Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

[Kuivamaa]

Contemporary Greeks (I am native Greek, just to be clear), are the descendants of imperial populations of ERE (Eastern Roman Empire). So we very much are a fusion of Ancient Greek and Roman culture, merged within a medieval Christian framework. The Christian part is important because it generally meant that from the middle ages onwards, for the most part Greeks wouldn’t mix with non-Christians. Take Slavs for example. When they descended to Greece, being pagans (and greatly outnumbered ofc) they avoided cities and the heavily populated plains and coastal areas and settled in the mountains. They did not get absorbed to the general population before actually converting to christianity. Arvanites had no such problem and got assimilated fast.
Ottoman Muslims on the other hand, being the ruling class, never became Christians and the admixture was pretty much one way, Greeks getting absorbed into the ottoman pool. Once a Greek man would convert to Islam, he would be lost for his family or peers forever-Turkish history is full of politicians and military officers of Greek origins which are absolutely unknown to Greeks and unmentioned in the Greek history books even today.
This trend continued for centuries. Even post Greek independence immigrants often actively tried to get a spouse that is Greek. I come from an area that consistently migrated to the states since the second half of 19th century, I have hundreds of American born relatives (I know it because my surname is unique and comes from a single village) including first cousins (I am distantly related to Maria Callas even). Some of the first to go there have 4th gen descendants now. My generation (last gen X/first millennials) are the first that actually do marry outside the Greek community in significant numbers. Up until my parents generation, people would either migrate married or seek wives from Greece, talking about as recent as late 70s here. In countries and areas that fewer Greeks existed the mixing was more widespread from the get go.

[Jovialis]

We were discussing how much Greek admixture there might be in Egyptians of the Hellenistic Era, an era of which you seem to know very little in terms of its history. Didn't stop you from making dogmatic statements which are impossible to verify, as usual.

So you found a book by a Classics professor which seemed to support your position.

Actually, the place to go if you want to find out the genetic make up of Egyptians in the Hellenic and Roman Eras is to population geneticists, not Classics professors who are purely guessing.

It seems you forgot the paper which tested a 1200 year transect of time in an area near Fayum, Egypt, including the period of the Hellenic conquest.

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Verena J. Schuenemann et al, with Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Strauss.

"Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individthuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Rniomans to a degree55"

Their findings support my conclusions on the matter, based on an understanding of the social relations between the different ethnic groups in Hellenic Egypt, which was that while there was probably some admixture between the Egyptians and the Greeks, it probably did not reach significant levels. In fact, they go further and point out a fact of which I was unaware, which was that once the Romans took control, there were even some civil impediments to inter-marriage, even with regard to Romans.

I'd also like to point out that I don't appreciate your constant misrepresentation of the things which I said. This is a case in point; I never said that I thought there was no admixture in this instance. I SAID: there might indeed have been, but given the situation socially and culturally, I doubted it rose to significant levels. I leave the dogmatic statements of certainty with regard to what happened in the past to you.

I would also point out that what you do continuously is use the social mores of the last few decades as a template for everything which happened in the past. That shows a complete lack of knowledge of history. You also judge all people's actions by your own or those of your friends. Again, I never said nor implied that all Greeks of the diaspora practice endogamy TODAY. I said: it probably depends very much on the area, i.e. the number of Greek-Americans, when they arrived etc. As with historical social behavior, it all depends on the unique circumstances of the individual situation. In terms of what I observe around me, many still practice endogamy, although some indeed do not. As another example from other immigrants to the U.S., the Northern Italian migrants to California at the time of the gold rush disappeared within a few generations as a disparate ethnic group. Why? Partly because they were a few among a sea of Anglos. However, if you go to Howard Beach in New York even today there are a lot of Italian-Americans of 100% Italian descent. Why? Partly, no doubt, because there are tens of thousands of Italian-Americans in one small part of one borough.

What I find disturbing is that you seem to look upon people who choose, for whatever reason, to marry within their own ethnicity with contempt.

