 G2a2b2a-P303
APO044 G2a2b2-F872>PF3378

 

[Angela]

The making of Greeks is like the making of British,different people came from different places at different times. But one question still remains not very clear, from where the proto - Greeks came from, what was their genetic composition. What was their path through the Balkans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As if that weren't the case for every ethnic group on earth.

 

[Angela]

What am I missing here? The PCA shows a more "northern" group mostly composed of one family.

How much are we supposed to conclude from that as to the homogeneity or lack thereof of Bronze Age to Iron Age to Classical Era Greeks?

I'd also point out that having looked up the closest modern people to these samples, they are closest to people from Central to far southern Italy, except for some who are closest
to Sephardic Jews etc.

These more steppe admixed and Slavic admixed Greeks are supposed to be prominent among mountain dwellers?

Well, not always. The Maniotes are mountain dwellers, are they not, and these supposed descendants of Spartans are very "Southern".

I do wish, as well, that people kept in mind that these incoming Slavic people were admixed as well, having their own percentage of "farmer" ancestry.

Where does this idea come from that they were some "pure race" dropped out of a spaceship?

Then, going back even further in time, the Greek speakers, if they descended from Catacomb, were very Iran Neo/CHG heavy, remember?

 

[kingdavid]

Thanks for letting me know, kingjohn! I will add him and a couple others to the tabel.
In regards to NST010:
If the read for L2-L595 is correct then that is a pretty cool find as this is an extremely rare haplogroup. Also, what a big gap between formation apprx. 23100 ybp and TMRCA of 6300 ybp date:

L2-L595

L595+
M22-
Maybe someone with more experience in using Yleaf (https://github.com/genid/Yleaf) than me can tell me if the assignments for these samples should be correct:
APO029 G2a2-PF3147
APO037 G2a2b2a-P303
APO044 G2a2b2-F872>PF3378

I pretty much count on theytree
So i believe the E-L595 call is also correct
For NST010 individual
What is so cool about it is that
As you can see he is with 3 himera 480 bc individuals: I17884 ,I20166, I7217 :cool-v:
https://www.theytree.com/tree/L-L595
That show some continue of ancient greek who carry that marker
And than migration to sicily probably as greek colonization in magna graecia period

 

[Dorian9]

-"We know that there was a two way exchange between Athens and Anatolia particularly the Ionian Cities of Western Anatolia which themselves were already melting pots of Carians, Lydians, and Greeks. Can't wait"
Anatolians were genetically homogenous
Typical Balkan nationalist delusions

He's talking about the colonies , we don't have samples from the colonies as far as I know ,do we dude? So maybe you should keep this kind of talk for when you are with comrades

 

[Dorian9]

What am I missing here? The PCA shows a more "northern" group mostly composed of one family.

How much are we supposed to conclude from that as to the homogeneity or lack thereof of Bronze Age to Iron Age to Classical Era Greeks?

I'd also point out that having looked up the closest modern people to these samples, they are closest to people from Central to far southern Italy, except for some who are closest
to Sephardic Jews etc.

These more steppe admixed and Slavic admixed Greeks are supposed to be prominent among mountain dwellers?

Well, not always. The Maniotes are mountain dwellers, are they not, and these supposed descendants of Spartans are very "Southern".

I do wish, as well, that people kept in mind that these incoming Slavic people were admixed as well, having their own percentage of "farmer" ancestry.

Where does this idea come from that they were some "pure race" dropped out of a spaceship?

Then, going back even further in time, the Greek speakers, if they descended from Catacomb, were very Iran Neo/CHG heavy, remember?

We don't need that kind of support ,the Southern/Northern fighting and agendas are not our concern ,it's a new world thing and especially one that exists mostly on the internet nowadays.

If by admixed-Slavs you mean they were South-Slavic that's unlikely , we have a Slav sample from Asia minor that's like an early Slav.

Maniots and most Greeks and Italians seem to require levant-heavy sources which pulls them south , without it things get tricky but why that is ,it could be a hundred different reasons and can not be understood yet.

