Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

Historically, the region has Italian, Slavic (Melingoi) and Arvanite/Albanian Stradioti input, among others like Crete (that was mentioned).

Their autosomal admixture is probably an amalgamation of the 13th-14th century reality of the region that was preserved during the Ottoman period and survived into modern day due to endogamy and also due to the fact that Morea was largely, if not entirely, ignored by the Ottomans as a poor irrelevant area (for taxation of wealth) and was left alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotate_of_the_Morea

One Deep Maniote seem to plot with Dodecanese Islanders. Very likely they became more northern shifted with contact with Maniotes of Taygetos, being plugged into Cretan cluster after the Ottoman conquest of Peloponnese.
 
Some people just can't seem to abide the fact that perhaps there are still people on the Greek mainland who are pretty much like the ancient Greeks, and they themselves are very different.

So, they post all sorts of speculation about how this group or that group added a few genes here and there, and ignore the facts staring us in the face, which show a rather remarkable similarity to, for example, Mycenaeans. Or are we just going to ignore the analyses which show just that?

Anyone tried which modern populations are closest to the Greek trader from Catalonia?
 
Yeah, there are some similarities with Ancient Greeks . But they don't cluster 100% with all mainland Greeks but there are some modern Greeks who are like that unless I am wrong . I am not an expert nor studied this in detail but I also remember one of the samples was like a Kosovo Albanian or more north. Let's also not forget Bulgarian/Slavic admixture in Greek Macedonia and various other populations that have settled Greece and the population exchange with Turkey. It is silly to argue for some kind of pure genetic gene pool .
 
Essentially, all populations in the Balkans are mixed, including Albanian.
 
Yeah, there are some similarities with Ancient Greeks . But they don't cluster 100% with all mainland Greeks but there are some modern Greeks who are like that unless I am wrong . I am not an expert nor studied this in detail but I also remember one of the samples was like a Kosovo Albanian or more north. Let's also not forget Bulgarian/Slavic admixture in Greek Macedonia and various other populations that have settled Greece and the population exchange with Turkey. It is silly to argue for some kind of pure genetic gene pool .

When did I ever say anything of the kind?

I'm talking about the fact that certain Peloponnese populations are pretty close to populations like the Mycenaeans, as are some island populations. How does that not make sense? Isolated populations get less new input. The island Greeks got less Slavic.

It would also be interesting to compare modern Greek and Italian populations to the Greek Classical Era trader from Catalonia, or the one from Athens. I'd prefer a K12b comparison, especially considering that Eurogenes himself has said there are problems with the G25. Why people don't take him at his own word I'll never understand, but hey some of you still see it as the Holy Grail, and yet you don't want to accept the results. Don't understand it.
 
I ran the new modern lists of everyone's favorite PCA and this is what comes up with it now (*using the averages):

Code:
Distance to:    GRC_Mycenaean
0.04621737    Italian_Calabria
0.04809307    Italian_Campania
0.04852104    Greek_Deep_Mani
0.04995370    Italian_Apulia
0.04999673    Italian_Basilicata
0.05085882    Sicilian_East
0.05100425    Greek_Kos
0.05223553    Greek_Dodecanese
0.05364111    Italian_Jew
0.05422879    Italian_Abruzzo
0.05499403    Italian_Molise
0.05509976    Greek_Crete
0.05543374    Greek_South_Tsakonia
0.05550294    Ashkenazi_Germany
0.05592299    Greek_Izmir
0.05626354    Maltese
0.05656327    Italian_Lazio
0.05678270    Romaniote_Jew
0.05864589    Sicilian_West
0.05865506    Italian_Umbria
0.05947154    Sephardic_Jew
0.06132990    Italian_Marche
0.06154745    Greek_North_Tsakonia
0.06178645    Greek_Laconia
0.06250757    Greek_Corinthia

It seems that the reference Italian Jews are pretty close, also the Ashkenazi Jewish reference from Germany is almost as close as the South Tsakonian one? I wonder what are the historical circumstances that make Ashkenazi from Germany be so close? Do they have an ancient Greek connection also, you reckon?
 