Stop drawing vast generalizations to fit your political persuasions. There's also nothing wrong with taking pride in one's ethnic identity.

This seems to be an issue with a lot of liberals.

[Jovialis]

The fact that Mycenaeans can be modeled as a mixture in an ~1:10 ratio of a Yamnaya like steppe-derived population and a Minoan or Early Bronze Age–like Aegean population...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0755

Comparing the modeling of Ancient Greeks to modern Greeks and Italians.

Yamnaya_Samara,29.22222222,2.065555556,0,0.171111111,4.561111111,58.40777778,1.35,0.025555556,0,0,3.558888889,0.638888889
Minoan_Zakros:I14916,0,0,3.51,0,31.15,0,2.37,0,12.57,0,49.61,0.8
Minoan_Lasithi,0.652,0.01,3.302,0.19,37.716,0.046,0,0,14.12,0,43.886,0.078
Minoan_Odigitria,2.584,0.472,1.574,0,42.44,0,0,0.338,14.602,0.204,37.722,0.066
Minoan_Petras,0,0,3.85,0.33,34.73,0.38,0.14,0.05,14.68,0.48,43.65,1.72

[Wanderer]

This seems to be an issue with a lot of liberals.

Im not liberal...

[Wanderer]

Of course it counts, I was referring to the last snippet you posted. Also, being 70% similar to Mycenaeans means nothing to you?

It is funny how some people think. If an African-American was just 70% SSA, (many of them within that range) they're black in their opinion, and the opinions of many others.

Also, not all Greeks are that high in Slavic, mainly it is just the Northern Greeks that go up that high.

They are mixed race but predominantly african in ancestry.
In the US they went by a 1 drop rule which was illogical also.
In colonial era in other parts like haiti they would have been catagorized as giraffe in birth marriage and death records.

[Jovialis]

Im not liberal...

Okay, I was referring to Bigsnake, but do you also have an issue with people who practice endogamy?

[Jovialis]

They are mixed race but predominantly african in ancestry.
In the US they went by a 1 drop rule which was illogical also.
In colonial era in other parts like haiti they would have been catagorized as giraffe in birth marriage and death records.

It was ridiculous, but ultimately, it is irrelevant because they were benighted people who also believed Adam and Eve were factually the first humans, and that modern people were descendants of Abraham. Even the Nazis had a more lenient classification for "Aryans".

[Wanderer]

Okay, I was referring to Bigsnake, but do you also have an issue with people who practice endogamy?

I don't care. But its probably not a good practice to do in the long term. In my geneology i had people marry 2nd and 3rd cousins but thats because it was earlier in the colonial era and they more likely probably did it for political reasons or class reasons because they were related to military personnel. Not because they specifically were looking to practice endogamy.
But if it implies forcing people to marry ingroup than yes I think thats a problem.

[bigsnake49]

We were discussing how much Greek admixture there might be in Egyptians of the Hellenistic Era, an era of which you seem to know very little in terms of its history. Didn't stop you from making dogmatic statements which are impossible to verify, as usual.

So you found a book by a Classics professor which seemed to support your position.

Actually, the place to go if you want to find out the genetic make up of Egyptians in the Hellenic and Roman Eras is to population geneticists, not Classics professors who are purely guessing.

It seems you forgot the paper which tested a 1200 year transect of time in an area near Fayum, Egypt, including the period of the Hellenic conquest.

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Verena J. Schuenemann et al, with Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Strauss.

"Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individthuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Rniomans to a degree55"

Their findings support my conclusions on the matter, based on an understanding of the social relations between the different ethnic groups in Hellenic Egypt, which was that while there was probably some admixture between the Egyptians and the Greeks, it probably did not reach significant levels. In fact, they go further and point out a fact of which I was unaware, which was that once the Romans took control, there were even some civil impediments to inter-marriage, even with regard to Romans.

I'd also like to point out that I don't appreciate your constant misrepresentation of the things which I said. This is a case in point; I never said that I thought there was no admixture in this instance. I SAID: there might indeed have been, but given the situation socially and culturally, I doubted it rose to significant levels. I leave the dogmatic statements of certainty with regard to what happened in the past to you.