 

[blevins13]

As if that weren't the case for every ethnic group on earth.

That depends from the location, if located in crossroads you tend to get more. In the last 2000 years not all the ethnic group have a British scenario. I think Greeks are one of the most drastic in that sense, absorbing population with different genetic composition considering also the population exchange with Turks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jovialis]

We don't need that kind of support ,the Southern/Northern fighting and agendas are not our concern ,it's a new world thing and especially one that exists mostly on the internet nowadays.
If by admixed-Slavs you mean they were South-Slavic that's unlikely , we have a Slav sample from Asia minor that's like an early Slav.
Maniots and most Greeks and Italians seem to require levant-heavy sources which pulls them south , without it things get tricky but why that is ,it could be a hundred different reasons and can not be understood yet.

False, they require CHG/Iran-related sources. South Italians and Maniot can be modeled with Minoan. Minoans even using the new Lazaridis paper's model have negligible amount of "Levantine".

Please don't show us a (G)arbage 25 model.

 

[Jovialis]

Northern Greeks have about 30% Slavic. How on earth could they plot where they do if the female log04 in Northern Greece is to their genetic west in North Italy?

The ancestors of modern Northern Greeks prior to the Slavs were obviously more southern.

 

[Jovialis]

We don't need that kind of support ,the Southern/Northern fighting and agendas are not our concern ,it's a new world thing and especially one that exists mostly on the internet nowadays.

If by admixed-Slavs you mean they were South-Slavic that's unlikely , we have a Slav sample from Asia minor that's like an early Slav.

Maniots and most Greeks and Italians seem to require levant-heavy sources which pulls them south , without it things get tricky but why that is ,it could be a hundred different reasons and can not be understood yet.

Raveane et al 2022 demonstrates that Maniots and southern Italians, particularly from Puglia have a lot of Greece_N-related ancestry; ergo CHG admixed with Anatolia_N.

To me this is not a "tricky" scenario, but a clear cut explanation, that more ancient Greek ancestry is retained in those populations, than others.

 

[Omino]

He's talking about the colonies , we don't have samples from the colonies as far as I know ,do we dude? So maybe you should keep this kind of talk for when you are with comrades

He literally wrote about the influx TO Athens from colonies.Athens as far i as i know is neither in Anatolia nor a colony
You should learn to read before you write again such silly things to support your "comrades" my dear

 

[Kuivamaa]

What am I missing here? The PCA shows a more "northern" group mostly composed of one family.

How much are we supposed to conclude from that as to the homogeneity or lack thereof of Bronze Age to Iron Age to Classical Era Greeks?

I'd also point out that having looked up the closest modern people to these samples, they are closest to people from Central to far southern Italy, except for some who are closest
to Sephardic Jews etc.

These more steppe admixed and Slavic admixed Greeks are supposed to be prominent among mountain dwellers?

Well, not always. The Maniotes are mountain dwellers, are they not, and these supposed descendants of Spartans are very "Southern".

I do wish, as well, that people kept in mind that these incoming Slavic people were admixed as well, having their own percentage of "farmer" ancestry.

Where does this idea come from that they were some "pure race" dropped out of a spaceship?

Then, going back even further in time, the Greek speakers, if they descended from Catacomb, were very Iran Neo/CHG heavy, remember?

The truly mountain dwelling maniotes (from mount taygetos until roughly itylo) received Slavic admixture. It is the deep ones,from Areopolis and further south that did not get it, and that area is rocky and hard to access but has lower elevation and is quite arid. (I spend some days there every summer pretty much, the coast is pure magic and the caves well worth a visit). You will still see sheep there but it isn’t nearly as good for herding as the northern part.

