Genetic study Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

[Archetype0ne]

From mainland Greece: Vranas Marathon.

View attachment 12900

So Dosas was right, why was he unceremoniously banned.

 

[blevins13]

My GOD, there was no REPLACEMENT anywhere in the Balkans! There were just different levels of Slavic ADMIXTURE in the Balkans and Greece.

In Serbia or Croatia today, we see new male lines in majority compared to prior Slavic migration that still means no replacement.

To be clear for what replacement are we talking about, cattle or horses?




Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[blevins13]

So Dosas was right, why was he unceremoniously banned.

Dosas was Greek, but I think he/or she surprisingly disagreed with Mediterranean continuity or something similar.

Heavy stuff. It seems that stuff like this gets you banned.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Dianatomia]

From mainland Greece: Vranas Marathon.

View attachment 12900

Very interesting. Either way, this would put the post-Classical Greek closer to the modern Greeks than the Mycenaeans. Especially since the modern Greeks have more East Med ancestry compared to Mycenaeans. It seems this post-classical Greek shares that attribute. I would suggest that this Roman Greek from Attica is compared to modern South Greeks. See whether we can find out how much additional steppe admixture is in modern Greeks from those areas.

That said, Attica was Ionian/Achaean. They had close relations with the Ionian Greeks overseas in Asia Minor. So the East Med admixture is no surprise. I am sure that some Classical Greeks may have had lower levels of East Med admixture. As I am also sure that some Greeks may have had more steppe admixture than the people of Attica. The Athenians did mention that people from Attica are more native to their lands than other Hellenes, who arrived more recent, after all.

Moreover, if this additional East Med admixture has also been inherited by the Northern Greeks of the MBA, then this would put Log02 and Log04 descendants In North Greece very close to mainland Greeks and Albanians.

 

[Archetype0ne]

I would not even be surprised if Balkans could be extrapolated to Asia Minor. With similar group structures. Meaning I would not be surprised if when new samples from around Lydia, Ilium come out, they fall close to C6 territory, in one outlier group, while the others to such groups as this Marathon sample.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Very interesting. Either way, this would put the post-Classical Greek closer to the modern Greeks than the Mycenaeans. Especially since the modern Greeks have more East Med ancestry compared to Mycenaeans. It seems this post-classical Greek shares that attribute. I would suggest that this Roman Greek from Attica is compared to modern South Greeks. See whether we can find out how much additional steppe admixture is in modern Greeks from those areas.

That said, Attica was Ionian/Achaean. They had close relations with the Ionian Greeks overseas in Asia Minor. So the East Med admixture is no surprise. I am sure that some Classical Greeks may have had lower levels of East Med admixture. As I am also sure that some Greeks may have had more steppe admixture than the people of Attica. The Athenians did mention that people from Attica are more native to their lands than other Hellenes, who arrived more recent, after all.

Moreover, if this additional East Med admixture has also been inherited by the Northern Greeks of the MBA, then this would put Log02 and Log04 descendants In North Greece very close to mainland Greeks and Albanians.

I should be very cautious of drawing any inference from just a sample, and it seems that this Roman_Greek had significant Levantine ancestry (not Anatolian, as influences from the asia minor colonies would have caused), since it looks almost like a Cypriot, and I doubt too classical era Greeks shall turn out to be like that. (and IF really Greek islanders, seemingly no matter where they are from because they all seem to share largely the same gene pool as Cypriots instead of Mainlanders, are represented by the samples in this study, then it can well be they too have experienced other gene flows that altered their gene pool compared to their classical era ancestors so the simplification no slavic ancestry>classical era Greek would not hold for islanders, and my hunch is that souther Peloponnesians are going to get the higher levels of similarity)
We'll see in the end though.

 

[blevins13]

I always thought perhaps Catacomb culture might have been a good fit for the "original" Greeks. I have to think about how that would fit into this. Maybe Catacomb an Minoan is a good fit for them? or for the admixture of a certain kind of steppe with old Europe populations?

Here it’s seems you coming to Drews views that a small group of chariot warriors took over Greece. He related them with Sintashta-Petrovka culture.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Archetype0ne]

Dosas was Greek, but I think he/or she surprisingly disagreed with Mediterranean continuity or something similar.

