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

[Angela]

Personal preferences are irrelevant, it is for clarity and accuracy. West Asia is a very broad term, both genetically and geographically. Frankly, I think it is misleading and serves as a Levantist rethorical tool, to lump Greeks in with Levantines, as they do over at that other site.
Also, I was never one to expect Greeks are that genetically "northern".

Completely agree with your responses and the ban.

Do these people never stop?

 

[Vallicanus]

Completely agree with your responses and the ban.

Do these people never stop?

They are a complete waste of time, space and effort.:bored:

None are as blind as those who will not see.
None are as deaf as those who will not hear.

 

[Archetype0ne]

I have seen utter mendacity and/or idiocy on other sites since this paper has come out, I should rather avoid rants but sometimes I can't be helped.

The paper is huge in terms of information to take in, and I have some hunches that some precises figures will change with new samples (to be specific I think the average of the hellenistic empuries isn't a great proxy for the classical mainland Greeks), but there are two things that the paper has established:
1) the near easterners often died out without leaving much of a trace.
2) the vast majority of these near easterners were (depending on the future samples we'll have) either western Anatolians or a mixture of Greeks and western Anatolians(who were like Anatolians were in the BA).

The conclusions that naturally follow are that the theory of a pan-hellenistic three-way mixture of Greek-levantine-anatolian expanding during the empire and making up the bulk of the population of Italy and Greece is now not even remotely supportable (not only there's no evidence for it but the evidence contrary to it makes it beyond doubt implausible to argue for it).

Somehow this theory got widespread because it both stroked the ethnonarcisism of some ashkenazi jews that against every evidence argued for an overwhelmingly local ethnogenesis of their group in the Levant before their diaspora in Europe and the petty fantasies of nordicists that must show that Greece and Italy were genetically different when they peaked and changed drastically later when they fell (and attribute a causal link to it), lest their worldview take a serious hit.

Not sure what you thought of the Antonio et al, paper, and the quite explicit graphics (did you see what I did there?). Cause I am pretty sure Imperial Rome did have admixture events. As any empire center would. Arguing otherwise would be like saying Silicon Valley has had no admixture events. Sure there are various communities from all over the world, and with them outliers and everything, in SV, and for sure once SV ceases being an innovation hub, likely SF populations will overwhelm whatever peculiar genetic inputs has been created in SV.

For Nordicists to have such fantasies as the ones outlined, would be akin to them having an inferiority complex towards the inputs that changed Latin and Etruscan proper populations, into Roman and Etruscan(with whatever shift, and including outliers as evidenced by the recent samples). But then again most "ists" aren't bright.


That is how I look at it.

PS. Byzantium is the Real Roman Empire. Rome, Germans (HRE) and Russians can compete for third fiddle.

^ I hope the reader realizes the sarcasm of the PS, if not...

 

[peloponnesian]

This BOTH way between Albanian and Greeks sells you short, it is clearly obvious that from Iron Age the migrations in the Balkans has been one way only.

Did you read the paper? It's obvious that between the Iron Age and the late Roman Imperial times, there was a significant East Med/Anatolian shift in the Balkans. Exactly when and how it happened, we still don't know. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the "Balkan IA cluster", not the "NE cluster".

 

[bigsnake49]

Did you read the paper? It's obvious that between the Iron Age and the late Roman Imperial times, there was a significant East Med/Anatolian shift in the Balkans. Exactly when and how it happened, we still don't know. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the "Balkan IA cluster", not the "NE cluster".

I think that people are making generalizations for the whole Balkans based on one Roman fortified city. People, not everybody in the Balkans lived in forts. There are some major valleys in the Balkans that supported large farmer populations and vast forests that supported shepherds and woodsmen. Did those populations totally got replaced when the Roman fortified cities got sacked? I don't think so.

Let me give you another example. We know from documents that Venetians build forts near harbors in Greece and then imported Albanians to guard them. They gave those Albanians land around the forts to cultivate it and in return to guard the forts. You cannot make inferences about how much influence the Albanians have had inland if you sample around the forts.

So what I am trying to say is you cannot make vast generalizations based on limited samples from a specific place and time.

 

[blevins13]

I think that people are making generalizations for the whole Balkans based on one Roman fortified city. People, not everybody in the Balkans lived in forts. There are some major valleys in the Balkans that supported large farmer populations and vast forests that supported shepherds and woodsmen. Did those populations totally got replaced when the Roman fortified cities got sacked? I don't think so.

Let me give you another example. We know from documents that Venetians build forts near harbors in Greece and then imported Albanians to guard them. They gave those Albanians land around the forts to cultivate it and in return to guard the forts. You cannot make inferences about how much influence the Albanians have had inland if you sample around the forts.