I guess the Byzantine historiographers were either lying or were clueless about their contemporary medieval Morea, it seems that it was a big waste of time for those of us who studied the part, it only took the "Moriopoulos and co." collection and eurogenes PCA to do the trick of disproving them ...

Oh, well ...
 
I ran the new modern lists of everyone's favorite PCA and this is what comes up with it now (*using the averages):

Code:
Distance to:    GRC_Mycenaean
0.04621737    Italian_Calabria
0.04809307    Italian_Campania
0.04852104    Greek_Deep_Mani
0.04995370    Italian_Apulia
0.04999673    Italian_Basilicata
0.05085882    Sicilian_East
0.05100425    Greek_Kos
0.05223553    Greek_Dodecanese
0.05364111    Italian_Jew
0.05422879    Italian_Abruzzo
0.05499403    Italian_Molise
0.05509976    Greek_Crete
0.05543374    Greek_South_Tsakonia
0.05550294    Ashkenazi_Germany
0.05592299    Greek_Izmir
0.05626354    Maltese
0.05656327    Italian_Lazio
0.05678270    Romaniote_Jew
0.05864589    Sicilian_West
0.05865506    Italian_Umbria
0.05947154    Sephardic_Jew
0.06132990    Italian_Marche
0.06154745    Greek_North_Tsakonia
0.06178645    Greek_Laconia
0.06250757    Greek_Corinthia

It seems that the reference Italian Jews are pretty close, also the Ashkenazi Jewish reference from Germany is almost as close as the South Tsakonian one? I wonder what are the historical circumstances that make Ashkenazi from Germany be so close? Do they have an ancient Greek connection also, you reckon?

First of all, don't use averages, especially for Italians; too much variation.

Second of all, still see Deep Mani and Greek Islanders at a "decent" distance from Mycenaeans. NEVER SAID THEY WERE AN UNCHANGED 'PURE" POPULATION. Maybe if it's all caps it will penetrate.

Third of all, you didn't really need me to tell you that Ashkenazim are a combination of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic, Southern European (perhaps Greeks) and some Slavic, did you? Plus, they're quite a bit further down the line, precisely because of that additional Slavic. Italian Jews are a much more "ancient" population.
 
No surprises. Modern Greeks are further north due to Slavic influence. The southern Italians (and Sardinians) are the most 'Mediterranean' people in Europe in terms of autosomal DNA, as are the ancient Greeks and Minoans.

I believe the IBD sharing with Slavs (Poles) within certain Peloponnesian Groups in the Stamatoyannopoulos paper was anywhere from 5-15%. I believe Elis and Messinia were the highest overall. The Steppe component (which can be as high as 34%) in mainland Greeks isn't necessarily Slavic it could also be Paleobalkanic. I honestly believe much of the modern Peloponnese (last 100 years) and particularly among the Sheepherders of the interior mountain regions travelled around and many (from my discussion with other Peloponnesians from Messinia and Arcadia) groups originated in the NW (Epirus or Rumeli) or NE.
 
I guess the Byzantine historiographers were either lying or were clueless about their contemporary medieval Morea, it seems that it was a big waste of time for those of us who studied the part, it only took the "Moriopoulos and co." collection and eurogenes PCA to do the trick of disproving them ...

Oh, well ...
:
Do you know how many logical fallacies you cram into your responses?

I'll address just two here:

1. Appeal to authority; specifically Byzantine "historians". Were you one of the members at anthrogenica or theapricity who insisted the Etruscans were recent (1st millennium B.C.) migrants from Asia Minor because Herodotus said so? How did that work out for you?

2. Straw man argument; insisting I propose that some Peloponnese populations and the Island Greeks are identical to, or close to it, the Mycenaeans. INEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. I'm sure there were some genetic influences on them with the passing of the years. Stop implying I said otherwise.

My point was and is that a good bit of that ancestry may very well still exist in them.

I don't know you, so I don't know why something so obvious upsets you so much. Are you one of those Southern European Nordicists who wants all Greeks to have a lot of Central and Eastern European ancestry, or are you a member of some other Balkan nationality who wants the Greeks to be some cobbled together ethnicity with no line of descent whatsoever to their illustrious ancestors?

Both positions are absurd, imo.
 
