Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

At Peloponese mainly and Rumeli after 1828 not a Muslim existed, since all killed or left

Mainly Yes, but I am still wondering is it normal "all killed or left" or "Pontic Greek version of all killed or left" in Turkish Blacksea coast. All supposed to have been gone to Greece. But still some left in Turkey under the name Islam and Turk

Also my point was that there was Greek Refugees in Peloponnese. I didn't said majority as in Greek Macedonia(I told many many times in different way.)

and I prooved it (y)

and majority of Greeks who came to fight at 1821 went back to Ottoman empire or moved to West to other European countries,

About that, word: majority, I didn't say it too. I told that there should be some Asia Minor Greeks before Population Exchange in 1923

I know it because some part of my family came to Turkey from Lesvos before Population Exchange, Probably as soon as Greeks took the island in 1912 ?

Maybe You can search and inform us

"According to an international commission sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment in 1914, when the Balkan War fighting ceased, Greece had a population of 2,6 million, and 157 000 refugees. "
http://balkanologie.revues.org/720

Who is this refugees in 1914 ? My guess is Balkan War Asia Minor Greek refugees

And if we go back just right after Greek independence and killing Turk (or what ever). Turks did similar thing in Chios just near the Smynra / İzmir or Anatolian Greeks

Example: Greek Island, Psara

After the Independece, 1820's

A part of the population managed to flee the island, but those who did not were either sold into slavery or killed. As a result of the invasion, thousands of Greeks have met a tragic fate. The island was deserted and surviving islanders were scattered through what is now Southern Greece.


about Thessaloniki or Patra after 1860 is out of Thread,

I totally agree, but I can't resist when I see lies. Now I don't know how can I trust anyone in the forum. I can easily proof that he/she is lying with 10min web search. I guess the flag in my avatar, makes the people think that I am fool enough to believe what said to me.
but anyway Tobacco at Makedonia started after 1923 by the Pontic Greeks cultivating variety of Samsun plant,
before no Tobacco plantation existed,

How much sure are you?

"Oriental tobacco or Turkish tobacco is a highly aromatic, small-leafed variety of tobacco which is sun-cured. Historically, it was cultivated primarily in Thrace and Macedonia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_tobacco

1.jpg



It says how many Turkish refugees Farmer (225.000), how many of tobacco farmer (95.000) and how many of Olive farmer (75,000). Also it gives information about where they came from and settled.

Tobacco History of Greece, much older then you think.(y)
 
So you've already said.

How many times does it have to be stated that the authors didn't address the issue of the genetic similarity of the people of the Peloponnese to the Albanians or the Arvanites? Do you understand what that means? It means they didn't study it. That would be another paper. They also didn't address how similar genetically these people are to the people who inhabited that land in antiquity. That would also be another paper and would, in my opinion, require ancient Greek dna.

They were trying to address the question of whether these people are Slavic and Turkish transplants. The answer seems to be no. If you can point to problems with the methodology which would call that conclusion into question, by all means share it. I'd be interested to hear it. The subjective musings of some German visitor almost two hundred years ago don't count as a scientific rebuttal.

My God, does it have to be about you even when it is obviously not about you?

What doesn't belong in this thread is a rant about the treatment of the Albanian language in Greece, or a contest about who committed the most atrocities against whom, as that is completely and totally off topic and only meant to provoke another Balkan flame war.

That applies to either or all sides. Is that clear now?

You hit the nail on the head. The scope of this study was to determine whether modern Peloponnesian Greeks are substantially descended from Slavs and Near Easterners. Per this study, they are not. That's not good news for those who want modern Peloponnesians to be descended from Hellenized medieval Slavs.

If I may digress briefly, as far as Arvanites in the Peloponnese, the old language map from 1890 shows large Greek-speaking areas and some Arvanite/Albanian-speaking areas. If the Peloponnese was largely occupied by Arvanites, how was it that so many became Greek-speakers?
 
Also worth noting, there is overlap between the Peloponnese and Crete, too.

