A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and WestAsia

[matadworf]

Bergin: You're welcome. You have some close distances for these samples.

Hey just curious where are the coordinates that Salento estimated for Dodecad 12 K? Thanks

 

[Jovialis]

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Hey just curious where are the coordinates that Salento estimated for Dodecad 12 K? Thanks

Salento has a link for them that you can download the coordinates in post #121 in the Adna Dodecad12b thread.

 

[matadworf]

Distance to:	Anthony_C_scaled
0.03118023	MKD_Anc:I10391___female___BC_300___Coverage_66.29%
0.03328139	MKD_BA:I7231___R-CTS7556___BC_1219___Coverage_72.93%
0.03329729	MKD_Anc:I10388___J-Y13128___BC_708___Coverage_67.44%
0.03407186	MKD_Anc:I10390___G-Z6494___BC_393___Coverage_67.94%
0.03898782	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I14692___female___BC_950___Coverage_69.46%
0.03966204	MKD_Anc:I10385___female___BC_641___Coverage_69.29%
0.04203850	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I14688___R-L51___BC_500___Coverage_66.52%
0.04217829	MKD_Anc:I10381___C-V86___BC_636___Coverage_22.20%
0.04365851	MKD_Anc:I10384___J-Y13128___BC_600___Coverage_65.57%
0.04384365	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16251___R-M269___BC_550___Coverage_36.88%
0.04616448	MKD_Anc:I10387___female___BC_600___Coverage_43.99%
0.04792661	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I14690___R-CTS1450___BC_1050___Coverage_65.05%
0.05081105	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16253___J-Y21878___BC_476___Coverage_33.12%
0.05129287	MKD_Anc:I7233___female___BC_850___Coverage_74.59%
0.05145260	MKD_Anc:I10379___female___BC_641___Coverage_66.02%
0.05351353	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13514___female___BC_1215___Coverage_76.28%
0.05373817	GRC_Palace_of_Nestor_EIA:I19368___female___BC_1010___Coverage_10.73%
0.05438663	MKD_Anc_outlier2:I10167___R-M269___BC_121___Coverage_12.67%
0.05518335	MKD_Anc:I8112___R-CTS1450___BC_664___Coverage_70.53%
0.05540831	MKD_Anc:I10383___female___BC_657___Coverage_67.48%
0.05545206	GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13577___G-Z7016___BC_1250___Coverage_24.67%
0.05663489	MKD_Anc:I10389___female___BC_600___Coverage_15.50%
0.06018596	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA_father.or.son.I13518:I13506_d___R-M269___BC_1135___Coverage_20.12%
0.06075867	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13517_d___G-Z6494___BC_1328___Coverage_25.65%
0.06172027	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16254___J-Z622___BC_500___Coverage_13.08%
0.06247463	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19366___female___BC_1328___Coverage_50.11%
0.06273291	ALB_Çinamak_Anc:I16256___female___BC_550___Coverage_24.95%
0.06350233	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13518___R-PF7563___BC_1135___Coverage_81.11%
0.06562402	GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I15571___female___BC_1467___Coverage_43.29%
0.06841955	GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I16709___J-Y14434___BC_1419___Coverage_15.29%
0.06875100	MKD_Mdv:I2530___female___AD_1035___Coverage_58.80%
0.07215136	GRC_Kastrouli_Anc:I17962___T-S27463___BC_644___Coverage_41.33%
0.07245051	GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13579___J-Y14434___BC_1266___Coverage_18.01%
0.07519836	GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19364___R-M269___BC_1135___Coverage_12.16%
0.07829703	GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13578___female___BC_1312___Coverage_12.52%
0.07920786	GRC_Marathon_Rom:I7833___T-CTS3767___AD_340___Coverage_80.92%
0.08026927	GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I15582___female___BC_1516___Coverage_25.55%
0.10844563	GRC_Minoan_Zakros_BA:I14916___female___BC_1818___Coverage_13.17%
0.10921204	MKD_Anc_outlier1:I10392___J-BY94___BC_300___Coverage_67.05%
0.11004986	ALB_Çinamak_EBA:I14689___R-M269___BC_2555___Coverage_48.90%

 

[eupator]

The Pelasgians are presented as 'formely their neighbours' with a homeland (?) in Thessaly.

He supposes that Athenians may have changed their language from 'Pelasgian' to Hellenic but he is unsure about the language Pelasgians were speaking originally but he supposes it was a 'barbarian' language whatever that means. Either way, both Hellenic and Pelasgian ethne are presented as essentially native in Greece.

Pelasgians in this case being the exonym used for the pre-Greek speakers of the region and Hellenes the Greek speakers.