I believe the IBD sharing with Slavs (Poles) within certain Peloponnesian Groups in the Stamatoyannopoulos paper was anywhere from 5-15%. I believe Elis and Messinia were the highest overall. The Steppe component (which can be as high as 34%) in mainland Greeks isn't necessarily Slavic it could also be Paleobalkanic. I honestly believe much of the modern Peloponnese (last 100 years) and particularly among the Sheepherders of the interior mountain regions travelled around and many (from my discussion with other Peloponnesians from Messinia and Arcadia) groups originated in the NW (Epirus or Rumeli) or NE.

Why on earth would you believe anecdotal stories from acquaintances over genetic analysis in academic papers? Sorry, Matadworf, but it makes no sense to me.

Plus, there's no way the people of Deep Mani or Tsakonia etc. came from Epirus or the N.E. They're way too different.
 
Third of all, you didn't really need me to tell you that Ashkenazim are a combination of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic, Southern European (perhaps Greeks) and some Slavic, did you? Plus, they're quite a bit further down the line, precisely because of that additional Slavic. Italian Jews are a much more "ancient" population.


I agree with you, if the positionals on the PCA, like you say with the Ashkenazi, is due to circumstantial breakdown of their relative parts, then why single them out of the total? This same rule could apply to everyone.

Why discount the Byzantine historiography?
 
Deep Maniotes plot with Cretans. And Cretans have 10% to 15 Slavic admixture.

The same will turn true for Deep Maniotes which I believe this admixture came with Meligoi who were assimilated during the Ottoman period in Mani.

Maniotes from Taygetos are the most Slavic people in Peloponnese and Maniotes from Deep Mani are the least just as Emperor Constantine said centuries ago.
 
:
Do you know how many logical fallacies you cram into your responses?

I'll address just two here:

1. Appeal to authority; specifically Byzantine "historians". Were you one of the members at anthrogenica or theapricity who insisted the Etruscans were recent (1st millennium B.C.) migrants from Asia Minor because Herodotus said so? How did that work out for you?

2. Straw man argument; insisting I propose that some Peloponnese populations and the Island Greeks are identical to, or close to it, the Mycenaeans. INEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. I'm sure there were some genetic influences on them with the passing of the years. Stop implying I said otherwise.

My point was and is that a good bit of that ancestry may very well still exist in them.

I don't know you, so I don't know why something so obvious upsets you so much. Are you one of those Southern European Nordicists who wants all Greeks to have a lot of Central and Eastern European ancestry, or are you a member of some other Balkan nationality who wants the Greeks to be some cobbled together ethnicity with no line of descent whatsoever to their illustrious ancestors?

Both positions are absurd, imo.


I'll reply to the best of my ability,

1) When I make historical points and references is because I come from such a background, it boggles my mind how some can jump over nearly 1800+ years of Byzantine/Ottoman recorded history and go straight to the Bronze/Iron Age when they want to explain population backgrounds. Ethnographically, with the exception of Tsakonia, Peloponnesians show no unique ethnographic/linguistic evolution of 'ancient times' compared to their other peers.

2) The PCAs obviously show a distorted sense of reality, that's why formal stats are usually preferred in academic papers. If you head to my other thread, you can see that FST distances are better for Albanians than for Greeks in relation to the Mycenean samples (Reich dataset that Lazaridis et al (2017) used).

3) I am not a nordicist or any other -icist. I treasure my nation's ancient/Byzantine/Ottoman past, its history and ethnography equally and I only post historical (or other) references that I can back with sources or that are easy to cross reference. I think that a jump of 2k+ years of historical and ethnographic evolution is not very academic to say the least. Why shouldn't Moreans/Peloponnesians treasure their Albanian, Slavic, Italian, Saracen and Greek roots equally? Aren't they an amalgamation of all these things, just like the historians tell us? Is one past more important and more 'pure' than the others?

4) For disclosure purposes, I am half Arvanite from Thrace from my dad, and half Pontic Anatolian from my mom. Shall I discount my Balkan and South Caucasian genetics, culture and ancestral tradition, just so I can pretend that I am Cretan, like the PCAs say, and henceforth also close to ancient Greeks by proxy? Will I score more internet points if I do that?

