Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

[Johane Derite]

I'm commenting on the arguments between ihype02 (aka LABERIA-in-spirit) and Yetos that add nothing useful as usual.

This made me laugh out loud. Laberia-in-spirit especially XD

 

[Angela]

This is not the same study (is it?) however look at it:
Albanian
"Mycenaean" 59.45
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 23.1
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 5.3
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 4.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 2.95
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:I0581" 2.95

Greek
Mycenaean:I9041 39.55
Mycenaean:I9006 18.95
Mycenaean:I9010 14.50
Sintashta:RISE395 11.35
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0104 8.45
Polish 3.65
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 1.85
Belarusian 1.65
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443 0.05

Italian_South
"Mycenaean" 36.9
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 20.85
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 17.8
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 8.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 6.45
"Mozabite" 2.75
"Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665" 2.35

Btw, Angela I don't really care about Mycenaean civilization (since you were assuming I am being jealous) as for the second millennium before Christ I tend to find Ancient Egyptians more interesting (Classical Hellenes are an other story). However I was just making a point.

As for all this. I am pretty sure that Greeks are not descendants of Belorussians. Because Greeks are overwhelmingly Brunettes, and sometimes olive skinned, while Belorussians are majority blonde or light haired. There was no need for this study. ^.^

Ed. Sorry, Latgal, I see you took care of most of it.

Ah, excuse me, but you do know that those are different Mycenaean samples, yes, and you're supposed to add them up? That's over and beyond the fact that these are not papers but amateur analysis using questionable combinations.

Also, I've told you before that the Italy south sample seems to be bizarre, perhaps because of extreme drift, and has very distant FST with everyone, and that includes Bronze Age Levant, Early and Mid Bronze Age Armenia, and all the Bronze Age European populations. The same is true for the Sardinians. Interestingly, when the Otzi genome came out, his highest similarity after the Sardinians was with southern Italians.

Oh, and since this modern sample has such a high FST with Bronze Age Levant, it just emphasizes the fact that the ancient populations chosen for the run on southern Italians are agenda driven. People, you can fiddle with that method, throwing in any populations you choose in order to get the preferred result. Don't trust any results from certain people. Stick to the academics who have a career and a livelihood to lose, although incompetence in some lesser known researchers is also a factor.

To the board, the author of this paper is an author of the Lazaridis paper, as someone else has posted.

No one is denying that Albanians have high similarity to the Mycenaeans, although there is a ranking...How it happened, exactly, we don't know.

 

[ihype02]

Thank you for your perspective Angela.

 

[davef]

That was just an experiment Tomenable ran and it isn't to be taken literally, especially since none of those sources are proximal. Mycenaean means Mycenaean-like and it's natural that Albanians and Tuscans are going to get similar %s to mainland Greeks since the differences between the three in ancestral components are overall subtle and those Mycenaeans were overall closest to Southeastern Europeans (Albanians, Greeks and Central-South Italians). We just don't have anything similar for Albanians (maybe the Vucedol samples when they're out but they were still all the way in Croatia) or Tuscans yet. ******* hell.

PS: Not that it matters anyway due to the limitation of our current sources that also limit the test but, ihype02, what is 39.55 + 18.95 + 14.50? And try to find out the difference between mtDNA and autosomal DNA, please, before being so authoritative.

Even worse, it's not scanning the actual genomes of those samples that were posted it's going by what they scored in eurogenes k36 and comparing their scores to Mycenaeans and whomecer was included in the comparison. It's not scanning genomes, it's scanning numbers. Its saying "you scored this percentage of French and other things and the Mycenaean scored this percentage of French and other things so to I'll guess, using these numbers and not your DNA profile, that you're 50 percent Mycenaean."

I at least think this is how it works based on what Pratt posted in another thread.

Getting x percentage of a certain ethnicity from the n-monte doesn't mean that x percentage of your DNA is like that ethnicity (let alone that ethnicity itself)....based on my knowledge. It could be a lot lower...or maybe higher.

It's a number game.

 

[Yetos]

To the board, the author of this paper is an author of the Lazaridis paper, as someone else has posted.

Angela which paper says this you quote?

