Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

Wow, this was an interesting thread that has totally gone to the dogs thanks to all this nationalistic crap.

I will try to stay on topic and speak about genetic origin of Peloponneseans (I am half Peloponnesean half italian, btw). Nobody questions that Peloponneseans and/or other Greeks have some Arvanite heritage. From what I've read somewhere it is estimated to be around 10%-15% on average based on number of settlements and population compared to the total, in the 19th century. And WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, the Arvanites were assimilated very early, fought bravely side by side with the older Greeks against the occupiers and they have always embraced their Greek identity. Plus, both Greek and Arbanite populations have lived in the region side by side for millenia, there is even a theory that Pelasgians and Illyrianns were related, therefore it is very difficult to differentiate them based on haplogroups or autosomal markers.
But as others said, this paper is NOT about the Arvanites; it is about the genetic similarities between modern Peloponneseans and the invading slavic tribes of the 6th-7th century.
Oh, and since certain contributors want to drag us back to the pre-genetic era when Fallmerayer's nonsense was popular among 19th century German romantisists, they should look up the grudge he had with King Otto of Greece.
 
Wow, this was an interesting thread that has totally gone to the dogs thanks to all this nationalistic crap.

I will try to stay on topic and speak about genetic origin of Peloponneseans (I am half Peloponnesean half italian, btw). Nobody questions that Peloponneseans and/or other Greeks have some Arvanite heritage. From what I've read somewhere it is estimated to be around 10%-15% on average based on number of settlements and population compared to the total, in the 19th century. And WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, the Arvanites were assimilated very early, fought bravely side by side with the older Greeks against the occupiers and they have always embraced their Greek identity. Plus, both Greek and Arbanite populations have lived in the region side by side for millenia, there is even a theory that Pelasgians and Illyrianns were related, therefore it is very difficult to differentiate them based on haplogroups or autosomal markers.
But as others said, this paper is NOT about the Arvanites; it is about the genetic similarities between modern Peloponneseans and the invading slavic tribes of the 6th-7th century.
Oh, and since certain contributors want to drag us back to the pre-genetic era when Fallmerayer's nonsense was popular among 19th century German romantisists, they should look up the grudge he had with King Otto of Greece.
And the same coastal Albania had Greek colonies in the past. Greek colonization was everywhere, incredible...

upload immagini gratis
 
I don't know what reference populations were used, but that's also what the academic study using AIMS showed: minimal differences between Greeks and Albanians.

@last-resort,
There is no discrepancy, to my knowledge, in the two PCAs. That's how PCA works. There are going to be slight differences depending on the populations being compared, or, in the "universe". If someone knows differently, please correct the record.
(I do not yet know how to use the multi-quote feature.)

Thank you for the 2 images. The first is especially useful.

As to the 'minimal difference' In reality there is a difference. There naturally would be similarities as they are neighbors and have moved in, through and out of each others' territories. I showed a difference in my 'map study' list, and you did via the first image. Knowing through actual data and analytics would be greatly comforting so I do hope that the study authors will add a supplement with that comparison. Also, given the difference of the Maniots and Tsakones with the other Pelops, then there is near certainty that they will bear no similarity to the Albanians. But without their input, perhaps the remainder will be closer to the Albanians than is the overall picture. It would be good to know so that the Albanian/FYROM zealots will either be totally defeated or have real data to support their non-scientific views.

As to the figures - PCA, I did look into the PCA calculation, but being new to me I didn't comment. My guess would have been as you said, that the PCA being based on deviation, the data would naturally influence the results/presentation. As it is, the Italians results are fine (it seems when comparing Fig a with Fig b) with the vertical axis expanded, but they are shifted on the same scale horizontally with the new data set. The Pelops and Sicilians are very definitely affected by the new set of comparisons.
 
tsifteteli is not a Greek dance , it is Anatolian or Turkish, but stayed as permanent to Greek culture.
Zeimpekiko is a Frygian dance,
and indeed 99,% of Greek dances are circle dances

Try as you might I did not say that the tsifteteli is a Greek dance. While 'Zeimpekiko is a Frygian dance,' is fascinating, I never said anything related to it either. Please re-read. if you figure out how to delete an entry might want to do that and tell me how.
 