I think you have misunderstood me, with all due respect, my background is anthropology and ethnography and so I am very keen on these middle/late Medieval details some people want to leave out.
 
And finally, on a personal note and w/o wanting to abuse having the floor, I'd like to point out my annoyance that every time someone (like me) mentions a historical/ethnographic detail from the Ottoman and Byzantine era, it's considered as shit posting, pardon my expression.

All countries and nations celebrate their medieval past, their history and their culture, their traditions, it's only modern Greeks that have to forget about their own people's recent medieval roots and constantly try to prove that they are the descendants of Leonidas and Pericles, and so on, like the rest of our history as Grecoromans and Ottomans has to be discarded, thrown in the trash and not mentioned at all, like it's taboo.

I am very tired of this and find it highly offensive.
 
Why on earth would you believe anecdotal stories from acquaintances over genetic analysis in academic papers? Sorry, Matadworf, but it makes no sense to me.

Plus, there's no way the people of Deep Mani or Tsakonia etc. came from Epirus or the N.E. They're way too different.

I agree many Greeks of the Peloponnese stayed put in their own regions for years (particularly Deep Maniates and Tsakonians) but I can only speak from the research I did on my paternal line that their families moved South to Messinia (from two villages in Arcadia) with their flocks in the 18th century. I’ve since spoken to someone in Greece about the history of those 2 villages and there’s historical (oral nonetheless) that they were from Epirus. I do think there was some moving around (particularly sheep/goatherders). By no means was I suggesting that Maniates or Tsakonians are from the North (sorry it came across like that). I do believe those two populations in particular have been in Southern Greece for thousands of years
 
I agree many Greeks of the Peloponnese stayed put in their own regions for years (particularly Deep Maniates and Tsakonians) but I can only speak from the research I did on my paternal line that their families moved South to Messinia (from two villages in Arcadia) with their flocks in the 18th century. I’ve since spoken to someone in Greece about the history of those 2 villages and there’s historical (oral nonetheless) that they were from Epirus. I do think there was some moving around (particularly sheep/goatherders). By no means was I suggesting that Maniates or Tsakonians are from the North (sorry it came across like that). I do believe those two populations in particular have been in Southern Greece for thousands of years

wowow.

Maniates are considered genetical closer to Cretans, expelled Cretans or Pirates etc,
Mane (Magne) is like the tortuga island of pirates, or the emperror king that become mercenairies. always semi indepented.
Tsakones is considered a special population, considered as exo-Lakonians, closer to Ancient Lakedemonians and Arcadians
At kalamata gulf there was an after Kastrioti habitation from Epirus, the Kastrioti followers like Krokodeilos Kladas
 
I agree with you, if the positionals on the PCA, like you say with the Ashkenazi, is due to circumstantial breakdown of their relative parts, then why single them out of the total? This same rule could apply to everyone.

Why discount the Byzantine historiography?

Why do you continue to post straw man arguments.

I never said I was discounting Byzantine historiography, or at least not all of it. However, one has to remember that historians in the past often repeated tales heard from others, rarely did the kind of studies which modern methods have given us the ability to do today. Anyone who has ever studied the development of historical writing would know that. Look at the mistakes in Herodotus, for goodness sakes, or in the Latin "historians", or in many of the so called histories of the Middle Ages.

I'm sure, however, that the people of Deep Mani in the Peloponnese, along with others to greater degrees, have indeed accrued some genes from other admixing populations. Do I have to have it engraved on my forehead???

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF???
 
I'll reply to the best of my ability,

1) When I make historical points and references is because I come from such a background, it boggles my mind how some can jump over nearly 1800+ years of Byzantine/Ottoman recorded history and go straight to the Bronze/Iron Age when they want to explain population backgrounds. Ethnographically, with the exception of Tsakonia, Peloponnesians show no unique ethnographic/linguistic evolution of 'ancient times' compared to their other peers.

2) The PCAs obviously show a distorted sense of reality, that's why formal stats are usually preferred in academic papers. If you head to my other thread, you can see that FST distances are better for Albanians than for Greeks in relation to the Mycenean samples (Reich dataset that Lazaridis et al (2017) used).

