Magna Graecia

[ihype02]

I wish a study on this colony could be made. But also the people who lived there before them.

Yes but if Messapians turn out to be (a little) closer to Apulians than Daunians, we will see claims about Mycenaean Bronze-Age colonization.

If we had 3 samples from 100BC-250BC Hellenistic Era Taras, and if they turn out to be Mycenaean-like (and they likely will either that or Messapic mixed) I hit 2 birds with 1 stone. One, the northern shifted Dorian hypothesis and another one the east-med Hellenistic Era Italian-Greeks claim.

I even doubt even the Ionians of Pontus were this eastern shifted in the Classical period. Hellenization lasted for many centuries, and many hellenized folks were only hellenized culturally not ethnically. Nearly all of those Anatolians were, only, fully assimilated with the period of Christianity into Romioi (Byzantine Romans). Greek speaking Syrians, Jews, Egyptians were still Syrians, Jews, Egyptians. After all St. Paul was not Greek.


The Empuries samples originally from Ionians of Anatolia seem untouched by the Anatolian admixture or at least not drastically. If they were not I don't know how Mainland Greeks or the Italian Greeks could be in the Classical Period! The sample from Marathon could've been an Anatolian, a slave or whatever. They could've been numerous but not necessarily Greeks. I have some ancient and medieval "racist" quotes about Athens and Constantinople in the olden times, if I posted them in Anthrogenica I would get banned.

 

[Francis Drake]

Yes but if Messapians turn out to be (a little) closer to Apulians than Daunians, we will see claims about Mycenaean Bronze-Age colonization.

If we had 3 samples from 100BC-250BC Hellenistic Era Taras, and if they turn out to be Mycenaean-like (and they likely will either that or Messapic mixed) I hit 2 birds with 1 stone. One, the northern shifted Dorian hypothesis and another one the east-med Hellenistic Era Italian-Greeks claim.

I even doubt even the Ionians of Pontus were this eastern shifted in the Classical period. Hellenization lasted for many centuries, and many hellenized folks were only hellenized culturally not ethnically. Nearly all of those Anatolian were, only, fully assimilated with the period of Christianity into Romioi (Byzantine Romans). Greek speaking Syrians, Jews, Egyptians were still Syrians, Jews, Egyptians. After St. Paul was not Greek.


The Empuries samples originally from Ionians of Anatolia seem untouched or at least not drastically. If they were not I don't know how Mainland Greeks or the Italian Greeks could be in the Classical Period! The sample from Marathon could've been an Anatolian, a slave or whatever. They could've been numerous but not necessarily Greeks. I have some ancient and medieval "racist" quotes about Athens and Constantinople in the olden times, if I posted them in Anthrogenica I would get banned.

I agree with everything you said, but Empuries_I8125 is a dorian colonist from Phoecea, and he is closer to BGR_IA than the Myceanean average. So that represents a thracian northern shift right? Ofc they wouldnt have been drastically northern but yeah.

 

[ihype02]

I agree with everything you said, but Empuries_I8125 is a dorian colonist from Phoecea, and he is closer to BGR_IA than the Myceanean average. So that represents a thracian northern shift right? Ofc they wouldnt have been drastically northern but yeah. View attachment 12970

You could model one Mycenaean as Mycenaean plus Thracian too it does not really mean anything. Try the other one, probably comes out as Mycenaean + Minoan.

As for Dorians I was specifically talking about a change in the genetic cluster of Southern Classical Greeks, I don't know much impact they had in the population though.

 

[Angela]

Yes but if Messapians turn out to be (a little) closer to Apulians than Daunians, we will see claims about Mycenaean Bronze-Age colonization.

If we had 3 samples from 100BC-250BC Hellenistic Era Taras, and if they turn out to be Mycenaean-like (and they likely will either that or Messapic mixed) I hit 2 birds with 1 stone. One, the northern shifted Dorian hypothesis and another one the east-med Hellenistic Era Italian-Greeks claim.

I even doubt even the Ionians of Pontus were this eastern shifted in the Classical period. Hellenization lasted for many centuries, and many hellenized folks were only hellenized culturally not ethnically. Nearly all of those Anatolian were, only, fully assimilated with the period of Christianity into Romioi (Byzantine Romans). Greek speaking Syrians, Jews, Egyptians were still Syrians, Jews, Egyptians. After St. Paul was not Greek.