I think the fact that ancient Greek speakers weren’t particularly homogeneous is pretty evident in the data. You have the typically Mycenaean profile, you have those amongst them (at least early on) that lack the steppe element, you have the Cypriots who have an obvious substrate from the Levant and you have logas and other potential samples up north returning more steppe. The question is, have mainland Greeks acquired a unique autosomal profile during antiquity and if yes then when exactly? We simply don’t have the data to answer this yet(presumably burning the dead makes sampling harder) but I expect us to have a clear image within 3-4 years. Islanders (especially Dodecanese ones) and Cypriots however appear to have been separate from mainlanders since antiquity.
Dodecanese idiom of Greek is after all part of the same group of dialects with Cypriot Greek even today.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

The truly mountain dwelling maniotes (from mount taygetos until roughly itylo) received Slavic admixture. It is the deep ones,from Areopolis and further south that did not get it, and that area is rocky and hard to access but has lower elevation and is quite arid. (I spend some days there every summer pretty much, the coast is pure magic and the caves well worth a visit). You will still see sheep there but it isn’t nearly as good for herding as the northern part.
I think the fact that ancient Greek speakers weren’t particularly homogeneous is pretty evident in the data. You have the typically Mycenaean profile, you have those amongst them (at least early on) that lack the steppe element, you have the Cypriots who have an obvious substrate from the Levant and you have logas and other potential samples up north returning more steppe. The question is, have mainland Greeks acquired a unique autosomal profile during antiquity and if yes then when exactly? We simply don’t have the data to answer this yet(presumably burning the dead makes sampling harder) but I expect us to have a clear image within 3-4 years. Islanders (especially Dodecanese ones) and Cypriots however appear to have been separate from mainlanders since antiquity.
Dodecanese idiom of Greek is after all part of the same group of dialects with Cypriot Greek even today.

It seems you didn't read the genetic literature of the last years if you keep up with this nonsense about (classical) Greeks not having a coherent genetic profile: the samples from classical period show that Greeks were similar to the Mycenaean average, with 15-20% steppe. We have no samples from Cyprus but however they turn out they were peripheral to the Greek world so it is self-evident that when one talks of the "average Greek" one speaks about the mainland and the aegean islands. As for the "logkas-like" samples, for heaven's sake, they predate classical Greece by 1000+ years, it is pure delusion to believe they were representative of later north Greeks, and the fact that Thracians are genetically similar to Greeks shows that that genetic profile quickly got diluted. Furthermore, the leaked samples from Biomuse have some from north Greece/macedonia and they cluster with other Greeks.

 

[D.L.M]

The truly mountain dwelling maniotes (from mount taygetos until roughly itylo) received Slavic admixture. It is the deep ones,from Areopolis and further south that did not get it, and that area is rocky and hard to access but has lower elevation and is quite arid. (I spend some days there every summer pretty much, the coast is pure magic and the caves well worth a visit). You will still see sheep there but it isn’t nearly as good for herding as the northern part.

Deep Maniotes received Slavic admixture due to contacts they had with Taygetos Maniotes but it's more diluted.
The differentiation of Maniotes with other Greeks started with Ottoman Empire not before.

It seems that if you subtract the Slavic admixture from a Deep Maniote he will look like Rhodian with less Anatolian and more Classical Greek ancestry.

 

[Angela]

We don't need that kind of support ,the Southern/Northern fighting and agendas are not our concern ,it's a new world thing and especially one that exists mostly on the internet nowadays.

If by admixed-Slavs you mean they were South-Slavic that's unlikely , we have a Slav sample from Asia minor that's like an early Slav.

Maniots and most Greeks and Italians seem to require levant-heavy sources which pulls them south , without it things get tricky but why that is ,it could be a hundred different reasons and can not be understood yet.

I've read some incoherent posts on this site, but I think I should award you some sort of prize.

Your third comment is just the same old, same old. Give it a rest.

As for your first two statements I have no idea what you're talking about, but please don't explain. I'm completely uninterested.

 

[Angela]

Deep Maniotes received Slavic admixture due to contacts they had with Taygetos Maniotes but it's more diluted.
The differentiation of Maniotes with other Greeks started with Ottoman Empire not before.

It seems that if you subtract the Slavic admixture from a Deep Maniote he will look like Rhodian with less Anatolian and more Classical Greek ancestry.

You never stop posting nonsense either.

