Ancient DNA from Greece

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
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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?
 
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)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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, :LOL: or just to put you more questions :innocent:
 
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.
 
@ 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
 
Last edited:
@Yetos,

You have ancient DNA results from Greece?
 
@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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 28899 times.

Back
Top