The Empuries samples originally from Ionians of Anatolia seem untouched or at least not drastically. If they were not I don't know how Mainland Greeks or the Italian Greeks could be in the Classical Period! The sample from Marathon could've been an Anatolian, a slave or whatever. They could've been numerous but not necessarily Greeks. I have some ancient and medieval "racist" quotes about Athens and Constantinople in the olden times, if I posted them in Anthrogenica I would get banned.

So, it "is" all about the Greeks. You want to deny them their part in the formation of populations outside of Greece, or at least minimize their contribution. How very sad.

God forbid that in the case of the Southern Italians there might have been a Bronze Age movement of peoples from Greece to accompany the pots and other artifacts, people close genetically to the Mycenaeans or perhaps even more southeastern shifted. I don't know that to be the case, mind you. Additional IN/CHG, which we know went into the Balkans, could have gone directly into Southern Italy, or might have gone via Crete, not the mainland. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me at all which turns out to be the case, but if we do find samples pre-Magna Graecia which show such admixture, the very thought that people might claim it might have arrived via Greeks is enough to upset you? Do you not see that showing such a blatant bias and agenda puts all your analyses into question? Has it not occurred to you that if we do see such a change there must be a reason? Where and from whom did the new ancestry come? Would you ignore it, deny there was a change, or attribute it to anyone except the Greeks?

As for the colonization period of the first millennium BCE by the Greeks into Southern Italy, if I had to speculate, I would speculate that they might have been different depending on the polis which sent them. However, the colonies begat other colonies, and there were wars between them, so I would think they might have mixed after a time.

I would also remind posters here that this colonization began between 900-800 BCE. Hellenization really took the world by storm as a result of Alexander's conquests. However, Alexander wasn't even born until 336 BCE. The colonies in Italy were already long established. I wouldn't expect them to be mixed with anything except the genes of Anatolia. We have hundreds of years to go before the Decapolis.

In fact, we don't have to guess what some of the colonists were like; we have the leak from the Campania paper to show us that they cluster with Aegean Bronze Age. Surely you can unpack that.

The most important period in Greek history is not, imo, the Mycenaean period, but the Classical Age (510-323 BCE). It is the achievements of "those" Greeks which are one of the cornerstones of western civilization, not the Indo-European glorification of warfare for the sake of warfare which, again imo, was a hallmark of the Mycenaeans.

I'm interested to see what they were like. If the latest Reich paper is to be believed, the Athenian sample Lazarides has from a later period (?) is more southeast shifted. Perhaps the process had already begun in the Golden Age. I assure you I won't think the worse of them if that turns out to be true. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, or...look at what they wrought. Another apt one:

On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece,
And the grandeur that was Rome.
- Edgar Allan Poe.

Amazing how you're already setting up your arguments to discount that Athenian sample by saying the remains could have been those of a slave. How can you know that when we don't have the archaeological context? We have nothing to go on. It's not like we were told he was working in a dye works, or in a galley, or in a quarry. We know absolutely nothing about the sample yet. This is a bit premature.

I would close by saying that when what one posts shows that agenda rules all, and that one is not approaching this subject objectively, it doesn't add to the reputation for that poster's analyses.

 

[Francis Drake]

You could model one Mycenaean as Mycenaean plus Thracian too it does not really mean anything. Try the other one, probably comes out as Mycenaean + Minoan.

As for Dorians I was specifically talking about a change in the genetic cluster of Southern Classical Greeks, I don't know much impact they had in the population though.

That's true, but he is 2x more Thracian-shifted than the most Thracian-shifted Myceanean. We can only talk about probabilities with such few samples but id wager there was a thracian-like northern influence coming in with the dorians. I could be wrong though.