3) I am not a nordicist or any other -icist. I treasure my nation's ancient/Byzantine/Ottoman past, its history and ethnography equally and I only post historical (or other) references that I can back with sources or that are easy to cross reference. I think that a jump of 2k+ years of historical and ethnographic evolution is not very academic to say the least. Why shouldn't Moreans/Peloponnesians treasure their Albanian, Slavic, Italian, Saracen and Greek roots equally? Aren't they an amalgamation of all these things, just like the historians tell us? Is one past more important and more 'pure' than the others?

4) For disclosure purposes, I am half Arvanite from Thrace from my dad, and half Pontic Anatolian from my mom. Shall I discount my Balkan and South Caucasian genetics, culture and ancestral tradition, just so I can pretend that I am Cretan, like the PCAs say, and henceforth also close to ancient Greeks by proxy? Will I score more internet points if I do that?

I think you have misunderstood me, with all due respect, my background is anthropology and ethnography and so I am very keen on these middle/late Medieval details some people want to leave out.

All you have proved to me is that I guessed right, and you're one of the Albanians, or part Albanians, who want to deny any continuity in Greece to any meaningful degree. You are operating, imo, not from an objective analysis of "all" the data, but from your pre-conceived conclusions.

If I've got it wrong I apologize, but it seems to me as if you're just someone else trying to prove there are no Greeks, just some combination of Albanians, Slavs, Italians, Saracens, and what was it, Cretan pirates. Anyone else you'd like to throw into the mix?

To prove such a claim you'd have to provide verifiable, precise numbers of people, uniparental data etc., or ancient dna for each time period showing the change in the dna over time. You can't do it, although perhaps at some point in the future we'll have that kind of data.

What can be done, and has been done in academic papers, is to show that one can take the Greeks of their Golden Eras, add Slavic admixture, and you get modern Greeks. Those populations most isolated from that Slavic admixture are the closest to the ancient Greeks.

It makes perfect sense. If we've learned anything at all from the population genetics papers of the last few years it should be that the autosomal "signature" of a people is shaped by folk migrations, NOT a few Saracens, or pirates or Italians or soldiers here and there. The SLAVS were a folk migration; that's why they were able to change the genetics. No one denies it. The operative word, however, is CHANGE, not REPLACE, much as it may pain you to accept it.
 
All you have proved to me is that I guessed right, and you're one of the Albanians, or part Albanians, who want to deny any continuity in Greece to any meaningful degree. You are operating, imo, not from an objective analysis of "all" the data, but from your pre-conceived conclusions.

If I've got it wrong I apologize, but it seems to me as if you're just someone else trying to prove there are no Greeks, just some combination of Albanians, Slavs, Italians, Saracens, and what was it, Cretan pirates. Anyone else you'd like to throw into the mix?

To prove such a claim you'd have to provide verifiable, precise numbers of people, uniparental data etc., or ancient dna for each time period showing the change in the dna over time. You can't do it, although perhaps at some point in the future we'll have that kind of data.

What can be done, and has been done in academic papers, is to show that one can take the Greeks of their Golden Eras, add Slavic admixture, and you get modern Greeks. Those populations most isolated from that Slavic admixture are the closest to the ancient Greeks.

It makes perfect sense. If we've learned anything at all from the population genetics papers of the last few years it should be that the autosomal "signature" of a people is shaped by folk migrations, NOT a few Saracens, or pirates or Italians or soldiers here and there. The SLAVS were a folk migration; that's why they were able to change the genetics. No one denies it. The operative word, however, is CHANGE, not REPLACE, much as it may pain you to accept it.

Yes I agree the standard modern mainland Greek is pretty much a mix of Classical era Greeks (or something of the sort) with additional Slavic admixture. I will say that the entire Greek mainland is pretty uniform genetically. This was pointed out by someone on this site several years back (LeBrok I believe) who had a collection of mainland Greek samples. I remember asking him about that and he totally agreed. So if you look at Central (Greek) Macedonia, Thessaly, Rumeli and the Peloponnese there's an absolute (and pretty tight) genetic continuum. The outliers (if you want to call them that) are obviously the deep Maniots and Tsakonians who are pretty close (in comparative terms) to Cretans who in turn link up to other Aegean Islanders.
 

This thread has been viewed 123253 times.

Back
Top