So what I am trying to say is you cannot make vast generalizations based on limited samples from a specific place and time.

You can’t you are right. I thought in the past that Albanians will have to run to such reasoning but it seems we don’t need to. Unexpectedly it’s the Greeks that are using this last harbor.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Jovialis]

I think that people are making generalizations for the whole Balkans based on one Roman fortified city. People, not everybody in the Balkans lived in forts. There are some major valleys in the Balkans that supported large farmer populations and vast forests that supported shepherds and woodsmen. Did those populations totally got replaced when the Roman fortified cities got sacked? I don't think so.
Let me give you another example. We know from documents that Venetians build forts near harbors in Greece and then imported Albanians to guard them. They gave those Albanians land around the forts to cultivate it and in return to guard the forts. You cannot make inferences about how much influence the Albanians have had inland if you sample around the forts.
So what I am trying to say is you cannot make vast generalizations based on limited samples from a specific place and time.

Balkan IA in this study is consistent with Balkan IA in Mathieson et al. 2018. That sample was from Bulgaria.

 

[Jovialis]

Here is Balkan_IA in Dodecad K12b format.

Balkan_(Bulgaria)_IA:I5769:Mathieson_2018,2.57,0,2.28,0,37.94,13.19,0,0,9.59,0.01,34.31,0.12

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Jovialis: My Dodecad12B distance using the coordinates from your post 230. Not too bad for me.

Distance to:	PalermoTrapani_Combined
9.77836898	Balkan_(Bulgaria)_IA:I5769:Mathieson_2018

 

[Jovialis]

Thanks for posting that Palermo

Here's mine

Distance to:	Jovialis
9.98820805	MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log02
11.53736972	Balkan_(Bulgaria)_IA:I5769:Mathieson_2018
13.83752868	Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
14.54282297	Armenoi_Crete:I9123:Lazaridis_2017
15.36065103	MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log04
15.66363304	Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
17.13985998	Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
19.50713459	Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
21.77539896	EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou03
22.53049711	Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017
22.58741685	Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
22.90438604	EBA_Helladic_Manika:Mik15
23.48364324	Minoan_Petras_EBAta08:Clemente_2021
24.30187647	Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
24.47227206	EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou01
24.49969183	Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
24.92609476	Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017
25.57013883	Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
25.60072851	Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017
25.85438648	Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017
28.19863649	Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017
28.99869997	Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017

Just to reiterate, this Balkan_IA sample from Mathieson et al 2018, looks consistent with the new study.

 

[Jovialis]

Thanks for posting that Palermo

Here's mine

Distance to:	Jovialis
9.98820805	MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log02
11.53736972	Balkan_(Bulgaria)_IA:I5769:Mathieson_2018
13.83752868	Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
14.54282297	Armenoi_Crete:I9123:Lazaridis_2017
15.36065103	MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log04
15.66363304	Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
17.13985998	Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
19.50713459	Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
21.77539896	EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou03
22.53049711	Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017
22.58741685	Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
22.90438604	EBA_Helladic_Manika:Mik15
23.48364324	Minoan_Petras_EBAta08:Clemente_2021
24.30187647	Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
24.47227206	EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou01
24.49969183	Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
24.92609476	Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017
25.57013883	Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
25.60072851	Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017
25.85438648	Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017
28.19863649	Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017
28.99869997	Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017

Just to reiterate, this Balkan_IA sample from Mathieson et al 2018, looks consistent with the new study.

In fact, I just noticed, the Mathieson Bulgarian sample is represented in the first PCA as a tiny red dot.

 

[Jovialis]

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Jovialis: Those ancient Greek and Balkans coordinates labeled by study, is that a new source file that you put together, I have the one on my hard drive that you put together last December I think it was. But I see you have 2021 studies included in the ones you ran in post 232.

 

[Jovialis]

Jovialis: Those ancient Greek and Balkans coordinates labeled by study, is that a new source file that you put together, I have the one on my hard drive that you put together last December I think it was. But I see you have 2021 studies included in the ones you ran in post 232.

You can find all of the latest coordinates here, I put this up on August 30th:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41751-aDNA-(Dodecad-K12b)

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ok, thanks, I was away a few days and missed those, thanks again!

