Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

We told you but you don't want to hear it.
Ok but that CHG percentage is that the average for all Greeks including Anatolia and the Caucasus? I asked Khan that question. Cyprus and Crete were separated out. I honestly have no vested interest other than wanting to understand genetics and history. I mean i get the EEF (which is well researched and pretty clear), even the Steppe which arrived from the Balkans incrementally. The CHG part I don't quite get. It's just not making sense to me historically at this point. I need more clear cut evidence. Anyway I enjoy your lively commentary!
 
Ok but that CHG percentage is that the average for all Greeks including Anatolia and the Caucasus? I asked Khan that question. Cyprus and Crete were separated out. I honestly have no vested interest other than wanting to understand genetics and history. I mean i get the EEF (which is well researched and pretty clear), even the Steppe which arrived from the Balkans incrementally. The CHG part I don't quite get. It's just not making sense to me historically at this point. I need more clear cut evidence. Anyway I enjoy your lively commentary!

Yeah, good question, now you are getting to the essence of things.

Another question is why Lazaridis' samples (Greek_Thessaloniki) for 2017 seem to also be mixed cases of Anatolians and locals. Was it because their mix was the right amount of either side to place them right next to Myceneans, next to Cretans? Was that a conscious choice for his peninsular option? Why didn't he separate them like Stamatoyanopoulos if that's what everyone else was doing; or pick another place for sampling, why Thessaloniki, literally the hub for the highest presence of West Asian genes in the country.

Is the clustering next to Myceneans a historical freebie of Anatolians "southernizing" the peninsular locals to such an extent (Cretans already a similar mix)?
 
Yes, us Ottoman Greeks, we are very jealous of the pirate clans of Morea and their tiny bankrupt kingdom with the foreign king that managed in 100 years to be the catalyst that eradicated and uprooted the entirety of Hellenism in Anatolia, Caucasus and the Levant/Egypt, so they can feed their petty little feuds and greed. The perfect puppets for their imperialist puppeteers.

Yes, well, that's what happens when you're ruled by one of the most corrupt, inefficient empires the world has ever seen. Once the Ottoman yoke was upon them, it was all over, and that goes for the whole Balkans.

Hell, it goes for the Near East as well.

Centers of civilization entered a hundreds years long Dark Ages from which some of them have not yet recovered.

Who do you think you'll convince that being part of the Ottoman Empire was good for the Balkans and Greece. Please.
 
Who do you think you'll convince that being part of the Ottoman Empire was good for the Balkans and Greece. Please.

I don't want to convince anyone, I am sad at the turn of affairs and I am voicing my personal opinion, since I am Greek living in Greece, I think my historical and current plight has earned me as much.
 
Ancient Greek ancestry models for Greeks (Cypriots included) and Italians

I didn't use Anatolia_BA as a proxy because ancient Greeks had around 30-40% Anatolia_BA like ancestry so it overlaps a lot. Later Anatolian/Caucasus admixture came much later anyway so Anatolia_BA is not relevant. I don't know how much Greek ancestry Greek_Anatolian has so i didn't use it as a proxy either.
LVPVFNq.png


ClXxPaT.png


ej89QzH.png
 
I didn't use Anatolia_BA as a proxy because ancient Greeks had around 30-40% Anatolia_BA like ancestry so it overlaps a lot. Later Anatolian/Caucasus admixture came much later anyway so Anatolia_BA is not relevant. I don't know how much Greek ancestry Greek_Anatolian has so i didn't use it as a proxy either.
LVPVFNq.png


ClXxPaT.png


ej89QzH.png

For Greeks you're using the Armenian average to represent Anatolia/Caucasus and Serbian to represent South Slav? So I'm guessing high Steppe (40%) for the Serb sample what about the Armenian sample what does this represent? Explain the logic for this model.
 
Why has this thread turned into a 10 page speculative drama? The first two pages were pretty concise in the aims and results
 
Why don't you post the name of the village so I can see what a "Makedonian original" looks like. Is it because you are afraid I will know the truth about it and you try to avoid the question with cringey posts?

Maybe you want my name also?

Ematheia and Pieria are not so many villages,
 
Why has this thread turned into a 10 page speculative drama? The first two pages were pretty concise in the aims and results

Great question. It sort of got derailed as do most threads (and I'm a Greek) that involve Greeks or Albanians.
 
It's been very hard for me to find good sources for Greek ydna. Could you provide me with a link to the papers you're using?

Is that just R1b Z2103 or all R1b?

Clearly, if we're trying to estimate the amount of steppe ancestry which arrived in Greece during the relevant centuries, we're not interested in very downstream clades.

Try this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26644-Y-DNA-haplogroups-of-Greeks-by-region-of-origin. He provides some sources in the third post of the thread.

I have not delved into what all the subclades of R1b in Greece are by reading the relevant papers.
 
Good grief! No, it doesn't mean that, but what good does it do anyone to know that they once existed if we don't have them and therefore we have no idea what they actually SHOWED. It means there is NO PROOF of what they contained, and therefore no proof of the statements put forth by Blevins that there was a population replacement in the Peloponnese.