Four important things:

1) This study has one underlying implication: proximity to Sicily means closer to 'pure' Greek, with unchanged DNA. Notice the wording... Peloponnesians have limited Slavic DNA, thus are close to Sicilians. The Peloponnesians who happen to be drifting further away from Sicilians on the full Europe PCA where Sicilians are green squares, must therefore be those with more Slavic ancestry, and surely other parts of the mainland have more Slavic ancestry than Peloponnesians considering on other PCA plots (Paschou et al, which puts Sicilians near both Laconia and Crete, and Lazaridis et al), other mainland Greeks and Sicilians rarely plot as one. In other words, the more Sicilian-like a Greek is, the less affected by Slavic, Albanian, or other foreign admixture. Here, we see some of the far southern Peloponnesians, near Laconia, being close to Sicilians which is consistent with what we already knew.

You are very unlikely to see people from Epirus, Thessaly, or Macedonia being genetically that close to Sicily or to Crete, and there is a reason for this. Laconia, Sicily, and Crete are all likely closer to the classical Greeks than people in northern Greece today are.

2) However, the historical fact everyone is neglecting is, the similarity is more likely due to that after Slavs were expelled from the Peloponnese, large numbers of Greek-speaking Sicilians and Calabrese were moved by the Byzantine Empire over to the Peloponnese to repopulate the abandoned cities and towns. Also, Cretans, who are also similar to Sicilians and to modern Laconians too, also contributed to the repopulation. The surnames between Crete and Laconia (which is the region with the highest IBD sharing to Italy if you look at this study) are also similar. Therefore, Peloponnesians may be as Sicilian as the reverse, plus Cretan ancestry would contribute to that effect, because Sicilians overlap with both Laconia and Crete today. Everyone is emphasizing Sicilians being Greek... maybe Peloponnesians are part Sicilian, and history suggests they might be.

3) The pre-Greek people of Sicily were likely quite close to the original people of the Aegean to begin with. Most of the people who lived in Sicily likely passed through the Aegean before landing there, with the exception of the Siculi who were Italics from the mainland. Even if no Greek ever set foot in Sicily, they'd still be close to one another. Their common roots should go back to the Neolithic.

4) How do we know the Slavs in Greece were purely Northeast European, and hadn't mixed with people in the Balkans as they moved south? If they did, then the study might underestimate replacement. Why did they compare to Poles and Russians, and not to Bulgarians and Serbs?

It is really too bad they did not measure IBD sharing with Crete. I suspect it'd be quite high between Peloponnese, especially Laconia, and Crete.

This was one of the plots from Paschou et al, and you can see that the Sicilians, Laconians, and Cretans are all close, much closer to one another than to anyone else. See, where by contrast, Greek Macedonians and non-Laconian Peloponnesians plot. I suspect the mixture between them was three way. I don't find up to 14.4% Slavic insignificant.. it is the reason some of the Peloponnesians do not in fact overlap identically with Sicilians, though I admit I expected the figure to get much higher than that. I guess we have to wait to see Greek Macedonia or Thessaly for that.

What this all suggests to me is moving south in Greece there hits a point where the population stops being "Balkan" like and becomes like Sicilians, Laconians, and Cretans, and this is likely the southern Peloponnese. Sicilians and Laconians appear very diverse... on the chart below, they range from being like Tuscans to being like Dodecanese.



sq5h5i.jpg



2qi2o8z.jpg
 
The Byzantines reestablished rule in the Peloponnese after the Slavs settled there in places. Who knows what happened with populations at that time?

See my post above. They moved many Greek-speaking Sicilians, Calabrese, and Cretans to the Peloponnese to restore and solidify its Greek character. I attribute much of the similarity in the populations today to this.
 
See my post above. They moved many Greek-speaking Sicilians, Calabrese, and Cretans to the Peloponnese to restore and solidify its Greek character. I attribute much of the similarity in the populations today to this.

Please provide citations to studies detailing when precisely this occurred, how many people were involved, the number of people living in the Peloponnesus at the time, the locations where they were settled, and how many were Greek speaking "Sicilians" versus Greeks living in Sicily.

Even should that evidence be unambiguous, unless the majority of the island went to the Peloponnesus, and given that the Neolithic arrived in Sicily at least partly from Greece, given the extensive contacts during the Bronze Age, and given the migrations during the first millennium BC which created Magna Graecia, etc., to attribute "much of the similarity" to this minor event is sadly lacking in logic.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than this kind of nonsense, Sikeliot.
 
