Comparing Ancient Greek populations to modern Greeks and Italians

Does the Himera study count? Was it the Limes study that established that modern Greeks have up to 30% Slavic admixture+70% Mycenaean ? All I am saying is that there were Greek outposts all over the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Some of them were very far away from Greece and by necessity could not send home for brides. So they married local women. Now if you are talking about large self sustaining colonies like Siracusa or Taranto maybe they could marry within the Greek community.


And for modern Greeks I would add (in a quote by Glykatzi - Arveler):

"Ουδέποτε το όνομα Έλλην ξαναβρήκε όλη του την αίγλη, αλλά το Ρωμηός, Ρωμαίος, σήμαινε Έλληνας το γένος και τη γλώσσα, η οποία γλώσσα ήταν γραικική και τα ήθη ρωμαϊκά ..."

"The name Hellene never regained all its glory (mine: since antiquity), but Rhomeos, Rhoman, meant Greek in the genos and language, which language was Greek and manners (mine: tradition) Rhoman ..."

The Greeks were (Eastern) Rhomans but not all (Eastern) Rhomans were strictly Greek.

But, all together, their descendants, the modern Greeks, is the Orthodox nation of Jesus Christ, and their language is Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament.



Edit:

Edit: This popular rendition of the Medieval poem encapsulates perfectly the essence of what it means to be modern Greek:


 
There's definitely been mixing nowadays in Greece but it's still not as frequent as you make it to be. I'm 20 years old and the vast majority of my friends relatives and other people I come regularly in touch with are still pretty much "pure" Greeks. Although of course there's been mixing one of my closest friends is half ukrano polish for example and I live in the 3rd largest city of Greece
 
There's definitely been mixing nowadays in Greece but it's still not as frequent as you make it to be. I'm 20 years old and the vast majority of my friends relatives and other people I come regularly in touch with are still pretty much "pure" Greeks. Although of course there's been mixing one of my closest friends is half ukrano polish for example and I live in the 3rd largest city of Greece

My one sister who is Thracian married a mainland Greek from Aitoloakarnania the other married a man from Chalkidiki. So people don't necessarily marry people from their villages and small towns they marry people from other areas. My uncle married an Arvanite woman. People are not just marrying other people from their insular community.
 
My one sister who is Thracian married a mainland Greek from Aitoloakarnania the other married a man from Chalkidiki. So people don't necessarily marry people from their villages and small towns they marry people from other areas. My uncle married an Arvanite woman. People are not just marrying other people from their insular community.

Ofcourse, regionalism is in decline all over Europe. But at much faster speed compared to what it was decades ago. Greece is no exception. Back in the day there weren't even roads to connect different locations. People were isolated in their own micro-cosmos. Confined by the mountains around them. They even had their own dishes and music. Some locations in Greece could only be reached through sea. And small islands were almost completely isolated. Now there are many millions of tourists annually from all over the world. There are highways on the mainland. You can get anywhere within hours of driving. You can meet anyone on a dating app.
 
Congratulations to all the pure Greeks that went back to Greece and brought back Greek brides and had their kids marry other Greeks. But this is not about personal experience is it? If I go by personal experience my two best friends and I all married non-Greeks or mixed Greek Americans.

I go by the fact that most Pontic Greeks test very close to the Laz people. Same with Greeks from Georgia. I go by the Himera paper in which we see admixture with local people. I go by the fact that there is up to 30% slavic admixture in modern Greeks. Remember that Alexander the Great married 3 Persian women himself and presided in 324 in a mass wedding of 80 of his generals and nobles to local Persian noble women. Before Constantine established a state religion there were many religions in the Roman Empire and before that during the Hellenistic period the rulers respected the local religion and customs. This exclusivity and prohibition of other religions was found in Abrahamic religions.

Here is also this:

"By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins.[14] By the time of Roman emperor Caracalla in the 2nd century CE, the only way to differentiate Alexandria's "Greeks" from "genuine" ethnic Egyptians was "by their speech."
[15]"

https://history.fandom.com/wiki/Greeks_in_Egypt#Greco-Roman_Egypt



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.















 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Code:
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
5Oaq91f.png
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.

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





 
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.

UpukOr9.png


epI5kEs.png
 

This thread has been viewed 124967 times.

Back
Top