Heavy stuff. It seems that stuff like this gets you banned.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

Not really, his theory in fact was a wider med continuity. At least that's how I interpreted it.
And, I myself begin to lean on that direction. One continuity being Central/N Italians (non Alpine), Albanians and North Greeks, with affinity to IA Balkan samples. One continuity certain parts of Southern Italy, Greek Islanders, with affinity to Ancient Anatolia and ME. (hope I picked the right terms not to get banned :embarassed
With the whole being a wider continuity of Mediteranean genetics, C(number) to C(number), where C6 is only one particular cluster.

PS: Blevins remember our friends Laberia and Nik, banned for even less IMO. Meanwhile Parapolitikos exiled himself in shame after the last 3-4 papers xD. Meanwhile I would imagine if Jovialis (whose work I apreaciate, esp the calculators) had to deal with a version of Parapolitikos targeting Italians, he would instahammer him to another realm, before he could provoke fellow Italian members (Say Palermo, or Etrusco). That is just my trash analogy but I know you know what I mean. Its the same situation, just different side of the coin, and one side holds more value than the other.

Alas we have come a long way, from Caucasian Albanians, Ottoman Immigrants, Maghreb Berber Albanians etc. Had I had an account at the time I would probably have been banned as well :embarassed:

But it is much easier to keep afloat in the era of "Mediterranean continuity"

 

[Ralphie Boy]

Very interesting. Either way, this would put the post-Classical Greek closer to the modern Greeks than the Mycenaeans. Especially since the modern Greeks have more East Med ancestry compared to Mycenaeans. It seems this post-classical Greek shares that attribute. I would suggest that this Roman Greek from Attica is compared to modern South Greeks. See whether we can find out how much additional steppe admixture is in modern Greeks from those areas.

That said, Attica was Ionian/Achaean. They had close relations with the Ionian Greeks overseas in Asia Minor. So the East Med admixture is no surprise. I am sure that some Classical Greeks may have had lower levels of East Med admixture. As I am also sure that some Greeks may have had more steppe admixture than the people of Attica. The Athenians did mention that people from Attica are more native to their lands than other Hellenes, who arrived more recent, after all.

Moreover, if this additional East Med admixture has also been inherited by the Northern Greeks of the MBA, then this would put Log02 and Log04 descendants In North Greece very close to mainland Greeks and Albanians.

The rumor from Eurogenes is that classical Greek samples were heterogenous, with some Anatolia/Cyprus-like, or something like that. Some of the samples could have more Steppe or CHG/Iranian.

Now in terms of mainland Greek replacement, what we see in this study is the implication or proof that many mainland Greeks are more southern-shifted than every Balkan population. If this is accurate, it cannot be that Balkan populations replaced Greeks, but that a minor foreign element(s) exists that is more southern-shifted, to add to Balkan/Slavic replacement. Who could that be?

Also, Lazaridis et al. said in the Mycenaean study that there is continuity with modern Greeks, comparing it to layers of ancestry accumulating, which makes sense. If there was a large Greek population admixed with Slavs who settled in Greece, that’s where it would come from—unless these Slavic/Greek people were almost totally replaced by Albanians and others. We will see.

 

[bigsnake49]

Here it’s seems you coming to Drews views that a small group of chariot warriors took over Greece. He related them with Sintashta-Petrovka culture.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

Chariots do very well in the steppe (flat land). Not so well in the mountains. Maybe they settled in the flat parts of Greece .

 

[Archetype0ne]

I should be very cautious of drawing any inference from just a sample, and it seems that this Roman_Greek had significant Levantine ancestry (not Anatolian, as influences from the asia minor colonies would have caused), since it looks almost like a Cypriot, and I doubt too classical era Greeks shall turn out to be like that. (and IF really Greek islanders, seemingly no matter where they are from because they all seem to share largely the same gene pool as Cypriots instead of Mainlanders, are represented by the samples in this study, then it can well be they too have experienced other gene flows that altered their gene pool compared to their classical era ancestors so the simplification no slavic ancestry>classical era Greek would not hold for islanders, and my hunch is that souther Peloponnesians are going to get the higher levels of similarity)
We'll see in the end though.