I would also point out that what you do continuously is use the social mores of the last few decades as a template for everything which happened in the past. That shows a complete lack of knowledge of history. You also judge all people's actions by your own or those of your friends. Again, I never said nor implied that all Greeks of the diaspora practice endogamy TODAY. I said: it probably depends very much on the area, i.e. the number of Greek-Americans, when they arrived etc. As with historical social behavior, it all depends on the unique circumstances of the individual situation. In terms of what I observe around me, many still practice endogamy, although some indeed do not. As another example from other immigrants to the U.S., the Northern Italian migrants to California at the time of the gold rush disappeared within a few generations as a disparate ethnic group. Why? Partly because they were a few among a sea of Anglos. However, if you go to Howard Beach in New York even today there are a lot of Italian-Americans of 100% Italian descent. Why? Partly, no doubt, because there are tens of thousands of Italian-Americans in one small part of one borough.

What I find disturbing is that you seem to look upon people who choose, for whatever reason, to marry within their own ethnicity with contempt.

Stop drawing vast generalizations to fit your political persuasions. There's also nothing wrong with taking pride in one's ethnic identity.

I'm all for people marrying within their own culture or not marrying within their own culture. When there are significant legal and religious and property based limits to marrying outside the tribe or religion they do not. But in the Ancient Greek religion, there was no prohibition against marrying outside the religion that I am aware off. In far colonies with small numbers of settlers they married outside the Greek community by necessity. In Siracusa because of the large numbers they did not, although if one wanted to there was not some onerous prohibition against it.

With respect to the study you referenced:

Abusir el-Meleq’s proximity to, and close ties with, the Fayum are significant in the context of this study as the Fayum in particular saw a substantial growth in its population during the first hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, presumably as a result of Greek immigration33,43. Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army—who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural backgrounds—settled in the Fayum area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations44

The part of the study you quoted is not based on any genetic info but is heavily depended on other non genetic articles. It contradicts the paragraph above.

I am proud of my culture and I probably would have married a Greek girl if I had fallen in love with one. Unfortunately the availability of Greek girls was rather limited.

[bigsnake49]

Endogamy was practiced in tribal societies. From my understanding of Albanian practices men were allowed to marry outside the fara (tribe) but women were not. Albanians please chime in if I understand the rule right. It is done to preserve land and wealth within the fara. My grandfather's village in Eastern Thrace was pretty small, about 600 souls. Fortunately they were not limited by mountains and they could marry and were actually encouraged to marry outside the village because within the village everybody was related. My first cousin had to check that the woman he intended to marry was not a second cousin (she was not, she was a third).

[Angela]

I'm all for people marrying within their own culture or not marrying within their own culture. When there are significant legal and religious and property based limits to marrying outside the tribe or religion they do not. But in the Ancient Greek religion, there was no prohibition against marrying outside the religion that I am aware off. In far colonies with small numbers of settlers they married outside the Greek community by necessity. In Siracusa because of the large numbers they did not, although if one wanted to there was not some onerous prohibition against it.

With respect to the study you referenced:

Abusir el-Meleq’s proximity to, and close ties with, the Fayum are significant in the context of this study as the Fayum in particular saw a substantial growth in its population during the first hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, presumably as a result of Greek immigration33,43. Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army—who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural backgrounds—settled in the Fayum area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations44

The part of the study you quoted is not based on any genetic info but is heavily depended on other non genetic articles. It contradicts the paragraph above.

I am proud of my culture and I probably would have married a Greek girl if I had fallen in love with one. Unfortunately the availability of Greek girls was rather limited.

Please don't imply that I am misleading people. If you go back and check where my quote appears, you will see that is based on the genetic analysis.

[bigsnake49]

Jovialis, it's remarkable that Modern Italians are 3 times closer to Ancient Greeks than the first Modern Greek.