Last edited:
4) How do we know the Slavs in Greece were purely Northeast European, and hadn't mixed with people in the Balkans as they moved south? If they did, then the study might underestimate replacement. Why did they compare to Poles and Russians, and not to Bulgarians and Serbs?
Right, they missed the only really important thing to prove their point - the data of the NEIGHBOURING Slavs. In the end we have a good clue from where Peloponnesians are not, that is they are not from Gdansk or Omsk, no Klingons and no Ferengi. If somebody wanted to be sure about exactly that, Stamatoyannopoulos and his friends have done a good job.

oreo_cookie said:
This was one of the plots from Paschou et al, ...
I guess you are referencing to this one. The best thing you can do with Paschou's soup, is pour it down the kitchen sink! Genetically Crete is even more of a rag rug than Greece itself, and so far I haven't found even one study which took a decent sample from there. Unless there will be done a research like Voskarides on Cyprus you can forget Crete data alltogether. The other samplings from Paschou's misdead speak for themselves. Especially South East Laconia with five samples lets me think, those guys consider everybody else as complete idiots.
Crete, 90 samples
Cappadocia, 10
Dodecanese, 10
East Rumelia, 12
Macedonia, 16
Peloponnese, 19
Serbia, 20
Sicily, 20
South East Laconia, 5
How many samples do you think are necessary to be good enough to compare different folks with each other? Five or ten? I know, population genetics isn't exactly science, but game of dice?
 
Also worth noting, there is overlap between the Peloponnese and Crete, too.

Four important things:

1) This study has one underlying implication: proximity to Sicily means closer to 'pure' Greek, with unchanged DNA. Notice the wording... Peloponnesians have limited Slavic DNA, thus are close to Sicilians. The Peloponnesians who happen to be drifting further away from Sicilians on the full Europe PCA where Sicilians are green squares, must therefore be those with more Slavic ancestry, and surely other parts of the mainland have more Slavic ancestry than Peloponnesians considering on other PCA plots (Paschou et al, which puts Sicilians near both Laconia and Crete, and Lazaridis et al), other mainland Greeks and Sicilians rarely plot as one. In other words, the more Sicilian-like a Greek is, the less affected by Slavic, Albanian, or other foreign admixture. Here, we see some of the far southern Peloponnesians, near Laconia, being close to Sicilians which is consistent with what we already knew.

You are very unlikely to see people from Epirus, Thessaly, or Macedonia being genetically that close to Sicily or to Crete, and there is a reason for this. Laconia, Sicily, and Crete are all likely closer to the classical Greeks than people in northern Greece today are.

2) However, the historical fact everyone is neglecting is, the similarity is more likely due to that after Slavs were expelled from the Peloponnese, large numbers of Greek-speaking Sicilians and Calabrese were moved by the Byzantine Empire over to the Peloponnese to repopulate the abandoned cities and towns. Also, Cretans, who are also similar to Sicilians and to modern Laconians too, also contributed to the repopulation. The surnames between Crete and Laconia (which is the region with the highest IBD sharing to Italy if you look at this study) are also similar. Therefore, Peloponnesians may be as Sicilian as the reverse, plus Cretan ancestry would contribute to that effect, because Sicilians overlap with both Laconia and Crete today. Everyone is emphasizing Sicilians being Greek... maybe Peloponnesians are part Sicilian, and history suggests they might be.

3) The pre-Greek people of Sicily were likely quite close to the original people of the Aegean to begin with. Most of the people who lived in Sicily likely passed through the Aegean before landing there, with the exception of the Siculi who were Italics from the mainland. Even if no Greek ever set foot in Sicily, they'd still be close to one another. Their common roots should go back to the Neolithic.

4) How do we know the Slavs in Greece were purely Northeast European, and hadn't mixed with people in the Balkans as they moved south? If they did, then the study might underestimate replacement. Why did they compare to Poles and Russians, and not to Bulgarians and Serbs?

It is really too bad they did not measure IBD sharing with Crete. I suspect it'd be quite high between Peloponnese, especially Laconia, and Crete.