What do you mean. That one particular Marathon sample proves exactly the oposite no? He clusters with Islanders as is.
Unless you mean every classical Greek holding his profile, which I deem unlikely. Then yes, it would weaken the Peloponnese position. But I suspect things were much more heterogeneous. So there likely is room for both Islander Greeks and Log like Greeks to be represented in Classical Greece. Both are not mutually exclusive.

Time and ancient samples will tell. As they always do.

 

[Archetype0ne]

The rumor from Eurogenes is that classical Greek samples were heterogenous, with some Anatolia/Cyprus-like, or something like that. Some of the samples could have more Steppe or CHG/Iranian.

Now in terms of mainland Greek replacement, what we see in this study is the implication or proof that many mainland Greeks are more southern-shifted than every Balkan population. If this is accurate, it cannot be that Balkan populations replaced Greeks, but that a minor foreign element(s) exists that is more southern-shifted, to add to Balkan/Slavic replacement. Who could that be?

Also, Lazaridis et al. said in the Mycenaean study that there is continuity with modern Greeks, comparing it to layers of ancestry accumulating, which makes sense. If there was a large Greek population admixed with Slavs who settled in Greece, that’s where it would come from—unless these Slavic/Greek people were almost totally replaced by Albanians and others. We will see.

Birds of a feather flock together.
Great minds think alike.

Alas... Lazaridis came to this conclusion in 2017:

We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2)

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Not really, his theory in fact was a wider med continuity. At least that's how I interpreted it.
And, I myself begin to lean on that direction. One continuity being Central/N Italians (non Alpine), Albanians and North Greeks, with affinity to IA Balkan samples. One continuity certain parts of Southern Italy, Greek Islanders, with affinity to Ancient Anatolia and ME. (hope I picked the right terms not to get banned :embarassed
With the whole being a wider continuity of Mediteranean genetics, C(number) to C(number), where C6 is only one particular cluster.

PS: Blevins remember our friends Laberia and Nik, banned for even less IMO. Meanwhile Parapolitikos exiled himself in shame after the last 3-4 papers xD. Meanwhile I would imagine if Jovialis (whose work I apreaciate, esp the calculators) had to deal with a version of Parapolitikos targeting Italians, he would instahammer him to another realm, before he could provoke fellow Italian members (Say Palermo, or Etrusco). That is just my trash analogy but I know you know what I mean. Its the same situation, just different side of the coin, and one side holds more value than the other.

Alas we have come a long way, from Caucasian Albanians, Ottoman Immigrants, Maghreb Berber Albanians etc. Had I had an account at the time I would probably have been banned as well :embarassed:

But it is much easier to keep afloat in the era of "Mediterranean continuity"

I can agree some responses from the staff are too knee-jerk and not thoughtful, though I must admit that certain t-rolling is tiring since it gets always refuted and always brought up, but I do not see how central/north Italians form a cluster distinct from certain south Italians and north Greeks and Albanians from other Greeks (Islanders partially excepted because of insularity), for it is a well established fact there is a cline in both situations.
Speaking of the Antonio et all clusters, now it seems that the "east med" cluster is made up of a mix of roughly 50% balkan_IA and 50% Anatolia_BA, so theoretically you can model the "mediterranean" cluster with some good amounts of it without altering it too much, that is I doubt you can say with good evidence that certain south Italians and Greek islanders (who seem to require real Levantine as per this paper) have continuity with ancient Anatolia, and by the way Sicilians (the only south Italians present in the PCA aside a single south Italian from Calabria if I recall correctly) cluster in the Balkan_IA cluster, so do Tuscans, so I doubt Italians in between them could do any different.

 

[bigsnake49]

What do you mean. That one particular Marathon sample proves exactly the oposite no? He clusters with Islanders as is.
Unless you mean every classical Greek holding his profile, which I deem unlikely. Then yes, it would weaken the Peloponnese position. But I suspect things were much more heterogeneous. So there likely is room for both Islander Greeks and Log like Greeks to be represented in Classical Greece. Both are not mutually exclusive.