 

[ihype02]

So, it "is" all about the Greeks. You want to deny them their part in the formation of populations outside of Greece, or at least minimize their contribution. How very sad.
God forbid that in the case of the Southern Italians there might have been a Bronze Age movement of peoples from Greece to accompany the pots and other artifacts, people close genetically to the Mycenaeans or perhaps even more southeastern shifted. I don't know that to be the case, mind you. Additional IN/CHG, which we know went into the Balkans, could have gone directly into Southern Italy, or might have gone via Crete, not the mainland. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me at all which turns out to be the case, but if we do find samples pre-Magna Graecia which show such admixture, the very thought that people might claim it might have arrived via Greeks is enough to upset you? Do you not see that showing such a blatant bias and agenda puts all your analyses into question? Has it not occurred to you that if we do see such a change there must be a reason? Where and from whom did the new ancestry come? Would you ignore it, deny there was a change, or attribute it to anyone except the Greeks?
As for the colonization period of the first millennium BCE by the Greeks into Southern Italy, if I had to speculate, I would speculate that they might have been different depending on the polis which sent them. However, the colonies begat other colonies, and there were wars between them, so I would think they might have mixed after a time.
I would also remind posters here that this colonization began between 900-800 BCE. Hellenization really took the world by storm as a result of Alexander's conquests. However, Alexander wasn't even born until 336 BCE. The colonies in Italy were already long established. I wouldn't expect them to be mixed with anything except the genes of Anatolia. We have hundreds of years to go before the Decapolis.
In fact, we don't have to guess what some of the colonists were like; we have the leak from the Campania paper to show us that they cluster with Aegean Bronze Age. Surely you can unpack that.
The most important period in Greek history is not, imo, the Mycenaean period, but the Classical Age (510-323 BCE). It is the achievements of "those" Greeks which are one of the cornerstones of western civilization, not the Indo-European glorification of warfare for the sake of warfare which, again imo, was a hallmark of the Mycenaeans.
I'm interested to see what they were like. If the latest Reich paper is to be believed, the Athenian sample Lazarides has from a later period (?) is more southeast shifted. Perhaps the process had already begun in the Golden Age. I assure you I won't think the worse of them if that turns out to be true. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, or...look at what they wrought. Another apt one:

On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece,
And the grandeur that was Rome.
- Edgar Allan Poe.
Amazing how you're already setting up your arguments to discount that Athenian sample by saying the remains could have been those of a slave. How can you know that when we don't have the archaeological context? We have nothing to go on. It's not like we were told he was working in a dye works, or in a galley, or in a quarry. We know absolutely nothing about the sample yet. This is a bit premature.
I would close by saying that when what one posts shows that agenda rules all, and that one is not approaching this subject objectively, it doesn't add to the reputation for that poster's analyses.