[Jovialis]

Jovialis, it's remarkable that Modern Italians are 3 times closer to Ancient Greeks than the first Modern Greek.

Though it is possible that Maniot and Taygetos are even closer.

But also, the Southern Arc paper did mention that the Mycenaean-like profile also existed in Thrace at the time as well. Basically, they were similar, but not the Mycenaean. So It is possible that Puglia, among other areas of Southern Italy also had a Mycenaean-like population, that was further maintained by Greek colonists. Furthermore, it more likely that Northwestern influences account for the "Northern ancestry" in Apulia (i.e. Bell Beakers--->Italics), rather than straight-up Yamnaya. There is also the influence of Cetina culture, which was similar to modern Northern Italians. One thing I believe is far more likely, is that the "Southern" ancestry in Apulia is likely attributed to early Bronze-Age Aegean-like/Minoan-like peoples.

[bigsnake49]

Please don't imply that I am misleading people. If you go back and check where my quote appears, you will see that is based on the genetic analysis.

First let's address you assertion that it was based on genetic analysis. Within the paragraph you quoted there were two references to other sources. One, reference 55 is "Vandorpe, K. Idnetity in Roman Egypt, 260–276 (Oxford University Press, 2012)." Not a genetics article. The second reference is "Rathbone, D. W. Villages, land and population in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Proc. Cambridge Philolog. Soc. 36, 103–142 (1990).Also not a genetics article.

From further up in the article"

"On the one hand, the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources is often complicated by selective representation and preservation and the fact that markers of foreign identity, such as, for example, Greek or Latin names and ethnics, quickly became ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike"

It seems that there was a loss of archaeological context in the recovered mummies. The authors also come to that conclusion:' This lack of context greatly diminishes the possibility of ‘thick description’ of the analysed individuals, at least in terms of their names, titles and materially expressed identity."

Here's also what I found in the article:

Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices2,45. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek46. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek45. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century, whose main interest was to obtain literary papyri from cartonnage rather than to excavate human remains"

In their conclusions, here's what the authors said:

"Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society"

So the article you quoted adds no genetic answer to the question of Greek population in Egypt in the Ptolemaic and post ptolemaic eras. Further studies might.

[Jovialis]

Though it is possible that Maniot and Taygetos are even closer.

But also, the Southern Arc paper did mention that the Mycenaean-like profile also existed in Thrace at the time as well. Basically, they were similar, but not the Mycenaean. So It is possible that Puglia, among other areas of Southern Italy also had a Mycenaean-like population, that was further maintained by Greek colonists. Furthermore, it more likely that Northwestern influences account for the "Northern ancestry" in Apulia (i.e. Bell Beakers--->Italics), rather than straight-up Yamnaya. There is also the influence of Cetina culture, which was similar to modern Northern Italians. One thing I believe is far more likely, is that the "Southern" ancestry in Apulia is likely attributed to early Bronze-Age Aegean-like/Minoan-like peoples.

[Angela]

Too close cousin marriage is also forbidden within the Catholic tradition. The rule is that 3rd cousin and beyond is OK, but not second, or especially first cousins. It's one of the reasons that the Council of Trent required that all marriages and births be recorded in the parish of the mother.

In my mother's area, which was in the foothills of the Apennines, there was more out marriage, with Tuscans, Ligurians from near France etc.

My father's area, high atop the Apennines in the province of Parma, was accessible only on foot or by mule until the 1920s. The "marriage circle" was the other villages high in the Apennines. The priests did check to see if the would-be partners were within the prohibited level, but in reality, after 700 years in the same general area with only a few new arrivals per hundred years, I'm sure they were more related than that. That's why Cavalli-Sforza used them for his seminal works on drift in isolated populations. It's also why I became so interested in population genetics; I read an article by him on my father's villages in a biology class. Thank goodness for my father's people that by chance the founder populations didn't seem to carry very many deleterious recessive genes, or there would have been a lot of dangerous diseases and anomalies up there.