This was one of the plots from Paschou et al, and you can see that the Sicilians, Laconians, and Cretans are all close, much closer to one another than to anyone else. See, where by contrast, Greek Macedonians and non-Laconian Peloponnesians plot. I suspect the mixture between them was three way. I don't find up to 14.4% Slavic insignificant.. it is the reason some of the Peloponnesians do not in fact overlap identically with Sicilians, though I admit I expected the figure to get much higher than that. I guess we have to wait to see Greek Macedonia or Thessaly for that.

What this all suggests to me is moving south in Greece there hits a point where the population stops being "Balkan" like and becomes like Sicilians, Laconians, and Cretans, and this is likely the southern Peloponnese. Sicilians and Laconians appear very diverse... on the chart below, they range from being like Tuscans to being like Dodecanese.



sq5h5i.jpg



2qi2o8z.jpg

People who attempt to draw conclusions from genetic data produced by various tools should understand those tools and their limitations. You seem to be obsessed with PCAs, that is, when you're not obsessed with results from gedmatch and calculators based on modern populations, results drawn, moreover, from samples whose provenance can't be verified. You don't seem to be aware that PCAs are limited in their usefulness, at least the PCAs we are accustomed to see, because they only capture two dimensions. In some cases that means they capture less than 50% of the variation. I'll repeat that...in some cases they capture less than 50% of the variation.

That's why other tools are also used. Now that we have formal stats for analyzing that kind of data it's essential to use them, in my opinion, and the fact that these authors didn't is a major flaw. However, in addition to PCA, they did use Admixture, although again there the presentation was a bit sloppy in terms of the labeling, and therefore unnecessarily confusing.

Now, to turn to your specific points, such as they are:

1. I can't seem to find one data point in that entire paragraph. Please refer to post 204 and provide evidence regarding this "large" migration of "Sicilians" into the Peloponnesus. You don't get to make unsupported claims on this Board.

I'm unaware of any academic analysis similar to this one having been performed on Central Greeks or those of Thessaly or Macedonia. Until that's done, this kind of certainty about percentages of "Slavic" dna, or similarities to Italians, for that matter, is misplaced. It's "surely" possible, but there's no "surely" about it. Many migrations of the past could be contributing to the Greek cline.

Some inferences could be made from yDna, but going by the data provided here on this Board, I don't see any major differences whatsoever between Southern and Central Greece of any y lines which could be considered particularly "Slavic". Indeed, the differences are minimal for any areas of Greece. Unfortunately, this data isn't broken down into R1a-458 or the possibly more Slavic forms of I2, so it's by no means definitive.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Now, maybe more detail is available, but it should be kept in mind that percentages of a certain yDna can't be correlated one to one with autosomal composition. It all depends on the size of the migrating groups and to what extent it was male mediated.

I don't know how often this has to be said, but the only way to know which populations were closest to the Greeks of the Bronze Age or the Classical Era is to get ancient dna and do some comparisons. All this endless speculation, usually agenda driven, is useless, and I won't engage in it.

2. Please see my comment above and post #204. Also, there's no need to repeat the same point over and over again. Most of us can read and understand what we read.

3. Now you're contradicting yourself. Plus, the Greek mainland was colonized by the Aegean as well. That is, other than the far northern parts of modern day Greece, which were actually colonized shortly before the major period of Greek colonization in the first millennium BC, which could be another factor in the development of the Greek cline.

4. Please go back and read the entire thread. This has been discussed. There is too much shared ancestry from too many eras. Clarification can only come from ancient dna from these migrations, and comparisons to all the inhabitants of the Balkans, including the Greeks from various regions. What seems to be the case, however, is that there was no "replacement".

I'm sure there's a great deal of IBD between the people of Crete and the rest of the Peloponnesus and the mainland as well.

On the Paschou PCA I see two Sicilians who seem to be outliers near the Cappadocians. I see two near the Peloponnesus. Some may be hidden under the left part of the Crete "blob". Regardless, please read my point number one about PCAs. 14.4% was the highest part of the range. It is misleading to imply that this is the figure for all of the Peloponnesus other than Lakonia.

