| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Thanks for the link, yes, looks as you suggest, and entire museum with constructing biographies of the individuals with representations of what they look like based on DNA. Impressive project.Originally Posted by Jovialis
J2a, G2a, R1b-Z2103 representing the older Mycenean Greek and E-V13 representing the newer Eastern Urnfielder Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age influence.
My prediction.
Honestly it seems to me they are a bit different: I recall that the Aegean_BA cluster was below and east of Sicilians on a PCA, whereas this main Greek cluster seems just below Sicilians, and it seems to me that they fall in the place in the PCA occupied by some previous Balkan samples, those that cluster around Bulgarian_IA. Just a tiny bit shifted away from the Aegean_BA cluster but not overlapping nonetheless.
The issue with the Mycenean samples is that they were quite heterogenuous, which is a situation one expects in cases of recent invasions, so it wasn't clear how IA Greeks would turn out to be exactly, though of course they would be roughly similar to Myceneans.
The Empuries samples as well covered quite some timeframe, and I suspected that later samples had higher Anatolian admixture, and the one sample from the classical age (I'd take as a recent colonist from Phocea) was at the higher edge of the Aegean_BA cluster, clustering where one Balkan antiquity sample clusters (the one literally over the contour of the Aegean_BA cluster) and where the Abd4 sample clusters too, at the edges of the Sicilian cluster, inbetween Sicilians and Maltese. I think that obviously such a shift is due to some low Anatolian admixture in Greeks from Anatolia.
Mycenaeans were parallel with Sicilians but in western direction (kinda like that of Sardinians/Minoans/EEF).
50-60% Classical Greek admixture in Cretans and Aegean Islands is very probable. But Rhodians seem to be closer to Central Anatolians than to Mycenaeans. And Cretans are basically a more Slavicized version of Rhodians with some negligible Venetian admixture. Rhodes is very close to Western Anatolia and many Aegean Islands were abandoned and repopulated even during the Middle Ages so maybe those islands got repopulated with a Byzantine Anatolian population during the Middle Ages. (that happen to resemble the Marathon sample ~95%) This could be true especially about Cyprus.
Crete as a large island was never abandoned and is fairly distant geographically from Anatolia so that suggest that Greeks during the Hellenistic period were mixed with something exotic and distant like ARM_LA. (A speculation of mine)
Otherwise I don't believe Cretans are more Anatolian than Classical Greek/Mycenaean-like. And I also don't believe it for Dodecanese Islands unless the scenario that I mentioned above is true.
Resettlements took place during Nikephoros Phokas reign, after the recapture of Crete.
(on the translated page: not Central Asian populations, it's a mistranslation, the original text mentions Asia Minor populations)
https://www-goodnet-gr.translate.goo..._x_tr_pto=wapp
My point was addressed to the fact that the usual suspect maintained that future Mycenaean samples would be very different, far more "Corded Ware" like.Honestly it seems to me they are a bit different: I recall that the Aegean_BA cluster was below and east of Sicilians on a PCA, whereas this main Greek cluster seems just below Sicilians, and it seems to me that they fall in the place in the PCA occupied by some previous Balkan samples, those that cluster around Bulgarian_IA. Just a tiny bit shifted away from the Aegean_BA cluster but not overlapping nonetheless.
The issue with the Mycenean samples is that they were quite heterogenuous, which is a situation one expects in cases of recent invasions, so it wasn't clear how IA Greeks would turn out to be exactly, though of course they would be roughly similar to Myceneans.
The Empuries samples as well covered quite some timeframe, and I suspected that later samples had higher Anatolian admixture, and the one sample from the classical age (I'd take as a recent colonist from Phocea) was at the higher edge of the Aegean_BA cluster, clustering where one Balkan antiquity sample clusters (the one literally over the contour of the Aegean_BA cluster) and where the Abd4 sample clusters too, at the edges of the Sicilian cluster, inbetween Sicilians and Maltese. I think that obviously such a shift is due to some low Anatolian admixture in Greeks from Anatolia.
Even though it seemed to many to be unlikely that Empuries was a good sample to use in the interim for Greeks of the classical era it seems to have been a "passable" sample. I really don't get what you're arguing about.
To be honest, I'm tired of the incessant speculation. When the paper is published, and hopefully the raw data as well, and we can see the statistical methods used on that data, we'll know if the authors' conclusions are justified, and indeed whether we have more clues as to what happened over time. Given the analysis of the modern genomes from the mainland and the islands, clearly there's a lot of variation depending on local history.
So far, I don't see anything that negates the Raveane et al conclusions quoted above.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
Let me add this to your overall correct statement. There was one archaic Macedonian sample, a female with blue eyes and brown hair. So from 9 (minus the 1 mesolithic sample) 2 samples had blue eyes.
Anyway, anyone who is familiar with Ancient Greek primary sources would expect nothing but that Ancient Greeks were majority dark-haired and dark-eyed Mediterranean people. However, in this study, the Greeks aside from one outlier that had intermediate to dark complexion, were all pale or pale to intermediate. In contrast in the "Aegean palatial civilizations" paper, the BA Greeks were predicted as being very dark which took us all by surprise.
Your prediction sounds good and plausible.