The Mycenean samples in the paper show an increase of both CHG and PPN in the Minoan substratum, evidence of a continuous gene flow from Anatolia (and adjacent) into the region in the Bronze Age, the Marathon and the Byzantine samples portraying the evolution of this geneflow, time to pack it in and get over it, the argument has ran its course.

 

[eupator]

The gradually increasing input of Anatolian admixture into Greeks over time only bothers the following (feel free to add to the list):

1) Greek autochthonist / Med-supremacist weirdo fringe types.

2) Modern Greeks with little Anatolian input, who want to turn ancient Greeks into medieval Vlacho-Bogdanians like their own medieval ancestors.

3) The "East-Med" gang of anthrogenica who need to protect the purity/origin of the "Levantine-input" in the Italian peninsula at all costs, so evidence of early Anatolian geneflow into Greeks is pissing them off.

 

[Vallicanus]

Now one poster on Anthrogenica is accusing Lazaridis of political bias.

 

[Vallicanus]

Here's a thought for all these academics and people that spend 14 hours a day making models: Do some mtDNA analysis.

Stop focusing on Y-DNA alone and see the specific clades of mtDNA that existed in the steppe/caucus/middle east.

Quite right. That would answer many questions for sure.

In the past many of us used to complain that studies were focused on mtdna because it was easier to work with.

 

[Pax Augusta]

In the past many of us used to complain that studies were focused on mtdna because it was easier to work with.

At the beginning they were focused on mtDNA because it was also the only one they could analyse.

 

[Francesco]

The gradually increasing input of Anatolian admixture into Greeks over time only bothers the following (feel free to add to the list):

1) Greek autochthonist / Med-supremacist weirdo fringe types.

2) Modern Greeks with little Anatolian input, who want to turn ancient Greeks into medieval Vlacho-Bogdanians like their own medieval ancestors.

3) The "East-Med" gang of anthrogenica who need to protect the purity/origin of the "Levantine-input" in the Italian peninsula at all costs, so evidence of early Anatolian geneflow into Greeks is pissing them off.

There is a continuous input from Anatolian in Greece from the Neolithic (wich affect all of Europe) to the bronze age, with the latter enriched by CHG components (and PPN Levant as well?). We know that since the first paper on Minoans and Myceneans and nobody can deny that. This input goes even furter and reached Southern Italy by the middle bronze age, even before the proper Greek colonization as it's attested by the archeological findings of many Mycenaeans artifacts in Italy.

If I'm am not mistaken, then, this paper showed an even further "event" of "anatolian admixture" happening in the Iron Age and affecting the greek colonists on the Ionian coast (wich may have then spread to the rest of the aegean as well?). But I may have mistaken this point and would like to know other points of view.

So, there surely is continuity in the region and I think that the major scope of the paper was to show this continuity between Anatolia, Greece and the rest of the eurpean continent.

 

[Pax Augusta]

What Lazaridis wrote on Twitter about the movement from Anatolia to the west. It is obvious that if there really was this movement it was everywhere to the east of Italy, in the whole Balkans, and it can also be found elsewhere, even to the west and to north of Italy, although autosomal DNA hides it more.

But many ancient samples are still missing. For the Bronze and Iron Ages from Italy, for example.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

 

[Francesco]

What Lazaridis wrote on Twitter about the movement from Anatolia to the west. It is obvious that if there really was this movement it was everywhere to the east of Italy, in the whole Balkans, and it can also be found elsewhere, even to the west and to north of Italy, although autosomal DNA hides it more.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

I think (but this is just my opinion and I could be completely wrong), that when considering the genetic and demography changes we have to distinguish between movements of peoples from movement of individuals.
The latter's could be just as big, in numbers, but they lack on thing: they do not move as a political entity, thay do not have proper political institutions and, above all, they do not claim the land they move in as their own. Instead, they are just merchant and, expecially during the Roman empire, slaves, with far less possibility to leave a genetic legacy.

This is, i believe, the biggest difference between the Greek colonization of the early Iron Age, wich is a movement of a population, founding communities with proper institutions, and the movement of individuals from the eastern provinces of the Empire, who came as guests, if not as slaves.

So, no wonder the latter leaves less "traces" behind, even if - I agree with you - it must have interested all of the provinces of the Empire, maybe even those west of Italy.

 

[kingjohn]

Now one poster on Anthrogenica is accusing Lazaridis of political bias.

Must be a eurogenes bloger
They are losing it they admire davidski
And attacking world class experts like lazaridis
And reich
There agenda is :
Everyone is wrong except davidski go figure

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Pelasgians in this case being the exonym used for the pre-Greek speakers of the region and Hellenes the Greek speakers.