The movement eastwards of LBA Sicilians from EBA Sicilians in Western Sicily is attributed to Mycenaeans even though there is no archeological Mycenaean-like work in Western Sicily. In fact there are better explanations related with Sardinian movement in EBA. And nearly every single Middle Easterner in Italy
(especially in Southern Italy) is automatically assumed to be "hellenized". There are also the leaked Italics that were automatically assumed to be Greek-shifted without assuming regional differences (which should come FIRST in mind). Good thing we got the Daunian paper before the Etruscans because we all know what would happened. I think that the impact of the Greeks was great but this is being blown out of proportion.
The ratio of Apulians and Daunians seems similar to the ratio of Etruscans and Tuscans to me. There is a genetic cline in Italy not a drastic genetic break (that should've have happened if the Greeks replaced the bulk of the population like it happened in Croatia with the Slavs and in that case Croatia diverges from Northern Italians) and also haplogroups like J1, E and J2 (combined) are not drastically greater in the South (with exceptions in Eastern Sicily and Calabria) than they are in many central regions and even regions like Emilia-Romagna. Again the South probably carried more J2 before any Iron Age colonization.
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
To me it seems that this Imperial Roman ancestry has affected the Italian provinces largely the same in antiquity forming a genetic cline. And this cline used to exist in antiquity as well as we have seen with Daunians and Etruscans, that is main cause of the divergence between modern Italians. If we add a certain percentage (don't know how much) of Imperial Roman ancestry of the same amount into both Daunians and Etruscans we get 2 different genetic clusters. Let's call them A and B. "A" is Etruscan mixed with Imperial Roman and "B" is Daunian mixed with Imperial Roman. The distance of "A" to Tuscans is quite similar to the distance of "B" to Apulians. (I assume)
Also Tuscany has received more Northern European related ancestry (after Imperial Roman times which could've reduced certain Y-DNA line) from different sources while Apulia has received more southern ancestry like Greek (25% at most IMHO, before Imperial Rome), 1% to 3% Moorish (probably mostly male-biased) etc creating even a greater divergence into what is now Apulia and Tuscany.
That is in my opinion how modern genetic body of Italians was formed. Not because Greeks replace most of the population.
Ancient Greek cities were formed from 500B.C to 800B.C, there is lot's of Greek impact in Southern Italy but I am gonna be straight to the point that I think what happened to Tuscany probably happened to Southern Italy too. That is my opinion, also formulated by historical research. I may be wrong but I am not biased.
As for the Athenian sample who plots close to Cyprus it could be full-blooded Anatolian, unless it was mixed with very eastern Armenian-like, that would make him half-half. I said he could be a slave or a migrant. There is a quote from a Roman historian from the first century AD saying the old Athenians have gone extinct and he called the current inhabitants of that time a racist word. If Athenian sample is a good representative of pre-Slavic Peloponnese, you would need some 30% Polish-like to model modern Peloponnesians and you would be left with a minority of overall actual Mycenaean ancestry (and probably Classical Greek since they always cluster with Mycenaeans) in modern Peloponnesians which was assumed to be above 70% several years ago. Especially if the Slavs turn out to be mixed. (there is a good chance that they were.)
I have told some of the members that were trying to inflate the Albanian influx in Peloponnese, that Albanian-speakers in Peloponnese in 19th century were no more than 15%. Just saying.

 

[Francis Drake]

The movement eastwards of LBA Sicilians from EBA Sicilians in Western Sicily is attributed to Mycenaeans even though there is no archeological Mycenaean-like work in Western Sicily. In fact there are better explanations related with Sardinian movement in EBA. And nearly every single Middle Easterner in Italy
(especially in Southern Italy) is automatically assumed to be "hellenized". There are also the leaked Italics that were automatically assumed to be Greek-shifted without assuming regional differences (which should come FIRST in mind). Good thing we got the Daunian paper before the Etruscans because we all know what would happened. I think that the impact of the Greeks was great but this is being blown out of proportion.

The ratio of Apulians and Daunians seems similar to the ratio of Etruscans and Tuscans to me. There is a genetic cline in Italy not a drastic genetic break (that should've have happened if the Greeks replaced the bulk of the population like it happened in Croatia with the Slavs and it that case Croatia diverges from Northern Italians) and also haplogroups like J1, E and J2 (combined) are not drastically greater in the South (with exceptions in Eastern Sicily and Calabria) than they are in many central regions and even regions like Emilia-Romagna. Again the South probably carried more J2 before any Iron Age colonization.
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

To me it seems that this Imperial Roman ancestry has affected the Italian provinces largely the same in antiquity forming a genetic cline. And this cline used to exist in antiquity as well as we have seen with Daunians and Etruscans, that is main cause of the diverge between modern Italians. If we add a certain percentage (don't know how much) of Imperial Roman ancestry of the same amount into both Daunians and Etruscans we get 2 different genetic clusters. Let's call them A and B. "A" is Etruscan mixed with Imperial Roman and "B" is Daunian mixed with Imperial Romans. The distance of "A" to Tuscans is quite similar to the distance of "B" to Apulians. (I assume)

Also Tuscany has received more Northern European related ancestry (after Imperial Roman times which could've reduced certain Y-DNA line) from different sources while Apulia has received more southern ancestry like Greek (25% at most IMHO, before Imperial Rome), 1% to 3% Moorish (probably mostly male-biased) etc creating even a greater divergence into what is now Apulia and Tuscany.

That is in my opinion how modern genetic body of Italians was formed. Not because Greeks replace most of the population.

Ancient Greek cities were formed from 500B.C to 800B.C, there is lot's of Greek impact in Southern Italy but I am gonna be straight to the point that I think what happened to Tuscany probably happened to Southern Italy too. That is my opinion, also formulated by historical research. I may be wrong but I am not biased.