I can't wait for the paper to be released it's going to answer so many questions. Some samples from the MBA and EIA seem to cluster between modern Greeks and myceneans
After several Balkan samples in the Danubian paper plotting south of Bulgaria_IA. I was sure that old Macedonians were just Mycenaeans but slightly more northern shifted.
this is something that Borza and Cohen have been stating since the 1990's
They also said the Doric invasion did not go to macedonian lands and so kept these "myceaneans" more pure to their origin
They state the Dorians came via ship ( logicall ) from modern Epirus and Albanian lands, conquering all Greece and all the islands including Crete and Rhodes
Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
Grandfather paternal mtdna ... T1a1e
Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155
"Fear profits man, nothing"
Why would Dorians take ships from Epirus and Albania to reach Greece?
The ones who came by ships and landed to South Albania and Epirus according to Albanian archaeologist Frano Prendi were the Urnfielders who according to him didn't left much legacy on the identity of latter Illyrians but in the surroundings. During Bronze to Iron Age transition burial rite in Greece changed to cremation in urns like Athenian burial rite etc, etc.
Would be interesting to know who were these people, because during this time Mycenae was put in fire and their civilization collapsed followed by Dark Ages and then we got the formation of Iron Age and Classical Greeks.
Genetics works just fine when it comes to Slavic admixture.
The only possible explanation is that the Mycenaean civilization was overthrown by an identical population and that there might another reason for the Bronze Age Collapse. Aegean Islands (including the Ionic one who were "Mycenaean-like" and supposedly different from Dorians) were a part of Mycenaean civilization and did in fact experience the Greek Dark Ages and massive cultural collapse just like Peloponnese did. I don't see E-V13 or high Doric steppe there from the hypothesized late Bronze Age migrations.
The old Greek cities of Italy were established around 800BC to 500BC. Nearly all the Greek cities of Italy were cut off from Hellenistic Macedonian empire due to Roman expansion in Italy before Alexander The Great was even born.
Last edited by ihype02; 29-04-22 at 01:42.
So excited for this!
A Spartan with blue eyes and light hair? No one tell Hitler.
Vjose was a major river in antiquity, but got dried out. NGL Hammond states Greek colonists that built Apollonia sailed up Vjose to collaborate with local Illyrians and build that colony.
"when ‘200 [Corinthians] sailed up the Vjosë (Aous) [River], established good relations with the local Illyrians, founded a joint settlement and made a riverine harbor"
as they explained ....the Dorians required ships to take all the Greek islands, including Crete and Rhodes ...........the Dorians must have lived on the coast as they where mariners as well
It's very well recorded that during LBA people identical to North Balkans Danube, associated with Eastern Urnfielders took part in so called Aegean migrations, the introduction of cremation burials, Naue II swords, and whole other package is an attestation of this. Facts are straight there.
That Macedonian lady with the dark hair and blue eyes is looking like a few aunts I have from southern Albania
Keep in mind that the extent of the habitat of the Greeks in classical times is pretty vast. From Asia Minor, to Crete, South Italy, Macedonia and Epirus. Seas, islands and mountains separate these people. And yet, they have less genetic variety than the modern Greeks. North Ancient Greeks may be slightly more Northern shifted, and Ionian Greeks may have more Anatolian admixture. The big news however is that we now know that these people essentially cluster together. From here, it's all splitting hairs. The Macedonians are more Med and are closer to Mycenaeans than the modern Greeks. Modern Greeks from the South and the islands cluster closer to Ancient Macedonians than modern Greek Macedonians. And to make it more spectacular, some ancient Greeks may cluster closer to some modern Greeks than they are to other Ancient Greeks.
Where's the Spartan on the PCA so speculation can be cut by 90%
Thanks for the clarification.Let me add this to your overall correct statement. There was one archaic Macedonian sample, a female with blue eyes and brown hair. So from 9 (minus the 1 mesolithic sample) 2 samples had blue eyes.
Anyway, anyone who is familiar with Ancient Greek primary sources would expect nothing but that Ancient Greeks were majority dark-haired and dark-eyed Mediterranean people. However, in this study, the Greeks aside from one outlier that had intermediate to dark complexion, were all pale or pale to intermediate. In contrast in the "Aegean palatial civilizations" paper, the BA Greeks were predicted as being very dark which took us all by surprise.
As to the first bolded comment, a lot of people, from internet "experts" to "historians" to anthropologists to Nazi "racialists" relying on those anthropologists to some degree, drew, from the same Ancient Greek primary texts the opposite conclusion as to the Ancient Greek physical type. They were convinced they would look like Germanic "Aryans".
As to the second bolded comment, any comparison would require a determination as to whether there was a different in the quality of the samples, i.e. did one set of samples have more data. Also, the algorithms would have to be compared, i.e. which test was more recent, which has a better reputation in the forensic evidence field, etc..
Curious about the two “Agios Giorgios?” results and wonder if they are samples from the same location but different eras, plotting far away from each other.
I think so too...
Even if they are not the focus, I don't understand how can you release a paper about Greeks through the ages and have only people from Thessaloniki as representatives of the modern era. Are they still the only properly sampled samples available ?
It's like releasing a paper on French population history and having people from Normandy as the sole representatives of the modern era... They are part of the genetic variation, sure, but it leaves a lot to be desired.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