Still, a young man and woman, second cousins of my paternal grandmother, but first cousins to each other, sought a dispensation and got one, goodness knows why. Most of their children died at birth or shortly thereafter or were infertile as adults. Only two of the 12 reached adulthood healthy and fertile. They were the cautionary tale I heard repeated over and over again as I grew up, especially because as one of 24 first cousins, all of whom played together all the time and grew up together, I suppose they were worried that attractions could occur. I certainly had what in retrospect was probably a "crush" on my very handsome older cousin, who looked a lot like my father in youth. Of course, one outgrows these things even if one can't name what they are, exactly at the time.

What I find very interesting, however, are the numerous papers, the latest of which was from Scandinavia, showing that some "closeness" in ancestry is actually beneficial. What the scientists found from studying genealogical records from hundreds of years into the past was that while first and second cousin marriages adversely affected fertility and disease risk, i.e. "genetic fitness", the offspring of totally unrelated couples also were less "fit". The most "fit" offspring were the products of third cousin mating. The speculation is that it has something to do with immune system compatibility as one of many possibilities.

There's an old, sexist saying in Italian: moglie e buoi dei paesi tuoi. Wives and oxen from your own village. (Sounds better in Italian because it rhymes.) They didn't know about genes, but they knew certain families ran to certain traits, and that certain marriages had more "luck" where children were concerned. You knew what you were getting, i.e. the bloodlines, the way you would know them about your horses, oxen, dogs etc. and it applied to men too, with marriage into certain male lines being frowned upon. Of course, nowadays, the ability to conceive and bear twelve or more healthy children isn't the boon it used to be. My handsome cousin wound up marrying one of our third cousins. She was very devout, so no birth control, and, to her dismay she joked that all he had to do was get into bed for her to get pregnant. She had seven beautiful, healthy, very intelligent children, but he went grey before his time trying to support them.

This constant "re-passing" of the same genes, especially in rural areas in the era before cars, trains, planes etc. is part of the reason that we see the continuity that we do.

[Angela]

First let's address you assertion that it was based on genetic analysis. Within the paragraph you quoted there were two references to other sources. One, reference 55 is "Vandorpe, K. Idnetity in Roman Egypt, 260–276 (Oxford University Press, 2012)." Not a genetics article. The second reference is "Rathbone, D. W. Villages, land and population in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Proc. Cambridge Philolog. Soc. 36, 103–142 (1990).Also not a genetics article.

From further up in the article"

"On the one hand, the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources is often complicated by selective representation and preservation and the fact that markers of foreign identity, such as, for example, Greek or Latin names and ethnics, quickly became ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike"

It seems that there was a loss of archaeological context in the recovered mummies. The authors also come to that conclusion:' This lack of context greatly diminishes the possibility of ‘thick description’ of the analysed individuals, at least in terms of their names, titles and materially expressed identity."

Here's also what I found in the article:

Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices2,45. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek46. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek45. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century, whose main interest was to obtain literary papyri from cartonnage rather than to excavate human remains"

In their conclusions, here's what the authors said:

"Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society"

So the article you quoted adds no genetic answer to the question of Greek population in Egypt in the Ptolemaic and post ptolemaic eras. Further studies might.

Now you're deliberately misrepresenting the findings of the paper.


""The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300-year timespan we studied," said Wolfgang Haak, group leader at the Max Planck Institute.
This period covered the rule of Alexander the Great (332-323 B.C.), the Ptolemaic dynasty (323-30 B.C.) and part of Roman rule (30 B.C.-A.D. 641). Strict social structures and legal incentives to marry along ethnic lines within these communities may have played a part in the Egyptians' genetic stasis, the paper speculates."

"A lot of people had assumed foreign invaders ... brought a lot of genetic ancestry into the region," Krause said. "People expected that through time, Egypt would become more European, but we see the exact opposite."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/healt...age/index.html

Now, if you had said maybe it was different in the Delta, or the sample size was too small, you'd have points with which I could agree, but you posted what is either stupid or a prevarication.