There were two points being made: the people of the Peloponnese are not transplanted "Slavs" mixed with newly arrived "Turks", and there are strong genetic similarities between the people of the Peloponesse and the Sicilians.

The study also addressed Armenians and Mardaites (Maronites as proxy). Study quotes, below.

Also the study conclusions cited Italians in quantified terms with regard to the 'separate Pelop peoples' - my quotes - the Maniots and Tsakones. Study quote below.

There are also other quotes that note that the Pelops are distinct from other groups.

"Peloponneseans differ from the Armenians by PCA and ADMIXTURE analysis (Supplementary Figure 3). Collectively, these results are incompatible with the theory of extinction of the medieval Peloponneseans and their replacement by Slavic and Asia Minor settlers."


"PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses failed to show any close relationship between Maniots and the Maronites {Mardaites} (Supplementary Figure 5)"


"Compared to the very low ancestry shared with the Slavs, South Tsakonia and Deep Mani share 14 and 25% ancestry with the Italians. North Tsakonia, East and West Tayetos share from 41 to 57% ancestry with the Italians."
 
(I do not yet know how to use the multi-quote feature.)

Thank you for the 2 images. The first is especially useful.

As to the 'minimal difference' In reality there is a difference. There naturally would be similarities as they are neighbors and have moved in, through and out of each others' territories. I showed a difference in my 'map study' list, and you did via the first image. Knowing through actual data and analytics would be greatly comforting so I do hope that the study authors will add a supplement with that comparison. Also, given the difference of the Maniots and Tsakones with the other Pelops, then there is near certainty that they will bear no similarity to the Albanians. But without their input, perhaps the remainder will be closer to the Albanians than is the overall picture. It would be good to know so that the Albanian/FYROM zealots will either be totally defeated or have real data to support their non-scientific views.

As to the figures - PCA, I did look into the PCA calculation, but being new to me I didn't comment. My guess would have been as you said, that the PCA being based on deviation, the data would naturally influence the results/presentation. As it is, the Italians results are fine (it seems when comparing Fig a with Fig b) with the vertical axis expanded, but they are shifted on the same scale horizontally with the new data set. The Pelops and Sicilians are very definitely affected by the new set of comparisons.

There are genetic differences within Greece, seemingly on a cline, there are certainly differences within Italy, perhaps more than for any other country in Europe, I would guess there might be some genetic differences between Ghegs and Tosks. It's a question of scale. Drill down, blow up "map", and you'll see gaps; pull back and the distance shrinks. On global maps, all of Europe is one blob merging into the Near East.

PCAs are a good tool for finding genetic similarities and differences, but not the only or the best tool, as they only show two dimensions. Plus, as with any of these analyses, everything depends on the reference populations being used. With a country like Greece which seems to have a north/south cline, the choice of reference population would affect the results. On that first plot, the Novembre one, as you can see, some Greeks drift toward Italy, while some Greeks plot with Albanians

ADMIXTURE is another good tool for comparisons. Unfortunately, the paper I referenced on the Balkans didn't include either Albanians or Greeks*. Macedonians were included, however. You might want to take a look at it.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

Even were such a study to be done, however, it would be very important to get representative samples from all areas of those two countries, and not just a sample from Thessaly for Greece, for example. Then, if someone wanted to drill down into the data, more detailed analyses could be done, as was the case for this paper. Certain Albanians and certain Greeks might be closer to each other than others.

In terms of the similarities, as you say, especially in a time of fluid borders, people moved around. However, the overall similarities go back even further, into antiquity and beyond into the Bronze Age and the Neolithic. An optimal analysis would include some formal stats as well.