As for the Athenian sample who plots close to Cyprus it could be full-blooded Anatolian, unless it was mixed with very eastern Armenian-like, that would make him half-half. There is a quote from a Roman historian from the first century AD saying the old Athenians have gone extinct and he called the curret inhabitants of that time a racist word. If Athenian sample is a good representative of pre-Slavic Peloponnese, you would need some 30% Polish-like to model modern Peloponnesians and you would be left with a minority of overall actual Mycenaean ancestry (and probably Classical Greek since they always cluster with Mycenaeans) in modern Peloponnesians which was assumed to be above 70% several years ago. Especially if the Slavs turn out to be mixed. (there is a good chance that they were.)

I have told some of the members that were trying to inflate the Albanian influx in Peloponnese, that Albanian-speakers in Peloponnese in 19th century were no more than 15%. Just saying.

Can you link that quote on athenians here? That's interesting.

 

[ihype02]

Can you link that quote on athenians here? That's interesting.

It was from Tacitus.

 

[Francis Drake]

It was from Tacitus.

I can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[ihype02]

I can't seem to find it anywhere.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=9hc...QGvqbyDAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Now Cneius Piso, hurrying to the execution of his purposes, terrified the city of Athens by a tempestuous entry, and reproached them in a severe speech, with oblique censure of Germanicus, that, debasing the dignity of the Roman name, he had paid excessive court, not to the Athenians, by so many slaughters long since extinct, but to the then mixed scum of nations there"

 

[Francis Drake]

Yes but if Messapians turn out to be (a little) closer to Apulians than Daunians, we will see claims about Mycenaean Bronze-Age colonization.

If we had 3 samples from 100BC-250BC Hellenistic Era Taras, and if they turn out to be Mycenaean-like (and they likely will either that or Messapic mixed) I hit 2 birds with 1 stone. One, the northern shifted Dorian hypothesis and another one the east-med Hellenistic Era Italian-Greeks claim.

I even doubt even the Ionians of Pontus were this eastern shifted in the Classical period. Hellenization lasted for many centuries, and many hellenized folks were only hellenized culturally not ethnically. Nearly all of those Anatolians were, only, fully assimilated with the period of Christianity into Romioi (Byzantine Romans). Greek speaking Syrians, Jews, Egyptians were still Syrians, Jews, Egyptians. After all St. Paul was not Greek.


The Empuries samples originally from Ionians of Anatolia seem untouched by the Anatolian admixture or at least not drastically. If they were not I don't know how Mainland Greeks or the Italian Greeks could be in the Classical Period! The sample from Marathon could've been an Anatolian, a slave or whatever. They could've been numerous but not necessarily Greeks. I have some ancient and medieval "racist" quotes about Athens and Constantinople in the olden times, if I posted them in Anthrogenica I would get banned.

What we do know for certain is that the Myceanean/Empuriote genetic profile *did not* dissapear after the iron-ages/antiquity, HUN_MA_Szolad_o1 retains this profile, and he is a medieval guy. So the anthrogenica viewpoint about population replacement during the hellenistic era seems to be fake, these Iron-age magna-grecians only strengthening that fact. What we have yet to see if people like Vranas marathon were just slavs/merchants/outliers, if they they formed a subset of the population in some areas. The myceanean profile still persists in the medieval era though, presumably from a Greek/Maniot-adjacent person with little to-zero slavic.

 

[Francis Drake]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=9hc...QGvqbyDAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Now Cneius Piso, hurrying to the execution of his purposes, terrified the city of Athens by a tempestuous entry, and reproached them in a severe speech, with oblique censure of Germanicus, that, debasing the dignity of the Roman name, he had paid excessive court, not to the Athenians, by so many slaughters long since extinct, but to the then mixed scum of nations there"

Thank you!

 

[Milan.M]

Mr. Milan doesn't understand the difference between what I found versus what the authors of the study found.

There's a saying about not shooting the messenger.

He also doesn't know not to insult moderators.

 

[Milan.M]

And let me add that I do not deny the migration and invasions in Balkans by Slavs as someone here want to add,but from where they came in what numbers is a matter of discussion.