You once boasted how you aced the SATS while barely studying, or some such. Give me leave to doubt if you can't read a scientific paper and understand what it's saying, and need it summarized and dumbed down by the authors for you to get it.

That or you're a completely dishonest poster here.

Either way, try to misrepresent the findings of this study one more time and your posting privileges will be suspended. Am I clear?

[Angela]

Though it is possible that Maniot and Taygetos are even closer.

But also, the Southern Arc paper did mention that the Mycenaean-like profile also existed in Thrace at the time as well. Basically, they were similar, but not the Mycenaean. So It is possible that Puglia, among other areas of Southern Italy also had a Mycenaean-like population, that was further maintained by Greek colonists. Furthermore, it more likely that Northwestern influences account for the "Northern ancestry" in Apulia (i.e. Bell Beakers--->Italics), rather than straight-up Yamnaya. There is also the influence of Cetina culture, which was similar to modern Northern Italians. One thing I believe is far more likely, is that the "Southern" ancestry in Apulia is likely attributed to early Bronze-Age Aegean-like/Minoan-like peoples.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but on the Albanian threads there is in some members an absolute refusal to accept that finding of the paper.

It's beyond me, but there you have it.

[Jovialis]

I don't know if you're aware of it, but on the Albanian threads there is in some members an absolute refusal to accept that finding of the paper.

It's beyond me, but there you have it.

I just look at those threads like a jumble of nonsense, like the ramblings of a psychopath.

[eupator]

Ancient Greek colonisers took local women, sometimes after killing the male population that disagreed, that is a common theme in their relevant ethnography/history.

In Byzantine times, the ethnos was united under the Faith, and language secondary, the Eastern Roman state machine was a behemoth of absorption and assimilation. A lot of the Emperors themselves, even the most successful ones, were often of very diverse backgrounds, not just Greek, like Armenians, Isaurians, Thracians and Illyrians and other Balkaners, Iberians (Spain) and the list goes on. Basil II of the Macedonian dynasty who beat the Bulgars with his reconquista was paternally Armenian and maternally Bulgarian (the opposite mix to Samuel - his mortal enemy), Theodosius was Iberian, the Comnenians were part Thracian part Anatolian (or entirely Thracian depending on the source), Leon the 3rd was part Syrian/part Anatolian (again either/or in some sources) and so on ...

I don't see what the big deal is, these things are known for ages.

[bigsnake49]

Ancient Greek colonisers took local women, sometimes after killing the male population that disagreed, that is a common theme in their relevant ethnography/history.

In Byzantine times, the ethnos was united under the Faith, and language secondary, the Eastern Roman state machine was a behemoth of absorption and assimilation. A lot of the Emperors themselves, even the most successful ones, were often of very diverse backgrounds, not just Greek, like Armenians, Isaurians, Thracians and Illyrians and other Balkaners, Iberians (Spain) and the list goes on. Basil II of the Macedonian dynasty who beat the Bulgars with his reconquista was paternally Armenian and maternally Bulgarian (the opposite mix to Samuel - his mortal enemy), Theodosius was Iberian, the Comnenians were part Thracian part Anatolian (or entirely Thracian depending on the source), Leon the 3rd was part Syrian/part Anatolian (again either/or in some sources) and so on ...

I don't see what the big deal is, these things are known for ages.

If I am not mistaken, there was not one Greek (from Greece) Byzantine emperor (although the Byzanties never called themselves Byzantines, they called themselves Romans).

The Byzantine emperors like the Roman emperors moved populations around to counteract depopulation due to wars, famine and disease or rebellions. For example what people call the Slavic invasion might not have been an invasion at all. The Justinian plague decimated the urban centers of the empire. Justinian needed people that paid taxes so although he originally used the Avars to block the Slavs, he warmed up to the idea of them repopulating the Balkans. Georgios Kardaras has some fascinating monographs about the relation of Avars, Slavs and the Byzantine emperors and the truly "byzantine" machinations of the imperial court.