See Haak et al. The "Greek" sample is half Thessaly and half the area around Athens. Even then, only some of the samples plot near Tuscans. If I were to guess, I'd say it's likely that the "Athenian" samples are the ones that plot further south toward southern Italians.
Euro.PNG


Much of this has already been said upthread. I don't see the point of repeating the same things over and over. We need to wait for ancient dna for more definitive answers.
 
to oreo cookie
i know the source for your claiming about sicilians repopulating peloponnese but it is very untrustworthy and you can not take it seriously, even if i personally belive that there is a foundation of trouth in it
All other serious historical sources contradicts those naratives and further more it is claiming that the peloponneseans fled to sicily and afther a couple of generations they returned.
for example it is claiming that the population of patra migrated to reggio calabria and after some time the empire used the population of reggio to repopulate patra.
i seriously doubt that byzantines had the operational capacity to move the entire peloponnesean population to italy and then move them again back in.
but as i said before maybe something like that happened but only in small numbers.
we know it had happened (in small numbers) for sure later in time when the byzantines lost their italian territories anyway.
on the other hand i agree that even without the greek colonization south italians and greeks would overlapse for obvious reasons.
One other point is that i see in the admixture analysis of paschou that the s.e lakonia match better with the tuscans while crete is more similar to sicily.
as for your claiming that the peloponneseans who do not match with the sicilians means that they are slavs, how can you tell that they are not more of doric or achean descent that it is supposed to come from the north?
in s.e lakonia for example we have mainly a pelasgian population ruled by the acheans and later from the dorians of north laconia (achean and doric sparta)
finally comparing peloponneseans to bulgarians does not prove much as bulgarians have a strong mediterranean component anyway.
 
Please provide citations to studies detailing when precisely this occurred, how many people were involved, the number of people living in the Peloponnesus at the time, the locations where they were settled, and how many were Greek speaking "Sicilians" versus Greeks living in Sicily.

Even should that evidence be unambiguous, unless the majority of the island went to the Peloponnesus, and given that the Neolithic arrived in Sicily at least partly from Greece, given the extensive contacts during the Bronze Age, and given the migrations during the first millennium BC which created Magna Graecia, etc., to attribute "much of the similarity" to this minor event is sadly lacking in logic.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than this kind of nonsense, Sikeliot.

My point is that we should not be assuming the gene flow was all from Greece to Sicily when it is very unlikely that is the case. Sicilians do have some Greek ancestry (and given all of the millennia of contact, it must be island-wide by now), but why not consider the opposite too? Anyway the Cretan connection to the Peloponnese is evident in shared surnames not present elsewhere.

When Greeks colonized Sicily, they Hellenized the native people fairly quickly. How do we know how many Sicilians were actually Greek transplants versus native people, who would have been similar anyway? There is no way of knowing, any more than it is possible to differentiate the English and the Scots for instance. No one provided evidence of the number of Greeks in Sicily in ancient times, either.

I'm just saying people are jumping the gun by implying the similarity is due to Greeks in Sicily. It could be due to the reverse, or they could have always been similar. We DON'T know. You said there is too much shared ancestry from too many eras to know, so why assume it is ALL due to Greek colonization in Sicily when it could be many other things?

My point was Greeks not plotting near Sicily, on the mainland, likely would if there was no Slavic admixture. If you don't agree, fine, but there is no more evidence to prove your hypothesis than there is mine.

Anyway there is a citation about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnese#Byzantine_rule_and_Slavic_settlement

The claim comes from a book: "Many Slavs were transported to Asia Minor, and many Asian, Sicilian and Calabrian Greeks were resettled in the Peloponnese. The entire peninsula was formed into the new thema of Peloponnesos, with its capital at Corinth"


Anyway about the PCAs above, the ones you assume to be Thessalian are closer to Bulgarians than to Sicilians. On the Paschou et al one, I zoomed in and see Sicilians hidden under various parts of the Cretan cluster.
 
Last edited:
Right, they missed the only really important thing to prove their point - the data of the NEIGHBOURING Slavs. In the end we have a good clue from where Peloponnesians are not, that is they are not from Gdansk or Omsk, no Klingons and no Ferengi. If somebody wanted to be sure about exactly that, Stamatoyannopoulos and his friends have done a good job.

Yes. It seems obvious to me they did whatever they could to minimize the extent of admixture from the north, which would have been higher if they used neighboring Slavs and not Ukrainians, Poles, and Russians.
 
You were asked to provide precise data for your argument that much of the similarity between the people of the Peloponnesus and the Sicilians can be explained by a supposed movement of "Greek speakers" from Sicily to the Peloponnesus to Sicily.