 

[Angela]

What we do know for certain is that the Myceanean/Empuriote genetic profile *did not* dissapear after the iron-ages/antiquity, HUN_MA_Szolad_o1 retains this profile, and he is a medieval guy. So the anthrogenica viewpoint about population replacement during the hellenistic era seems to be fake, these Iron-age magna-grecians only strengthening that fact. What we have yet to see if people like Vranas marathon were just slavs/merchants/outliers, if they they formed a subset of the population in some areas. The myceanean profile still persists in the medieval era though, presumably from a Greek/Maniot-adjacent person with little to-zero slavic.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, because if you're talking about SZ1, it is a Bronze Age sample found at the same site. He's not remotely Mycenaean like. The closest match, at a distance of close to 7 is to Macedonian Vardars.

From Amorim et al:

Archeologists also recovered two bodies(AV1, AV2) that derive from a later occupation of the region bythe Avars in the fill of the Longobard-period grave (SZ27)15, aswell the skeletal remains from an individual dating to the BronzeAge 10 m north of the cemetery (SZ1). See Supplementary Note 1,Supplementary Figures 1–11, and Supplementary Table 1 for thearcheological context of Szólád.


This is why the papers, including the Supplements, have to be read carefully.

 

[Bill7]

Delete....

 

[Bill7]

Honestly I don't think they were south Italian like, here are my G25, Imperial roman only shows up in 5-population admixture, not changing much. View attachment 12967View attachment 12968

Albanians would naturally have less imperial admix than italians, I myself am eastern-plotting compared to Excine, Dibran, Kelmendasi, and Hawk. They score no imperial roman on my admixture runs.View attachment 12969

I think you did a good job. This model should pretty much work for all balkanites plus some germanic for Croatians and Slovenes

 

[ihype02]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, because if you're talking about SZ1, it is a Bronze Age sample found at the same site. He's not remotely Mycenaean like. The closest match, at a distance of close to 7 is to Macedonian Vardars.

From Amorim et al:

Archeologists also recovered two bodies(AV1, AV2) that derive from a later occupation of the region bythe Avars in the fill of the Longobard-period grave (SZ27)15, aswell the skeletal remains from an individual dating to the BronzeAge 10 m north of the cemetery (SZ1). See Supplementary Note 1,Supplementary Figures 1–11, and Supplementary Table 1 for thearcheological context of Szólád.


This is why the papers, including the Supplements, have to be read carefully.

Distance to:	HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.03830064	Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.04009300	BGR_IA
0.04558788	DEU_MA_Baiuvaric_o
0.04915580	ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.04980853	GRC_Mycenaean
0.05002209	ITA_Sardinia_MA
0.05093400	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05237138	ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.05258144	HRV_Pop_CA
0.05452498	DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2
0.05466400	HRV_IA
0.05486452	ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.05525913	BGR_EBA
0.05631847	ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.05673990	ITA_Etruria_Imperial
0.05709424	GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.05728590	ITA_Rome_MA
0.05758356	HUN_BA
0.05843241	ITA_Etruscan
0.05863636	TUR_IA_low_res
0.05934063	ITA_Broion_EBA
0.06027480	BGR_Middle_C
0.06073957	VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.06148900	ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.06166140	BGR_Varna_C

I am not sure where this sample was found but I believe Classical Age Macedonians were like this especially considering BUL_IA was from the northern Bulgaria and some Late Antiquity "Serbian" samples plotted south of BUL_IA.

If it's a Greek sample it has a little bit more northern ancestry than the pervious samples we have seen. I think Francis said it's medieval that could explain a bit.

Target: Greek_Macedonia Distance: 3.4036% / 0.03403620
66.4	HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
33.6	Polish

 

[Bill7]

Distance to:	HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.03830064	Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.04009300	BGR_IA
0.04558788	DEU_MA_Baiuvaric_o
0.04915580	ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.04980853	GRC_Mycenaean
0.05002209	ITA_Sardinia_MA
0.05093400	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05237138	ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.05258144	HRV_Pop_CA
0.05452498	DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2
0.05466400	HRV_IA
0.05486452	ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.05525913	BGR_EBA
0.05631847	ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.05673990	ITA_Etruria_Imperial
0.05709424	GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.05728590	ITA_Rome_MA
0.05758356	HUN_BA
0.05843241	ITA_Etruscan
0.05863636	TUR_IA_low_res
0.05934063	ITA_Broion_EBA
0.06027480	BGR_Middle_C
0.06073957	VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.06148900	ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.06166140	BGR_Varna_C

I am not sure where this sample was found but I believe Classical Age Macedonians were like this especially considering BUL_IA was from the northern Bulgaria and some Late Antiquity "Serbian" samples plotted south of BUL_IA.