The Mycenean samples in the paper show an increase of both CHG and PPN in the Minoan substratum, evidence of a continuous gene flow from Anatolia (and adjacent) into the region in the Bronze Age, the Marathon and the Byzantine samples portraying the evolution of this geneflow, time to pack it in and get over it, the argument has ran its course.

Whatever. Your issues are psychological. The point is you should not use Herodotus to support whatever you want to support. He is more of an 'autochthonist'.
"Hellenes" while they presented as πολυπλάνητοι they move from Central Greece to NW Greece, then south and some islands (Rhodes, Crete).

 

[eupator]

Whatever. The point is you should not use Herodotus to support whatever you want to support.

Οh, is that right?

Why is that? Because you say so?

 

[eupator]

Your issues are psychological.

Ad hominem, the last retreat of the desperate.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Οh, is that right?

Why is that? Because you say so?

He doesn't say what you say.

Movements from Anatolia are consistent with the myths e.g. the myth o Pelops who is presented as Lydian or Phrygian. Movements from Levant are also consistend with the myths.
E.g. the Hellenes are expelled from Pthiotis by Cadmeans according to Herodotus.

 

[eupator]

He doesn't say what you say.

Movements from Anatolia are consistent with the myths e.g. the myth o Pelops who is presented as Lydian or Phrygian. Movements from Levant are also consistend with the myths.
E.g. the Hellenes are expelled from Pthiotis by Cadmeans according to Herodotus.

I only mentioned a sentence in a context ("Greek speakers" VS "non Greek speakers", the Athenians being the latter, according to him, who adopted the tongue of the Hellenes) that went completely over your head because you are so invested against Anatolian input in the Myceneans.

Leaving the Levant PPN admixture aside (I'll get back to it later), I am all ears to learn how CHG is autochthonous to the region where Balkan HGs live and how that 20.1%+-2.2% CHG ended up in Myceneans jumping over Anatolia.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

There is a continuous input from Anatolian in Greece from the Neolithic (wich affect all of Europe) to the bronze age, with the latter enriched by CHG components (and PPN Levant as well?). We know that since the first paper on Minoans and Myceneans and nobody can deny that. This input goes even furter and reached Southern Italy by the middle bronze age, even before the proper Greek colonization as it's attested by the archeological findings of many Mycenaeans artifacts in Italy.

If I'm am not mistaken, then, this paper showed an even further "event" of "anatolian admixture" happening in the Iron Age and affecting the greek colonists on the Ionian coast (wich may have then spread to the rest of the aegean as well?). But I may have mistaken this point and would like to know other points of view.

So, there surely is continuity in the region and I think that the major scope of the paper was to show this continuity between Anatolia, Greece and the rest of the eurpean continent.

In the study they have an example of movements (establishment of colonies and emporia) without admixture: Phoceans move from mainland Greece to Anatolia, from Anatolia to Marseille and then Catalonia without mixing with other populations in Anatolia or West Europe and they have a 'Mycenaean' profile.

In Halikarnassos on the other hand which was a Dorian colony there is evidence of mixing. Samsun, an Ionian colony, too as they say.

They say:
"This pattern is qualitatavely different from that at Empuries in Iberia and is consistent with the account of Herodotus that early Greek colonists of Anatolia married indigenous Carian women"..

Herodotus speaks about Miletus though, which was an Ionian colony, not about Halikarnassus.

It seems imho that in Halikarnassus at least there was assimilation of local Karian males too who seemed to have carried by they way Y-DNA I-P78, which is interesting.

So there were cases of creating colonies/emporia with
1) no admixture or no significant admixture
2) admixture primarily from local women
3) admixture from assimilated local males too

It would be interesting if the Dorians were the ones more likely to accept local males on their colonies.

 

[Er Monnezza]

3) The "East-Med" gang of anthrogenica who need to protect the purity/origin of the "Levantine-input" in the Italian peninsula at all costs, so evidence of early Anatolian geneflow into Greeks is pissing them off.

They say and know very well that there is continuous geneflow from Anatolia to Greece, I don't see why they should be pissed off?

"Levantine-input" means that, in addition to an Anatolian shift, there was another one that increased Natufian/PPNB-related ancestry both in Greece and Anatolia, probably during the Hellenistic period and after.

Sample	TUR_Barcin_N	GEO_CHG	IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N	Levant_Natufian	RUS_Samara_HG
TUR_Muğla_Değirmendere_615_BC	69,2	14,9	12,9	1,5	1,5
TUR_Gordion_653-646_BC	56,9	24,7	10,5	7,4	0,5
Greek_Dodecanese	57,3	13,3	13,8	7,8	7,8