Angela: Please provide citations to studies detailing when precisely this occurred, how many people were involved, the number of people living in the Peloponnesus at the time, the locations where they were settled, and how many were Greek speaking "Sicilians" versus Greeks living in Sicily.

This was your response:
Anyway there is a citation about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnese#Byzantine_rule_and_Slavic_settlement

The claim comes from a book: "Many Slavs were transported to Asia Minor, and many Asian, Sicilian and Calabrian Greeks were resettled in the Peloponnese. The entire peninsula was formed into the new thema of Peloponnesos, with its capital at Corinth"

The Wiki article says nothing of the sort. I want the cite to the book which you claim supports your position. How are we supposed to judge its reliability with no link to it? If it doesn't answer the above questions then you have proved nothing.

If you are referring to the so-called "Chronicles of Momemvasia", the Wiki article you yourself cite says it's unreliable. That so called Chronicle doesn't claim, as you state, that the "Greeks" returning were just "Greek speaking Sicilians". It says they were Greeks from Patros(in the far northern part of Greece since you seem not to be familiar with the geography of the Peloponnesus) who went to Sicily and then returned. It also says all the Slavs were killed. Do you believe that too?

We're supposed to take an argument seriously which picks and chooses which parts of an ancient anonymous writing are to be given credence, and even distorts what it says? I don't think so. That's arguing from an agenda, not neutral, logical reasoned analysis.

The next time you deliberately attempt to distort sources there will be consequences.

I'm just saying people are jumping the gun by implying the similarity is due to Greeks in Sicily. It could be due to the reverse, or they could have always been similar. We DON'T know. You said there is too much shared ancestry from too many eras to know, so why assume it is ALL due to Greek colonization in Sicily when it could be many other things?

The only people jumping the gun on this issue are people operating from an agenda, and that includes you. If you had read all the posts carefully you would see that I never said that all the similarity is due to Greek colonization, and I explained that some gene flow could have gone the other way. Stop attributing statements to me which I didn't make.

Neither do I ever make any claims about how "Greek" genetically the people of Magna Grecia might have been. You are the one who is making all these unsubstantiated claims about the composition of ancient and even historical people.

I'm not going to say this again: one PCA is not dispositive of anything. That's a rookie mistake. I don't care how much you zoom in, you can't see underneath that blob. Unless, of course, in addition to a crystal ball and a time machine you have Xray vision like Superman.

Regardless, you've made your point. To keep posting the same thing over and over again is spamming and there are consequences for that as well.
 
Fine. Point taken. I just wonder why Hauteville, who made MANY unverified statements, was not asked to verify them in the same manner I was.

I just wanted to demonstrate that other regions of Greece, such as Crete, are also similar to Sicilians and that we do not know, without ancient samples, if Peloponnesians contributed 1% or 100% to Sicilian DNA. So anyone trying to say the admixture was large, should also be expected to explain why they think so.
 
Last edited:
We can't solely rely on centuries-old literature such as the Chronicle of Monemvasia to argue that lots of Greeks from Italy and Sicily were transplanted to repopulate the Peloponnese hundreds of years ago. It's possible also that there were many Greeks living in the Peloponnese during and immediately after the medieval Slavic invasions and settlements. That could help explain why the Slavs eventually became Greek, while in other Balkan areas, they didn't. It could also help explain why this study finds that Peloponnesians and southern Italians are genetically close.

With more genetic tests, and with more data from other disciplines, we can hopefully put more pieces of this puzzle together.
 
We can't solely rely on centuries-old literature such as the Chronicle of Monemvasia to argue that lots of Greeks from Italy and Sicily were transplanted to repopulate the Peloponnese hundreds of years ago. It's possible also that there were many Greeks living in the Peloponnese during and immediately after the medieval Slavic invasions and settlements. That could help explain why the Slavs eventually became Greek, while in other Balkan areas, they didn't. It could also help explain why this study finds that Peloponnesians and southern Italians are genetically close.

With more genetic tests, and with more data from other disciplines, we can hopefully put more pieces of this puzzle together.

It also depends on where they sampled. Which part of Sicily did they sample? This might (or might not) make a difference. Frankly, I think a study of this sort needs to be done on Sicily to discern if there are autosomal differences across the island. All we have are haplogroup studies thus far.
 