Time and ancient samples will tell. As they always do.

We need more context for the Marathon sample. If he was a local which is likely, he was probably a farmer, being that Marathon is an agricultural area. Unless he was a slave of course. We need more samples of course, many many more. I totally agree with you about populations being heterogenous. There were 4 major tribes after all and couple hundred minor ones. Not to mention Pelasgians and Thracians.

 

[Dianatomia]

I should be very cautious of drawing any inference from just a sample, and it seems that this Roman_Greek had significant Levantine ancestry (not Anatolian, as influences from the asia minor colonies would have caused), since it looks almost like a Cypriot, and I doubt too classical era Greeks shall turn out to be like that. (and IF really Greek islanders, seemingly no matter where they are from because they all seem to share largely the same gene pool as Cypriots instead of Mainlanders, are represented by the samples in this study, then it can well be they too have experienced other gene flows that altered their gene pool compared to their classical era ancestors so the simplification no slavic ancestry>classical era Greek would not hold for islanders, and my hunch is that souther Peloponnesians are going to get the higher levels of similarity)
We'll see in the end though.

As far as I know, modern Cyprus and BA/IA Anatolia are the same genetic continuum. They are very similar. After the Bronze Age collapse, people from Attica migrated to Asia Minor, culminating to the Ionian Greeks. They always held close ties with the Athenians and spoke the same dialect. So it is possible that an influx on East Med genes entered Attica and mainland Greece due to this. Remember that Asia Minor was was part of the Greek world for almost a millennium by this time.

If this Roman Greek from Attica is very close to someone from the Dodecanesse, then it means that this Ancient Greek has more Steppe and more East Med admixture than the Mycenaeans.

 

[blevins13]

Chariots do very well in the steppe (flat land). Not so well in the mountains. Maybe they settled in the flat parts of Greece .

No man they settled in Epirus and parked the chariots and horses in the fields of Thesalia. Joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Archetype0ne]

I can agree some responses from the staff are too knee-jerk and not thoughtful, though I must admit that certain t-rolling is tiring since it gets always refuted and always brought up, but I do not see how central/north Italians form a cluster distinct from certain south Italians and north Greeks and Albanians from other Greeks (Islanders partially excepted because of insularity), for it is a well established fact there is a cline in both situations.
Speaking of the Antonio et all clusters, now it seems that the "east med" cluster is made up of a mix of roughly 50% balkan_IA and 50% Anatolia_BA, so theoretically you can model the "mediterranean" cluster with some good amounts of it without altering it too much, that is I doubt you can say with good evidence that certain south Italians and Greek islanders (who seem to require real Levantine as per this paper) have continuity with ancient Anatolia, and by the way Sicilians (the only south Italians present in the PCA aside a single south Italian from Calabria if I recall correctly) cluster in the Balkan_IA cluster, so do Tuscans, so I doubt Italians in between them could do any different.

Agree with you on most points.

But Ancient Anatolia was a different beast from whatever propaganda egists today on Anatolia.

Anatolia Neolithic was what? 90% of Sardinia? ... How can you deny all types of continuity with the rest of Italy lets say?

Now as you can see, distance wise simply do the eye test, Anatolian Jewish and South Italian and Greek (I assume average) and North Italian. From what I see South Italy legit falls below Greeks, meaning closer to Turkish "Jewish" (refer to the Lazaridis red squares in the graphics of his paper, the squares are Jewish ancient communities around what I assume Lydia). Meanwhile since Greek is above in the PCA, it is closer to N Italy. Again... Double check. That is simply what I see.

And come on. How long will we demonize Ancient ME sources like they did nine 11.

Like how long? Cause demonizing ancient populations and denying their input when its as explicit as these graphics also does get old.

And since these papers we have had many more papers that came out, and are soon to be published all but confirming the same overarching trend.

Sure there is room for interpretation. But at some points... as you said it gets old.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

What do you mean. That one particular Marathon sample proves exactly the oposite no? He clusters with Islanders as is.
Unless you mean every classical Greek holding his profile, which I deem unlikely. Then yes, it would weaken the Peloponnese position. But I suspect things were much more heterogeneous. So there likely is room for both Islander Greeks and Log like Greeks to be represented in Classical Greece. Both are not mutually exclusive.