 

[Angela]

The truly mountain dwelling maniotes (from mount taygetos until roughly itylo) received Slavic admixture. It is the deep ones,from Areopolis and further south that did not get it, and that area is rocky and hard to access but has lower elevation and is quite arid. (I spend some days there every summer pretty much, the coast is pure magic and the caves well worth a visit). You will still see sheep there but it isn’t nearly as good for herding as the northern part.
I think the fact that ancient Greek speakers weren’t particularly homogeneous is pretty evident in the data. You have the typically Mycenaean profile, you have those amongst them (at least early on) that lack the steppe element, you have the Cypriots who have an obvious substrate from the Levant and you have logas and other potential samples up north returning more steppe. The question is, have mainland Greeks acquired a unique autosomal profile during antiquity and if yes then when exactly? We simply don’t have the data to answer this yet(presumably burning the dead makes sampling harder) but I expect us to have a clear image within 3-4 years. Islanders (especially Dodecanese ones) and Cypriots however appear to have been separate from mainlanders since antiquity.
Dodecanese idiom of Greek is after all part of the same group of dialects with Cypriot Greek even today.

And Greek colonists in Marseille, and Greek colonists and soldiers in Sicily were Mycenaean like.

You honestly think northern Greeks and their neighbors north of them would plot where the do if they were Logkas like when they got a big dose of Slavic???

Have you actually looked at all the new samples and their closest modern populations? Have you looked at the PCA. That looks like a big range to you?

I only deal in DATA. I suggest you do the same. Repeating generalizations for which you have no data is totally unconvincing.

 

[mount123]

Maybe someone with more experience in using Yleaf (https://github.com/genid/Yleaf) than me can tell me if the assignments for these samples should be correct:

APO029 G2a2-PF3147
APO037 G2a2b2a-P303
APO044 G2a2b2-F872>PF3378

Likewise for these:

XAN027 G2a2a-PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>PF3233>Z6484>Z6284>Z6128>PF3239>L166
HGC025 G2a2a-PF3147>Z36520>Z36525>Z45700
XAN014 G2a2b2a-P303>CTS796>L140>PF3346>PF3345>Z39367

I am aware of the fact that the coverage for these isn't ideal.

 

[D.L.M]

You never stop posting nonsense either.

The differentiation of Maniotes with other Greeks started during the Ottoman Empire because Maniotes did not pay taxes to the Turks created and a new Maniot identity in that way Maniotes identified as solely Maniotes and other Greeks identified themselves as Romans.

I did not mean the genetic differentiation (which happened with the Slavic inclusions) in case you misunderstood.

 

[Kuivamaa]

And Greek colonists in Marseille, and Greek colonists and soldiers in Sicily were Mycenaean like.

You honestly think northern Greeks and their neighbors north of them would plot where the do if they were Logkas like when they got a big dose of Slavic???

Have you actually looked at all the new samples and their closest modern populations? Have you looked at the PCA. That looks like a big range to you?

I only deal in DATA. I suggest you do the same. Repeating generalizations for which you have no data is totally unconvincing.

We have different standards then. There is a lot of Greek Bronze Age data but not nearly as much Iron Age or classical era from Greece (not colonies). The questions I raise are directly linked to linguistics and perceptions that we inherited from ancient literature and I wait for the data that will finally put then to test. 9-8th and then 3rd-2nd century BCE samples from the northern realms all the way to Laconia would go a long way in explaining what transpired and then early medieval/pre-Slavic migration snapshots from the same areas. Attica isn’t particularly interesting since it lacked Dorian influence albeit it is good to see that the claims of the ancient Athenians being “indigenous” is not totally unsubstantiated in the sense they meant it.
I have expectations but no biases. Do I expect some separation of the north from the Mycenean profile of the south? Yeah I do. Did those northerners affect the southern genetics moving on towards Middle Ages and not the Slavs? Almost certainly not, Slavs definitely pulled the mainland (especially Thessaly but other areas too) north/northeast. The question is how much exactly and whether Iron Age/Classical Greeks preserve whatever profiles they had or did it get infused with Anatolian (or Paleobalkan) elements. We haven’t got answers yet. I am sure going forward all this will be clear, and sooner than later.