I mean this

Albanian
"Mycenaean" 59.45
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 23.1
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 5.3
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 4.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 2.95
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:I0581" 2.95

Greek
Mycenaean:I9041 39.55
Mycenaean:I9006 18.95
Mycenaean:I9010 14.50
Sintashta:RISE395 11.35
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0104 8.45
Polish 3.65
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 1.85
Belarusian 1.65
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443 0.05

Italian_South
"Mycenaean" 36.9
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 20.85
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 17.8
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 8.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 6.45
"Mozabite" 2.75
"Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665" 2.35

 

[davef]

Angela which paper says this you quote?

I mean this

Albanian
"Mycenaean" 59.45
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 23.1
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 5.3
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 4.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 2.95
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:I0581" 2.95

Greek
Mycenaean:I9041 39.55
Mycenaean:I9006 18.95
Mycenaean:I9010 14.50
Sintashta:RISE395 11.35
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0104 8.45
Polish 3.65
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 1.85
Belarusian 1.65
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443 0.05

Italian_South
"Mycenaean" 36.9
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 20.85
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 17.8
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 8.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 6.45
"Mozabite" 2.75
"Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665" 2.35

These weren't taken from any study. These are results from freely available tools that any dumb Joe Bob can download, run, and manipulate to "prove" that a person of ethnicity x has ancestry from ethnicities a b c etc.

And these results are based on a really crappy calculator (eurogenes k36). To demonstrate its awfulness, I'll point out that it's Italian parameter is dominant in Tuscans or North Italians, yet it only gave Angela a paltry 22 percent...guess what her ancestral background is?

Don't take these values seriously.

 

[Jovialis]

These weren't taken from any study. These are results from freely available tools that any dumb Joe Bob can download, run, and manipulate to "prove" that a person of ethnicity x has ancestry from ethnicities a b c etc.

And these results are based on a really crappy calculator (eurogenes k36). To demonstrate its awfulness, I'll point out that it's Italian parameter is dominant in Tuscans or North Italians, yet it only gave Angela a paltry 22 percent...guess what her ancestral background is?

Don't take these values seriously.

To me, it's just gibberish that was thrown into the conversation as a red herring.

People need to defer to reputable sources, like the ones this thread is based on. To do otherwise is anti-intellectual.

Definition
noun
1. a person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods.

Identifying reputable sources is the first thing they teach students in college. :annoyed:

Albanians are very much related to Mycenaeans; they should feel proud of that. But the facts are the facts, in regards to the Peloponnese.

Peloponnese has been one of the cradles of the Classical European civilization and an important contributor to the ancient European history. It has also been the subject of a controversy about the ancestry of its population. In a theory hotly debated by scholars for over 170 years, the German historian Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer proposed that the medieval Peloponneseans were totally extinguished by Slavic and Avar invaders and replaced by Slavic settlers during the 6th century CE. Here we use 2.5 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms to investigate the genetic structure of Peloponnesean populations in a sample of 241 individuals originating from all districts of the peninsula and to examine predictions of the theory of replacement of the medieval Peloponneseans by Slavs. We find considerable heterogeneity of Peloponnesean populations exemplified by genetically distinct subpopulations and by gene flow gradients within Peloponnese. By principal component analysis (PCA) and ADMIXTURE analysis the Peloponneseans are clearly distinguishable from the populations of the Slavic homeland and are very similar to Sicilians and Italians. Using a novel method of quantitative analysis of ADMIXTURE output we find that the Slavic ancestry of Peloponnesean subpopulations ranges from 0.2 to 14.4%. Subpopulations considered by Fallmerayer to be Slavic tribes or to have Near Eastern origin, have no significant ancestry of either. This study rejects the theory of extinction of medieval Peloponneseans and illustrates how genetics can clarify important aspects of the history of a human population.

@ Yetos, I'd like to point out, Angela didn't post those numbers; ihype02 re-quoted it from curiouscat.

 

[davef]

To me, it's just gibberish that was thrown into the conversation as a red herring.

People need to defer to reputable sources, like the ones this thread is based on.

Identifying reputable sources is the first thing they teach students in college. :annoyed:

Yeah, I know right? And how should anyone take this n monte seriously when it predicts south Italians are only 36 percent Mycenaean? The Mycenaean score should be well more than twice that.

But as mentioned, you can manipulate the results all you want in order to bash whatever ethnicity you despise of.

 

[Constantine]

And I guarantee you that the .2-14% "Slavic" is actually closer to the .2 in most regions, the rest being IE/"Steppe"-type ancestry that modern Slavs also possess.