Your guess is as good as mine as to if and when all of this will happen. As to the two differentiated groups in the Peloponnese, yes, their isolation means they might have preserved more of certain lineages than others. On the other hand, their isolation can lead to a lot of endogamy and drift such that they create their own cluster. It doesn't mean that they're not related to the other people of the Peloponnese. The same thing happens with some Tunisian groups in North Africa. To disentangle it would require more analysis.

Ed. * I meant to say all Greeks. I believe that was the Thessaly sample which was being used.
 
Last edited:
The study also addressed Armenians and Mardaites (Maronites as proxy). Study quotes, below.

Also the study conclusions cited Italians in quantified terms with regard to the 'separate Pelop peoples' - my quotes - the Maniots and Tsakones. Study quote below.

There are also other quotes that note that the Pelops are distinct from other groups.

"Peloponneseans differ from the Armenians by PCA and ADMIXTURE analysis (Supplementary Figure 3). Collectively, these results are incompatible with the theory of extinction of the medieval Peloponneseans and their replacement by Slavic and Asia Minor settlers."


"PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses failed to show any close relationship between Maniots and the Maronites {Mardaites} (Supplementary Figure 5)"


"Compared to the very low ancestry shared with the Slavs, South Tsakonia and Deep Mani share 14 and 25% ancestry with the Italians. North Tsakonia, East and West Tayetos share from 41 to 57% ancestry with the Italians."

Yes, I saw that. It's sad, in a way, that scientists have to do a genetic study to refute such nonsense.

As to the bolded comment, one of my complaints about this study, aside from the fact that I wish they had done some d-stats, is that their nomenclature is very sloppy. It's not very clear precisely whom they mean by "Italians" in different parts of the study. I think it's pretty clear that they are differentiating between "Italians" and "Sicilians".

However, which sub-groups or samples are included within their "Italian" cluster? In certain PCAs, for example, they have "Italians", TSI (which is a Tuscan sample), and Sicilians. I thought that by "Italians" they meant the Bergamo standard sample for North Italians, but now I'm not so sure. In other ones they just have Sicilians and "Italians". Are those two "Italian" groups composed of the same samples?

The supplement, where these things are usually explained, isn't very clear either, imo.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg201718s1.html

The following doesn't really make sense to me:

"2 Population was included in IBD analysis. Population sizes in parentheses are the number of samples included in the IBD analysis.
3 Population was included in IBD analysis but not in PCA analysis."

Does 2 really mean the population was included in IBD analysis and PCA, and 3 means population was included in IBD analysis but not in PCA? If that's the case, however, why does neither Tuscany sample get a designation? Tuscans were clearly included in some of the PCAs. "Italians", as in Bergamo, also get no such designation, while the Veneto does. Were there just some typos?

Anyway, at least it seems Puglia was included in the IBD analysis, but not the PCA.

I have the same issue with the ADMIXTURE runs. Precisely which Italian samples are included?

If someone can help clarify, that would be great. Otherwise, perhaps someone should text them.
 
Many of the Bulgarian Black Sea town have greek names to this day. Irakli, the best beach, now being bought out by Russian companies was the most insider tip one for decades.
 
Sorry but your map is wrong.

If you think it's inaccurate, you're of course free to post links to archaeological papers and accompanying maps which contradict it. In so far as I can tell, it's generally the same as what other scientists have posted.

See:
350px-AntikeGriechen1.jpg


Greek-Colonies-500BC-R.jpg


4759092_orig.jpg


italia.jpg
 
Something interesting in the Supplement. The Sicilians don't actually overlap most closely with the major Maniot cluster. The closest match on the PCA, anyway, is with "East Tay", except for two outliers.
View attachment 8552

This is all I know about the specific history of the Taygetos region.

"During the era of barbarian invasions, Taygetus served as a shelter for the native population. Many of the villages in its slopes date from this period. In Medieval times, the citadel and monastery of Mystras was built on the steep slopes, and became a center of Byzantine civilizations and served as the capital of the Despotate of the Morea."

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

Are Slavic tribes reported as settling near there as well? Does anyone know if they're still pretty endogamous? How close is this to Sparta? To which of the sub-groups of the Peloponnese do the people of the Sparta area belong?
 