Mainly Yes, but I am still wondering is it normal "all killed or left" or "Pontic Greek version of all killed or left" in Turkish Blacksea coast. All supposed to have been gone to Greece. But still some left in Turkey under the name Islam and Turk

Also my point was that there was Greek Refugees in Peloponnese. I didn't said majority as in Greek Macedonia(I told many many times in different way.)

and I prooved it (y)



About that, word: majority, I didn't say it too. I told that there should be some Asia Minor Greeks before Population Exchange in 1923

I know it because some part of my family came to Turkey from Lesvos before Population Exchange, Probably as soon as Greeks took the island in 1912 ?

Maybe You can search and inform us

"According to an international commission sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment in 1914, when the Balkan War fighting ceased, Greece had a population of 2,6 million, and 157 000 refugees. "
http://balkanologie.revues.org/720

Who is this refugees in 1914 ? My guess is Balkan War Asia Minor Greek refugees

And if we go back just right after Greek independence and killing Turk (or what ever). Turks did similar thing in Chios just near the Smynra / İzmir or Anatolian Greeks

Example: Greek Island, Psara

After the Independece, 1820's

A part of the population managed to flee the island, but those who did not were either sold into slavery or killed. As a result of the invasion, thousands of Greeks have met a tragic fate. The island was deserted and surviving islanders were scattered through what is now Southern Greece.




I totally agree, but I can't resist when I see lies. Now I don't know how can I trust anyone in the forum. I can easily proof that he/she is lying with 10min web search. I guess the flag in my avatar, makes the people think that I am fool enough to believe what said to me.


How much sure are you?

"Oriental tobacco or Turkish tobacco is a highly aromatic, small-leafed variety of tobacco which is sun-cured. Historically, it was cultivated primarily in Thrace and Macedonia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_tobacco

1.jpg



It says how many Turkish refugees Farmer (225.000), how many of tobacco farmer (95.000) and how many of Olive farmer (75,000). Also it gives information about where they came from and settled.

Tobacco History of Greece, much older then you think.(y)

I will send email, we are moving out of thread
 
Sicilians plot north of Maniotes and Taygetos, and in the group of Laconians and other Peloponnesians except the Tsakonians who probably are the only one Peloponnesians with some Slavic and Albanian admixture (maximum 14.4%) (see the intra-Peloponnesian map down)

invia immagini

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201718f1.html#figure-title

The last map is a detailed PCA plot of Italy and Balkan peninsulas from the same study of Peristera Paschou, Sicilians plot with Lakonians and other Peloponnese groups and north of Crete and Dodecaneso.

image share
 
3) The pre-Greek people of Sicily were likely quite close to the original people of the Aegean to begin with. Most of the people who lived in Sicily likely passed through the Aegean before landing there, with the exception of the Siculi who were Italics from the mainland. Even if no Greek ever set foot in Sicily, they'd still be close to one another. Their common roots should go back to the Neolithic.

The Sicani might had an aegean extraction, but not as population but as an old culture, Sicani were born in Sicily, while Siculi, Elimi, Morgeti, Ausoni and Mamertini came from mainland Italy as Indoeuropean Italic-speaking groups, the same regions of the south of Italy like Calabria had similar population like Bruzi and Enotri who were Italic speaking population. So not the peoples entered in Iron age era from the aegean sea but the old cultures of early bronze age as Stefania Sarno has calculated in her study about South Italy's genetics.
 
Fine. Point taken. I just wonder why Hauteville, who made MANY unverified statements, was not asked to verify them in the same manner I was.

I just wanted to demonstrate that other regions of Greece, such as Crete, are also similar to Sicilians and that we do not know, without ancient samples, if Peloponnesians contributed 1% or 100% to Sicilian DNA. So anyone trying to say the admixture was large, should also be expected to explain why they think so.

What is this, kindergarden? Teacher, why are you picking on me? What about him?

I don’t see any evidence in this thread that Hauteville distorted any data…

“No doubts that Peloponnesians have loads of overlap with Sicily and Southern Italy, loads of cities of Magna Grecia and Sikelia were from Messenia or Corinto just to say.”