 

[LeBrok]

And I guarantee you that the .2-14% "Slavic" is actually closer to the .2 in most regions, the rest being IE/"Steppe"-type ancestry that modern Slavs also possess.

I guarantee you it will be closer to 14% on mainland but closer to nothing on islands.

 

[Angela]

There's nothing inherently wrong with nmonte as a method. All of these tools have their benefits and their shortcomings: PCA (only two of many dimensions), Admixture (I've posted whole papers on how they can be incorrectly done and improperly analyzed), FST, f4 stats and on and on.

The problem with the nmonte analysis posted here is that it is based on a highly questionable Admixture run created by Davidski (K=36), and on the fact that some of the populations chosen to be part of the run are highly questionable for some of the chosen groups based on other results.

Remember the old adage: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 

[Sile]

This is not the same study (is it?) however look at it:
Albanian
"Mycenaean" 59.45
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 23.1
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 5.3
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 4.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 2.95
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:I0581" 2.95

Greek
Mycenaean:I9041 39.55
Mycenaean:I9006 18.95
Mycenaean:I9010 14.50
Sintashta:RISE395 11.35
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0104 8.45
Polish 3.65
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 1.85
Belarusian 1.65
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443 0.05

Italian_South
"Mycenaean" 36.9
"Jordan_EBA:I1730" 20.85
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0370" 17.8
"Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111" 8.7
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409" 6.45
"Mozabite" 2.75
"Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665" 2.35

Btw, Angela I don't really care about Mycenaean civilization (since you were assuming I am being jealous) as for the second millennium before Christ I tend to find Ancient Egyptians more interesting (Classical Hellenes are an other story). However I was just making a point.

As for all this. I am pretty sure that Greeks are not descendants of Belorussians. Because Greeks are overwhelmingly Brunettes, and sometimes olive skinned, while Belorussians are majority blonde or light haired. There was no need for this study. ^.^

With these results , the real question that one needs to ask is:

Are Myceneans and Dorians related ?..................the Greek claim is yes
If the Greek claim is correct , then the Albanians ( or a majority of them ) have Greek ancestry
If the Greek claim is wrong , then the Albanians are either from Mycenean or Dorian ancestry and that Mycenean and Dorian are not related to each other.

It is either one or the other,

 

[Sile]

There's nothing inherently wrong with nmonte as a method. All of these tools have their benefits and their shortcomings: PCA (only two of many dimensions), Admixture (I've posted whole papers on how they can be incorrectly done and improperly analyzed), FST, f4 stats and on and on.
The problem with the nmonte analysis posted here is that it is based on a highly questionable Admixture run created by Davidski (K=36), and on the fact that some of the populations chosen to be part of the run are highly questionable for some of the chosen groups based on other results.
Remember the old adage: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

The program for these results is run via mlukas ( and another named Tolan ) and he has changed the Davidski program ....................and this program, for Anthrogenica members proved over 90% in accuracy for each member.
IIRC , ancient samples where added to this program, firstly by Tolan.
Davidski Old numbers for his K36 would be minimal at best..................and only davidki layout is basically what was kept.

 

[Angela]

The program for these results is run via mlukas ( and another named Tolan ) and he has changed the Davidski program ....................and this program, for Anthrogenica members proved over 90% in accuracy for each member.
IIRC , ancient samples where added to this program, firstly by Tolan.
Davidski Old numbers for his K36 would be minimal at best..................and only davidki layout is basically what was kept.

How could anyone possibly know if their percentages are accurate? All we can know is if they match what we believe about our origins, or for some people, what they want to believe about their origins.

With these results , the real question that one needs to ask is:

Are Myceneans and Dorians related ?..................the Greek claim is yes
If the Greek claim is correct , then the Albanians ( or a majority of them ) have Greek ancestry
If the Greek claim is wrong , then the Albanians are either from Mycenean or Dorian ancestry and that Mycenean and Dorian are not related to each other.

It is either one or the other,

No, it isn't. They could both have been impacted by the same ancient groups in roughly similar proportions. Whether anyone will be able to untangle it given how similar the two groups are, I don't know.

Until someone can present an analyzed Dorian genome, I'll reserve judgment.