From what I'm hearing, it seems that some people are not grasping an essential fact. You can't compare the plotting of Italians and/or Sicilians versus "Greeks" on a PCA where the "Greeks" are half Thessalonians and half Athenians (very odd to include such a big city, but whatever) to the plots and analyses in this study, which compare Italians and/or Sicilians to people of the Peloponnese. For goodness' sakes, yes, the genetic similarities between Sicilians and these people have many causes, stretching back into pre-history, but certainly one of them is the Greek migrations of the first millennium BC, and just look where so much of the migration came from...the Peloponnese.

Again, no, those Thessaly samples (and Athenian samples) would not have been affected by the population exchanges of the 1920s, because in accordance with genetics studies protocols, unlike amateur work with 23andme results, all four grandparents would have had to be born in the same area, taking the genetic "signature" to earlier in time than that era.

I would also note that Peloponnesians do not cluster with Tuscans in any PCA plots. Even the people of Thessaly plot south of Tuscans, as the Haak plot and numerous others have shown, and as is borne about by ADMIXTURE results.

People have got to try to understand how PCA plots are generated. If the furthest north Greek population included in a study is from the Peloponnese, as is the case with the study which is the subject of this thread, then obviously that's what will show up in the cline as being next to Tuscany. If Thessaly had been included, then Thessaly would be next to Tuscany, and the Peloponnese would be next after Thessaly. If central Greek samples were included, they would probably plot in between Thessaly and the Peloponnese.

It really isn't helpful when people misinterpret, perhaps even deliberately misinterpret what is clearly apparent in multiple PCAs, including the ones in this paper. Like it or lump it and no matter how many unscientifically chosen 23andme based results are used, Peloponnesians and Sicilians plot together. If you drill down deeper they may plot closer to certain groups than others, but that doesn't change that essential fact, as can be seen in a PCA in this paper, which shows Sicilians overlapping half of the Peloponnesian cluster.

Most importantly, you cannot rely solely on PCA analysis, as it only, in all these cases, represents TWO dimensions. That's a rookie, amateur mistake. You need ADMIXTURE, fst, d-stats, IBD.

People, you have to read these studies carefully, understand how the programs work, and remove your agenda hats!

Also, comparisons to northern Balkans populations would not have been helpful to answer one of the primary questions being addressed, i.e. the amount of "Slavic" genetic material in the people of this part of Greece, which is different than the number of people who might have moved into the area during the "Slavic" migrations. Again, do we need to explain that the people moving from further north in the Balkans into Greece were a mixed population, and not genetically "Slav"? The people of the northern Balkans share too much genetic material with Greeks for such an analysis to be useful for answering that question, going all the way back to the Neolithic and including Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations as well as simple movements across unstable political borders, as undoubtedly happened, for example, between Albania and Greece, or between Bulgaria and Greece.

If the burning question for so many posters is which modern population is closest to, for example, the Greeks of classical Greece, or how similar those Classical Era Greeks are to Sicilians, then there is no answering that until we have a lot of ancient Greek dna from that period from multiple locations. All this speculation is useless and misleading.
 

Attachments

  • Peloponesse samples.jpg
    Peloponesse samples.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 78
"Subjects were included in the study if all four grandparents originated from the same village or from villages that were <10 kilometers apart. The ages of most participants ranged between 70 and 90 years (the oldest subject was 107 years old); hence their grandparents were born between 1860 and 1880. " These were also all people from rural villages.

That's the way it should be done.

ADMIXTURE results:
The Peloponnese population is south of Tuscans, and Sicily and the Peloponnese overlap. It's what I have been proposing for years, but I think some anthrofora posters are going to need smelling salts. :)

It would have been nice to see a comparison to someplace like Campania. I wonder if there would be total overlap?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201718f2.html#figure-title

"Sicilians and Italians serve as a bridge between Peloponneseans and other European populations (Basque, Andalusians and French). Slavic populations are placed far away from the Peloponneseans as are the Near Eastern populations. The latter are connected to the Peloponnesus via the islands of Crete and the Dodecanese."