Time and ancient samples will tell. As they always do.

Besides the fact the sample is from the late Roman period I have been told, so he is a bit late chronologically, the fact that he clusters with islanders (at least the samples used in this paper, and I've seen the information about the new samples for Serbians but not for Greeks, so I hold some skepticism), especially Cyprus, suggests to me that he was not just a local, but had more recent ancestry from outside.
Though no cultural group is genetically a monolith, I find hard to believe that the Greeks were so heterogenous to have individuals ranging (genetically) from modern Cypriot-like to Logkas2-like, since it doesn't at all add up to the fact that Greeks were quite xenophobic for today's standards (and bear in mind, I am talking about the classical era: around the late Roman period the cultural atmosphere changed regarding this matter). I can believe that the samples can show quite some heterogeneity (merchants and other itinerant groups could die and be burried far away from their homelands, and some interethnic marriages did happen, but I do not think one can draw general conclusions from such minority cases), but we'd need to have also the time transect and the conditions of the burials, e.g. in this study we learnt that the near easterners were (as far as we could tell) high ranking individuals in the empire, though it seems they lived in the urban centers and never intermixed greatly with the locals: we should have drawn a very different conclusion if the authors had just indiscriminately gathered these individuals and labelled them as "Balkans".

 

[ihype02]

I should be very cautious of drawing any inference from just a sample, and it seems that this Roman_Greek had significant Levantine ancestry (not Anatolian, as influences from the asia minor colonies would have caused), since it looks almost like a Cypriot, and I doubt too classical era Greeks shall turn out to be like that. (and IF really Greek islanders, seemingly no matter where they are from because they all seem to share largely the same gene pool as Cypriots instead of Mainlanders, are represented by the samples in this study, then it can well be they too have experienced other gene flows that altered their gene pool compared to their classical era ancestors so the simplification no slavic ancestry>classical era Greek would not hold for islanders, and my hunch is that souther Peloponnesians are going to get the higher levels of similarity)
We'll see in the end though.

I suspect late Roman Age Pelopennesians were like modern Greek Dodecanese.

Target: Greek_Crete Distance: 3.6770% / 0.03677009
66.0	Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
34.0	Georgian_Laz

I seriously doubt Peloponnese "escaped" this type of ancestry during the Hellenistic and Roman Period when it was a more attractive region than Crete.

Target: Greek_Peloponnese Distance: 1.8183% / 0.01818272
70.0	Greek_Dodecanese
30.0	CZE_Early_Slav

 

[Archetype0ne]

Besides the fact the sample is from the late Roman period I have been told, so he is a bit late chronologically, the fact that he clusters with islanders (at least the samples used in this paper, and I've seen the information about the new samples for Serbians but not for Greeks, so I hold some skepticism), especially Cyprus, suggests to me that he was not just a local, but had more recent ancestry from outside.
Though no cultural group is genetically a monolith, I find hard to believe that the Greeks were so heterogenous to have individuals ranging (genetically) from modern Cypriot-like to Logkas2-like, since it doesn't at all add up to the fact that Greeks were quite xenophobic for today's standards (and bear in mind, I am talking about the classical era: around the late Roman period the cultural atmosphere changed regarding this matter). I can believe that the samples can show quite some heterogeneity (merchants and other itinerant groups could die and be burried far away from their homelands, and some interethnic marriages did happen, but I do not think one can draw general conclusions from such minority cases), but we'd need to have also the time transect and the conditions of the burials, e.g. in this study we learnt that the near easterners were (as far as we could tell) high ranking individuals in the empire, though it seems they lived in the urban centers and never intermixed greatly with the locals: we should have drawn a very different conclusion if the authors had just indiscriminately gathered these individuals and labelled them as "Balkans".

Fair enough. Valid concerns as well as a way to test it.
You think one sample is not good enough, I agree. So lets wait for the paper to publish and then judge. But if it falls in line with recent studies, lets lay this to rest.

I suspect that since the authors of the Danubian limes studies explicitly picked this Marathon sample for their models, there must be more beneath the iceberg than we are aware. But who knows.