 

[LATGAL]

No, it isn't. They could both have been impacted by the same ancient groups in roughly similar proportions. Whether anyone will be able to untangle it given how similar the two groups are, I don't know.

Seriously, how can one misunderstand this so much? The Albanians (and the Tuscans) get similar results in those experiments a couple users ran (and their limitations aside, they're still interesting if one roughly understands what's going on and doesn't over-interpret them) overall because all three groups are very similar in the first place with some small differences in their Anatolian, Iran Neolithic/CHG and steppe ancestries. And, to repeat this important point you've repeated yourself too, we don't even have enough Balkan/Greek (and 0 Italian) coverage yet. The Anatolian-Iranian-steppe Mycenaeans are likely just approximating similar Bronze Age groups in the rest of the Balkans and Italy (IIRC the Mathieson et al. paper's supplement noted a post-Neolithic increase in Iran_N type ancestry in the rest of the Balkans too compared to the rest of Europe).

Sile, it has nothing to do with 'Dorians' and 'Mycenaeans' impacting everything in the area or having something to do with the (quite likely Illyrian-related) Albanians specifically. The historical Dorians, whatever their 'ultimate' (or 'mixed') origins, were a West-Greek-speaking group established in southern Greece, stop mixing everything together.

 

[Angela]

Seriously, how can one misunderstand this so much? The Albanians (and the Tuscans) get similar results in those experiments a couple users ran (and their limitations aside, they're still interesting if one roughly understands what's going on and doesn't over-interpret them) overall because all three groups are very similar in the first place with some small differences in their Anatolian, Iran Neolithic/CHG and steppe ancestries. And, to repeat this important point you've repeated yourself too, we don't even have enough Balkan/Greek (and 0 Italian) coverage yet. The Anatolian-Iranian-steppe Mycenaeans are likely just approximating similar Bronze Age groups in the rest of the Balkans and Italy (IIRC the Mathieson et al. paper's supplement noted a post-Neolithic increase in Iran_N type ancestry in the rest of the Balkans too compared to the rest of Europe).

Sile, it has nothing to do with 'Dorians' and 'Mycenaeans' impacting everything in the area or having something to do with the (quite likely Illyrian-related) Albanians specifically. The historical Dorians, whatever their 'ultimate' (or 'mixed') origins, were a West-Greek-speaking group established in southern Greece, stop mixing everything together.

I can't quite tell. Are you agreeing with me or not?

Generally speaking, Albanians are eastern shifted Tuscans.

 

[ihype02]

PS: Not that it matters anyway due to the limitation of our current sources that also limit the test but, ihype02, what is 39.55 + 18.95 + 14.50?

I don't know but why were they saparated in first place?

Mycenaeans were overall closest to Southeastern Europeans (Albanians, Greeks and Central-South Italians).

That is true. But they also sometimes score high with Near East etc.

it isn't to be taken literally.

I agree however it was taken very literally by some. That is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Johane Derite]

Are Myceneans and Dorians related ?..................the Greek claim is yes
If the Greek claim is correct , then the Albanians ( or a majority of them ) have Greek ancestry
If the Greek claim is wrong , then the Albanians are either from Mycenean or Dorian ancestry and that Mycenean and Dorian are not related to each other.

According to the latest linguistic research (this image is from Andrew Garrets 2015 Berkely paper on indo-european languages: http://i.imgur.com/z4jxRji.jpg ) Greek, Albanian, and Armenian
were the same language 4500 years ago (2500 BC). The latest Mycenaean paper states clearly, (although it doesn't provide more detail on the Albanians) that the least differentiated populations from
Mycenaeans are the Greek, Cyprus, Albanian and Italian populations.

There is all too often a retroactive projection of a today's people onto the past. Albanians may have ancestry from what is called "ancient Greeks" in the same way that contemporary Greeks have a clearly established ancestry.
But that doesn't mean Albanians are Greeks. It means Albanians and Greeks are cousins, which isn't shocking if true.

 

[ihype02]

^ I would to see a comparison with Near East Asia.

 

[Angela]

^ I would to see a comparison with Near East Asia.

Near East ancient, as in Neolithic and Bronze Age? What does it matter? You're going to have the same amount or you wouldn't cluster on top of each other.

This is all as absurd as the Northern Ireland Scots-Irish Protestants and the Northern Ireland Irish Catholics constantly bashing away at each other. Just stop.