" The ADMIXTURE analysis of Figure 1e shows that the Maniots and Tsakones are clearly separated from each other and from all other Peloponnesean populations."


https://makedonika.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/pelopones_ethnic.jpg
 
The "Slavic" percentages of these different Peloponnesian groups is also very interesting.

From the paper:
"The ADMIXTURE plot of Figure 4d and the data of Table 3 show that the amount of shared ancestry between these five Peloponnesian populations and the Slavic populations is very low. The ancestry Deep Mani shares with Belarusians, Polish and Ukrainians ranges from 0.7 to 1.0%. East and West Tayetos share from 4.9 to 8.6%ancestry with the three Slavic populations which is five to eight times higher than that of Deep Mani but lower to the ancestry the other Peloponnesans share with the Slavs. Slightly lower, compared to the other Peloponneseans, is the ancestry shared between West/East Tayetos and the Russians (8.6–10.9%). The ancestry North and South Tsakonia shares with the Slavs ranges from 4 to 8% and 0.2 to 0.9%, respectively. Compared to the very low ancestry shared with the Slavs, South Tsakonia and Deep Mani share 14 and 25% ancestry with the Italians. North Tsakonia, East and West Tayetos share from 41 to 57% ancestry with the Italians."

The people of Deep Mani and South Tsakonia have virtually no "Slavic" ancestry. (.2 to 1%) The people of East and West Tayetos, to whom the Sicilians are most similar, other than two outliers who can be ignored because they're, well, outliers, share 4.9% to 8.6% with "Slavs", and the people of North Tsakonia share a similar percentage (4-8%). The people of the north Peloponnese would then have, seemingly, somewhere from 9-14%.

I wish I knew precisely which Italians were included in this particular analysis, especially whether it includes Sicilians.


I don't know what conclusions I'm meant to draw, especially because I can't read the legend, but to be honest, since it's dated to 1830, and probably related to outdated notions of "race" I'm not really interested. I'm even less interested if it was created by this fantasist we've already discussed. Anyone can draw a map from their own fantasies.
 
Last edited:
The "Slavic" percentages of these different Peloponnesian groups is also very interesting.

From the paper:
"The ADMIXTURE plot of Figure 4d and the data of Table 3 show that the amount of shared ancestry between these five Peloponnesian populations and the Slavic populations is very low. The ancestry Deep Mani shares with Belarusians, Polish and Ukrainians ranges from 0.7 to 1.0%. East and West Tayetos share from 4.9 to 8.6%ancestry with the three Slavic populations which is five to eight times higher than that of Deep Mani but lower to the ancestry the other Peloponnesans share with the Slavs. Slightly lower, compared to the other Peloponneseans, is the ancestry shared between West/East Tayetos and the Russians (8.6–10.9%). The ancestry North and South Tsakonia shares with the Slavs ranges from 4 to 8% and 0.2 to 0.9%, respectively. Compared to the very low ancestry shared with the Slavs, South Tsakonia and Deep Mani share 14 and 25% ancestry with the Italians. North Tsakonia, East and West Tayetos share from 41 to 57% ancestry with the Italians."

The people of Deep Mani and South Tsakonia have virtually no "Slavic" ancestry. (.2 to 1%) The people of East and West Tayetos, to whom the Sicilians are most similar, other than two outliers who can be ignored because they're, well, outliers, share 4.9% to 8.6% with "Slavs", and the people of North Tsakonia share a similar percentage (4-8%). The people of the north Peloponnese would then have, seemingly, somewhere from 9-14%.

I wish I knew precisely which Italians were included in this analysis.



I don't know what conclusions I'm meant to draw, especially because I can't read the legend, but to be honest, since it's dated to 1830, and probably related to outdated notions of "race" I'm not really interested. I'm even less interested if it was created by this fantasist we've already discussed. Anyone can draw a map from their own fantasies.