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Jovialis: My Ancient Greek and Balkans Distances

Distance to:	PalermoTrapani_Combined
9.77836898	Balkan_(Bulgaria)_IA:I5769:Mathieson_2018
11.02007260	Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
12.54885254	Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log02:Clemente_2021
12.85983281	Armenoi_Crete:I9123:Lazaridis_2017
13.15094673	Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
13.33453411	Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
17.63682228	Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
18.36815723	Minoan_Lasithi:I9005:Lazaridis_2017
18.36892212	Minoan_Odigitria:I9131:Lazaridis_2017
18.88964531	Helladic_Manika_EBA:Mik15:Clemente_2021
19.05640050	Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021
19.10203131	Cycladic_Koufonisi_EBA:Kou03:Clemente_2021
19.92690894	Minoan_Petras_EBAta08:Clemente_2021
20.85175292	Minoan_Odigitria:I9130:Lazaridis_2017
21.01192519	Minoan_Lasithi:I0071:Lazaridis_2017
21.07657705	Minoan_Lasithi:I0074:Lazaridis_2017
21.20724169	Cycladic_Koufonisi_EBA:Kou01:Clemente_2021
21.79751591	Minoan_Odigitria:I9129:Lazaridis_2017
22.41324162	Minoan_Lasithi:I0073:Lazaridis_2017
22.46573613	Minoan_Lasithi:I0070:Lazaridis_2017
24.57186399	Minoan_Odigitria:I9128:Lazaridis_2017
26.71734643	Minoan_Odigitria:I9127:Lazaridis_2017

 

[Constantine]

I've speculated this is the case way back in 2017. The fact that Greece still hasn't released any aDNA four years later tells me that it probably is the case. Indeed it's not about science, it's all political. If word was out that their modern populations is extremely mixed with Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs, it would just cause an outrage.

From the get-go I thought "Too good to be true" about DNA testing ancient Greeks. It wouldn't surprise me if the results are never revealed to the public and just allowed to quietly fade away from memory.

There is definitely a reason, and I think it's quite the opposite: modern Greeks are just too much like their ancestors to be palatable. The general themes in the (mainstream) EU involve immigration, integration, "world citizenry," and other such tropes. I doubt they would let an opportunity like this float by if it suited the narrative. Recall what was (enthusiastically, I would say) being put out about mixed Vikings recently, to name an example.

Telling people they are direct descendants of Socrates would rekindle ethnic pride, nationalism, and insularity--things I'm pretty sure are distasteful to people in certain milieus.

Not to mention various geo-political entanglements. We know, for instance, that Turkey harbors territorial aspirations to Greek territory which would pretty much become Null and Void by legitimizing Greeks' ethnic position. I'm sure there are powers out there that are reluctant to alienate the Turks....

 

[Constantine]

I agree with you that we should have more ancient dna from Greece but if a paper came out and supported the idea of continuity between modern and ancients you would be the first one to disregard the scientific research as unreliable and biased.

Oh yeah. And I doubt the paper would out-and-out say moderns = ancients. It would probably be carefully worded and open to different interpretations.

Sikeliote might have a stroke, but the usual not-so-Greeks, Balkaners, and others who inhabit these forums will quickly regroup (for the umpteenth time). I'm sure there would be talk of "heterogeneity," "insufficient sampling," and "similar populations later coming together in the same area that happen to resemble ancient Greeks" etc. etc.

 

[blevins13]

Oh yeah. And I doubt the paper would out-and-out say moderns = ancients. It would probably be carefully worded and open to different interpretations.

Sikeliote might have a stroke, but the usual not-so-Greeks, Balkaners, and others who inhabit these forums will quickly regroup (for the umpteenth time). I'm sure there would be talk of "heterogeneity," "insufficient sampling," and "similar populations later coming together in the same area that happen to resemble ancient Greeks" etc. etc.

Every paper has it flaws, but it is always better to speak over samples than speculations over thin air. We all have bias (here they are called agendas) but based on data and research I have seen people here change their opinions (agendas)


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Dushman]

After reading all the pages, I thought perhaps to remind everyone on this chart.

Correct me if I?m wrong, but if the dark blue represents North-Eastern Europeans (in this case several Slavic ethnicities), then look at how much dark blue the French, North Italians, Spaniards, and French Basques have.

Considering it?s slightly lower in amount compared to Albanians (and North Macedonians), shouldn?t we assume that's mostly Steppe ancestry introduced by the Indo-Europeans. I don?t think anyone here assumes that?s actually Slavic and it was spread by the Goths.

Why in the case of the Albanians and Greeks that?s considered all Slavic input?

Similarly, from the chart below some modern Albanians fall within the range of the so-called Balkan Locals.


We also can?t say for certain that the urban Balkan locals inside these forts were pure blooded Illyro-Thracians and weren?t admixed with Italics, Greeks, or Anatolians, thus pulling them slightly more South.

But in any case, from the above chart it doesn?t seem that Albanians and Central Greeks are 30% Slavic in my opinion.

Please correct me if I?m wrong and I oversimplified things or I?m missing something.