If it's a Greek sample it has a little bit more northern ancestry than the pervious samples we have seen. I think Francis said it's medieval that could explain a bit.

Target: Greek_Macedonia Distance: 3.4036% / 0.03403620
66.4	HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
33.6	Polish

Something is missing through the distance is quite high, most propably a Rome imperial sample would make it better

 

[Angela]

The coordinates from Vahaduo: Szolad1:Amorim_2018,4.29,3.44,3.25,0,28.24,25.58,0.87,0.18,6.87,3.48,23.79,0

Coordinates from Jovialis' list: Szolad1:Amorim_2018,4.29,3.44,3.25,0,28.24,25.58,0.87,0.18,6.87,3.48,23.79,0



Input them into Dodecad modern populations, and this is what you get. Macedonian Vardars are not close to Mycenaeans.

Distance to:	Szolad1:Amorim_2018
6.97954153	Macedonian_Vardar
7.08436306	Macedonian_South
7.67174687	Albanian_Kosovo
7.87953044	Macedonian_East
7.91276184	Turk_Makedonya
7.98405912	Macedonian_Polog
8.01277730	Greek_Macedonia
8.05873439	Greek_Thessaly
8.35270615	Moldovan_Gagauz
8.63549072	Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje
8.68720899	Bulgarian_East
8.69753413	Greek_Thrace
8.73941646	Bulgarian_Thrace
9.19169190	Turk_Deliorman
9.28766924	Greek_Thessaloniki
9.41569966	Bulgarian_Central
9.44255262	Albanian
9.55627543	Italian_Friuli_VG
9.56961337	Turk_Trakya
9.67777350	Moldovan_South
10.01265699	Bulgarian_West
10.06310588	Romanian
10.23147594	Pomak_Bulgaria
10.37996146	Italian_Lazio
10.39834121	Italian_Romagna

Input into the Dodecad K12b spreadsheet:

Distance to:	Szolad1:Amorim_2018
6.68335993	Szolad37:Amorim_2018
6.78356838	ETR007:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
7.35087750	MAS001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
7.56208305	Scythian:scy305:Krzewinska_2018_(Oct)
7.69709686	Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021
8.24094655	Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019
8.64908666	Szolad36:Amorim_2018
8.87133586	Szolad31:Amorim_2018
8.98967185	Thraco-Cimmerian:MJ-12:Jarve_2019
9.28394313	Hungary_BA:I7043:Olalde_2018
9.37160072	Scythian:scy192:Krzewinska_2018_(Oct)
9.43235920	Collegno36:Amorim_2018
9.58492045	Collegno23:Amorim_2018
9.64546526	Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log02:Clemente_2021
9.89680251	Nordic_Type-(ADH)_Female:STR310:Veeramah_2018
9.99309762	Scythian:scy300:Krzewinska_2018_(Oct)
10.02695866	Szolad43:Amorim_2018
10.14660534	C6-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1549:Antonio_2019
10.16369519	C7-Villa_Magna_MA:R55:Antonio_2019
10.32756990	NE_Iberia_RomP:I6491:Olalde_2019
10.43775359	C7-Mausole_di_Augusto_Late_Antiquity:R33:Antonio_2019
10.46466913	Vucedol:I3499:Mathieson_2018
10.65432307	Scythian:scy197:Krzewinska_2018_(Oct)
10.72100742	I3593:Olalde_2018
10.80285148	TAQ009:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

Very nice correlation.

Don't know where you're getting your coordinates or what Szolad 01 might be; that's not the paper's nomenclature.

A quick look at the admixture sheet in Amorim et al for SZ1 shows a sample not even 100% modern Tuscan like, much less Mycenaean like.