Its a German map of 1890. It shows different languages spoken in Peloponnese close to the time genetic study is suppose to be. The yellow lines show something about Slavic's, but since it is in German I also have to use translator. It has nothing to do with race. Racially all populations in Greece are similar. Caucasians.
 
Are Slavic tribes reported as settling near there as well? Does anyone know if they're still pretty endogamous? How close is this to Sparta? To which of the sub-groups of the Peloponnese do the people of the Sparta area belong?

This link gives a scaleable map for the region. Shows relationship to Sparta, Mani peninsula (nearly due south of Nedousa)
http://peloponnisossearch.com/en/village/nedousa-village

Sparta is East Tayetos (Taygetos)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia

Link for Tsakonia region is below. The Tsakonia link states that the Tsakones were late converts to Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakonia

This link is to a Swiss funded preservation project in West Tayetos. It gives a history mentioning Slavs. If the study did not show otherwise, one would think these villages were Slav. Select 'Areas' at the top row.
http://onsitepreservation.eu/en-gb/home.aspx

As to endogamous, it is a mountainous area which might limit travel. I have never heard of a feud or any other basis for one village shunning another for selection of a suitable bride

Edit: Link here describes the pagan pre-Lenten (Triodion) carnival in Nedousa (West Tayetos)
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-pa...ld-in-the-village-of-nedousa-in-56016967.html
 
The Slav reference is roughly "Slavic tribe and Slav inhabited districts and villages in the oblique bis12ten century". My guess the last part is perhaps 'in roughly the 12th century' and together: Slavic tribe and Slav inhabited districts and villages in roughly the 12th century. I could be wrong about the date.

Also shows the Albanesische speaking areas (I mean the predominant speaking, not mixed) as being in the north of the Peloponnesus, mostly in/around Corinth. No Albanesische speaking areas of any variety are in or near the Maniot or Tsakones areas.
I used the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakonia
 
This is total nonsense.

This paper had to pass peer review, unlike the work done by basement dwelling troglodytes who've never taken a pop gen course in their lives, and whose sources are the opposite of transparent. Like any other research group, these authors had to take and maintain detailed biographical information on all their samples, including the birth dates and place of birth of all four grandparents.

See:
"Design of the study and populations studied

The study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Washington and the ethical committees of several provisional hospitals. We focused on the rural population. We analyzed a total of 241 samples genotyped with the Illumina Infinium Omni 2.5–8 arrays. This is a novel data set collected under the auspices of our study. Subjects were included in the study if all four grandparents originated from the same village or from villages that were <10 kilometers apart. The ages of most participants ranged between 70 and 90 years (the oldest subject was 107 years old); hence their grandparents were born between 1860 and 1880."

You are aware that libel is actionable, aren't you? These authors are named, they are professional scientists, imputations of dishonesty could affect their livelihoods. I think they perhaps should be informed of the statements you're making. If someone wants to find "real" names for a lawsuit, it can be done you know. I would take heed.

Your hysteria is showing, doubtless because that house of cards is collapsing.

What is naive is to ever have believed half-baked theories, clearly agenda driven, based on "samples" which are totally unverifiable, and even if unfalsified, are at best self-selected, non-randomized, and perhaps admixed from numerous areas of Greece and the islands.

I would also point out that the authors are not claiming that the Greeks of the Peloponnese are some "pure" Greek group, whatever that even means. What they're saying is that the German "historian" was completely incorrect in saying that the Greeks of the Peloponnese were completely replaced with Slavs, which anyone with half a brain already knew. They're also saying that the people of the Peloponnese overlap with Sicilians.

That's it. If you think the methodology is wrong and that these conclusions are incorrect, prove it.

Btw, you are also imputing dishonesty to an entire ethnic group. That's another offense for which there are consequences.

There is an obvious level of bias in the study as well as your handling of what should and should not be said in this thread. The fact that Arvanite were left out of the study is direct evidence of how this study is manipulated. I imagine it would have showed that there is no difference in the Peloponnese population to the Arvanite ones. Anyways, continue to daze at your own theories with studies designed to do just that.
 

This thread has been viewed 368018 times.

Back
Top