People, let's have some logic and common sense, shall we?

It's like Amber Heard constantly blathering about the mountains of evidence she has for her allegations, but the evidence was and is never produced, or if it's produced it's fragmentary, or the context is completely different from the one asserted, or the "evidence" is not an original document and so could have been altered.

You wouldn't even win in traffic court with this kind of reasoning, much less put together a population genetics paper.
I am just informing this honorable group that the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires kept very accurate tax information. We have some extant tax rolls from the Ottoman Empire (deters or tefters). I am not aware of any Byzantine tax rolls surviving the fall of Constantinople. The Patriarchate on the other hand has some pretty detailed church records.

No interested in contesting traffic tickets or writing a genetics paper.
 
I am just informing this honorable group that the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires kept very accurate tax information. We have some extant tax rolls from the Ottoman Empire (deters or tefters). I am not aware of any Byzantine tax rolls surviving the fall of Constantinople. The Patriarchate on the other hand has some pretty detailed church records.

No interested in contesting traffic tickets or writing a genetics paper.

No doubt it's very interesting that all these empires kept tax information. Unfortunately, the papers relevant to our discussion no longer exist.

So, to summarize, there is no proof for the claims made.


What should interest anyone involved in discussions like this is whether facts claimed to be true are, in fact, verifiable. If they're just speculation, then the "hypothesis" should be stated as a hypothesis which might or might not be true, not as a fact upon which people can rely in coming to conclusions.

We're all supposed to be engaged in a search for the truth of the past, yes, to the extent it can ever be known. To do that we need to be careful not to turn speculations into conclusions without the proper evidence.
 
The extra CHG, I'd predict, came from 1) something (Thracian or Thracian-like?) that came down from the eastern Balkans and set the ball rolling in regards to the differentiation between mainlanders and islanders; 2) further interactions later on during Classical times when western Anatolia was basically just a part of Greece.
 
I am just informing this honorable group that the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires kept very accurate tax information. We have some extant tax rolls from the Ottoman Empire (deters or tefters). I am not aware of any Byzantine tax rolls surviving the fall of Constantinople. The Patriarchate on the other hand has some pretty detailed church records.

No interested in contesting traffic tickets or writing a genetics paper.

in fact my family found most before 1900 data from church written baptism of young.
 
I can smell the jealousy of Greeks from Anatolia and Cyprus when they make such ridiculous claims as that some modern Greeks "just happen" to cluster close to Mycenaeans because they have both "southern" and "northern" gene flows (instead of the far more parsimonious explanation they have fewer northern input than other Greeks) or that ancient Greeks (I assume they mean from the mainland as well) had 30-40% Anatolia_BA without any shred of evidence.
And I add also Albanians claiming that Greeks are a hodgepodge of every neighbouring population who "just happen" to cluster close to them who are actually 100% or almost native Balkanites.
It is tiresome that one has to waddle through pages of wild speculations fueled by ethnic inferiority complexes to get to interesting thoughts.
 
I can smell the jealousy of Greeks from Anatolia and Cyprus when they make such ridiculous claims as that some modern Greeks "just happen" to cluster close to Mycenaeans because they have both "southern" and "northern" gene flows (instead of the far more parsimonious explanation they have fewer northern input than other Greeks) or that ancient Greeks (I assume they mean from the mainland as well) had 30-40% Anatolia_BA without any shred of evidence.
And I add also Albanians claiming that Greeks are a hodgepodge of every neighbouring population who "just happen" to cluster close to them who are actually 100% or almost native Balkanites.
It is tiresome that one has to waddle through pages of wild speculations fueled by ethnic inferiority complexes to get to interesting thoughts.
Perhaps address individuals and not "ethnicities"? These are very generalizing statements and don't differ much from other sentiments I have come across on this thread.

With 100% or almost 100% Balkanites you are whom exactly addressing?
 
Last edited:
I can smell the jealousy of Greeks from Anatolia and Cyprus when they make such ridiculous claims as that some modern Greeks "just happen" to cluster close to Mycenaeans because they have both "southern" and "northern" gene flows (instead of the far more parsimonious explanation they have fewer northern input than other Greeks) or that ancient Greeks (I assume they mean from the mainland as well) had 30-40% Anatolia_BA without any shred of evidence.
It is tiresome that one has to waddle through pages of wild speculations fueled by ethnic inferiority complexes to get to interesting thoughts.



Why are you making vast generalisations? The only thing that smells, nay stinks, is your comment.

And as Lazardes et al say on p6 of their origins of the Mycenaeans/Minoans study:

We estimated FST of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that
Mycenaeans are least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and
Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resemble
present-day inhabitants from the same region
 
The initial Vahaduo calculations of relatedness to modern Greeks and Italians should be amended to include Cyprus. G25 now has new academic samples of Cypriots and Davidski has removed the outliers from before. From what I can see from my own G25 calculations, Cypriots figure prominently in the top 25, particularly the EBA Aegean and Minoan samples. This tallies with academic research.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 123290 times.

Back
Top