Are you doubting that there is overlap between Sicily and Southern Italy? You’ve been saying the same in all your posts on this thread. How is this a distortion?

“Anatolian Greeks do not plot with Southern Italians and Sicilians but close to Armenians and Assyrians and Peloponneso was almost untouched by them.”

The first part should be obvious to anyone who has spent a half hour looking at data from this part of the world. The second was supported by this source, among others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popul...ce_and_Turkey#/media/File:DeportaLausanne.jpg

I see no problem with it. In addition, it’s irrelevant as a point of contention because the genetics of the sample go back to 1860-1880, far before any population exchanges of any part of the 20th century.

“Turkish were mostly converted locals.”

I missed that one. It would require proof if it weren’t irrelevant.

“I think 14.4 is the maximum individual (I didn't find the average).”

That’s correct and right out of the paper. Didn't you read it?

“Me too, una faccia una razza is real, Greek ancestry in South Italy but we don't forget Roman/Italic settlements to Greek world. The Eastern Roman Empire survived until 1453 ;)

These settlements should be well known to anyone with a secondary school education. I’m sure he’d be happy to provide proof if you’ve never heard of it. Why didn’t you ask in that case? Besides, it’s proof for your contention that the gene flow wasn’t totally one sided.

“A key of answer is surely the aDNA; I would think bronze age populations of South Italy and Greece were close together, not just Magna Grecia, not just Roman settlements to Greece, not just Eastern Roman Empire input and not just Athens and Neopatria under Sicilian control in 1300-1400, or Corf� under Neapolitan control.”

Seems like an eminently sensible comment. What is there to contest or question there?
“Quite interesting, I want to see a comparison between Siracusa and Corinto and between Messina and Messenia who were the two most Peloponneseans colonies of Sikelia and by the most important of Megale Hellas.


It's a question.

Do I really have to go on?

I found no odd factoids, no distorted interpretations of questionable data, unlike what was clearly present in your posts.

You may perhaps be accustomed to dealing with people who have no knowledge of the relevant history of these areas. That isn’t the case here. I had no knowledge of any reliable source which would support your claim, but I gave you the chance to produce one on the odd chance that I had missed some important document. You didn't have one. It was all either total misreading of a source everyone knows is unreliable or a deliberate misreading of it to support your agenda.

I don't play favorites here, no matter the ethnicity. You ought to try that some time. It gives people a lot more confidence in the points made.
 
Last edited:
Sicilians plot north of Maniotes and Taygetos, and in the group of Laconians and other Peloponnesians except the Tsakonians who probably are the only one Peloponnesians with some Slavic and Albanian admixture (maximum 14.4%) (see the intra-Peloponnesian map down)

invia immagini

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201718f1.html#figure-title

The last map is a detailed PCA plot of Italy and Balkan peninsulas from the same study of Peristera Paschou, Sicilians plot with Lakonians and other Peloponnese groups and north of Crete and Dodecaneso.

image share
They only plot "north" of some people from deep Mani and the Taygetos to be precise. Regardless, as I've been saying, PCAs are only one tool. As to your post 215 we are straying from the topic of the paper, which is not about Sicily.
 
Sicilians plot north of Maniotes and Taygetos, and in the group of Laconians and other Peloponnesians except the Tsakonians who probably are the only one Peloponnesians with some Slavic and Albanian admixture (maximum 14.4%) (see the intra-Peloponnesian map down)

There is nothing in any of those plots indicating 'north' or 'south' to me. They're scaled differently.

As for Paschou et al I do not wish to get off topic and I will keep this brief but I won't let your statements go unchallenged. The paper SAYS, in words, that Sicily has partial overlap with Crete, and the dendrogram places it right between Crete and Laconia (see: 3581gfk.jpg ). Other Peloponnesians on that study are more north of Sicilians, and if you actually read it rather than looking at PCAs that you don't know how to interpret, you'd know this.

From the study: "The geographic proximity and partial overlap in the PCA of Crete and Sicily is also compatible with gene flow from Crete to Italy and to Southern Europe through population movements along the Southern Mediterranean coast."

With that said, Angela did say we are getting off topic and not to continue emphasizing PCA plots, so I am not going to go further with this. Moving on.
 

This thread has been viewed 368730 times.

Back
Top