[Kuivamaa]

If I am not mistaken, there was not one Greek (from Greece) Byzantine emperor (although the Byzanties never called themselves Byzantines, they called themselves Romans).
The Byzantine emperors like the Roman emperors moved populations around to counteract depopulation due to wars, famine and disease or rebellions. For example what people call the Slavic invasion might not have been an invasion at all. The Justinian plague decimated the urban centers of the empire. Justinian needed people that paid taxes so although he originally used the Avars to block the Slavs, he warmed up to the idea of them repopulating the Balkans. Georgios Kardaras has some fascinating monographs about the relation of Avars, Slavs and the Byzantine emperors and the truly "byzantine" machinations of the imperial court.

There were several ethnic Greek emperors (starting from Maurice if we ignore those that were Greek on their mother’s side ) and the core Greek areas back then stretched from Ionian Sea all the way east of Capadocia, so singling out the area from contemporary Greece as not producing emperors is nonsensical. And also inaccurate. From the top of my head, Empress Irene of Athens, is a very famous example. Michael I was from a Greek family with origins in Salonica, probably born in Constantinople, Komnenos family (multiple emperors) were Greek Thracians ( from Orestiada or Didymotichon both in contemporary Greek Thrace) etc. Of course there were also plenty of Armenian, Thracian, Balkan Latin etc emperors.


The Slavs most certainly weren’t settlers that got invited over to populate areas. They were part of a larger wave of population movements (triggered by steppe people etc) and their passage through Greece is well recorded. They avoided garrisoned areas (like Athens, isthmus of Corinth etc), they avoided the densely populated plains and coastal areas and they settled in mountains and highlands, and even created forts to protect themselves. Being pagans they did not become imperial subjects until they got converted to Christianity.

[Jovialis]

G25 version of "Comparing the modeling of Ancient Greeks to modern Greeks and Italians"

Thank you to Lukas for posting the simulation tool.

It looks the same as the Dodecad K12b version, with some slight variation.

Yamnaya_Samara,0.122482,0.105703,0.050417,0.094832,-0.019530,0.067302,-0.002916,-0.012350,-0.037627,-0.061136,-0.004795,-0.009621,0.015083,0.002641,0.010517,0.012294,-0.005724,-0.000899,-0.002742,-0.009487,-0.005137,0.001379,0.005377,-0.001199,0.000736
Minoan_Zakros:I14916,0.107965,0.175043,-0.043188,-0.081848,0.018443,-0.046239,0.015567,0.022724,0.002661,0.038483,0.003795,0.008205,-0.012183,-0.000822,-0.006065,-0.010807,0.004190,-0.002213,-0.001629,0.008995,0.002561,0.000974,-0.003401,-0.000084,-0.002337
Minoan_Lasithi,0.116961,0.183279,-0.029107,-0.086099,0.027212,-0.045190,0.012910,0.021275,0.010535,0.044143,0.003807,0.008700,-0.013195,-0.004722,-0.002464,-0.006743,0.001660,-0.001554,-0.000353,0.006721,0.003549,0.000216,-0.004245,-0.001076,-0.001736
Minoan_Odigitria,0.117562,0.179047,-0.021343,-0.080214,0.029083,-0.041611,0.011036,0.018722,0.017454,0.048385,0.003171,0.009392,-0.015094,-0.007857,0.000286,-0.003164,-0.000190,-0.000059,0.001772,0.004355,0.004496,0.000056,-0.005525,-0.001839,-0.001131
Minoan_Petras,0.100377,0.176276,-0.029971,-0.085329,0.025730,-0.044810,0.011952,0.021085,0.008989,0.041663,0.003582,0.007105,-0.010081,-0.003382,-0.003147,-0.006996,0.001746,-0.001923,-0.001132,0.007622,0.003310,0.000533,-0.003678,-0.000643,-0.001788

[ponticman]

Hello

Complete noob here, what tool is this? similar to vahaduo?

[Jovialis]

Hello

Complete noob here, what tool is this? similar to vahaduo?

This is indeed vahaduo, it is under the "multi" tab.