Genetic study A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations

[Vitruvius]

It is highly likely that we will find Western Anatolian like profiles before the Hellenistic era in mainland Greece. After the Trojan War Greece was connected to Anatolia. Athens created an empire focused on Anatolia. By the Classical era there must have been plenty such profiles in cities of mainland Greece. Certainly Northern Greece also has been influenced from migrations coming from Anatolia. These types are even to be found in the Balkans since antiquity.

Agreed. Greece as it emerged into the historical era/iron age included the full western coast of Anatolia and by this point there was not any great distinction between anatolian greeks and european mainlanders. It seems obvious to me that the Trojan wars were simply one of many which ended up subjugating the full western coast line and assimilating many anatolian populations into the Greek world. That being said I think it's also likely that Northern Greece would have been influenced much less and would have probably retained a significantly higher steppe profile in comparison to the dodecanese islands or the peloponnesian world.

 

[xri34]

I disagree. There is a significant change which is the shifting of averages to becoming modern like and it cannot be ignored. Obviously we don't see 100% of the samples overlapping moderns, but the change in ancestry is significant and we are now looking at more or less a 50% overlap with moderns which is not at all what we saw with Lazaridis' samples. I have yet to find time to look at your average and compare it to the rest of the samples but I'll get around to it when I do find some time.

What's more difficult for me to believe is that these modern high steppe type individuals are going to supposedly disappear and only 2000 years later will the profile resurface as a result of slavic introgression. This is highly unlikely no matter how I slice it. Their origin is very much in line with what we already know about the rest of the cline of the ancient balkan peninsula.

In my opinion what we see here is not some kind of modern-like samples, but samples clustering in a cline between Balkans and Anatolia which makes sense.

Even ignoring most of the samples and taking the higher Steppe admixed of them, we see that they plot closer to Central Italians because they lack the Anatolian components. So we need an Anatolian source as well which will lead them to a more "southeastern" direction towards Aegean and not the modern Mainland. If we also include the rest which have very low Steppe, then we are again to the typical group modelled as Dodecanese + Sardinian-like mix (I speak on average because variations exist).

I would have a different approach if 1) the average of the Steppe in the samples was different and 2) we had found highly Steppe admixed profiles with higher CHG/Iran N (Maniot or Cyclades-like, not 70% Maniot +30% Sardinian mix).

About the source of the extra Steppe, I have already clarified that I don't think the extra Steppe in modern Greeks comes just from Slavs. The native Balkan element seems also strong based on the data

 

[ihype02]

The 40% Slavic is just more northern ancestry. Some of it is Gothic or Scythian but most of it is Slavic.
The 40% decreases do 35% when you use Thracian samples. So unless you believe Thracians were closer to South Greeks than Macedonians were then the percentage wont change radically.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Is there much of a difference to distinguish South Thracians with the Northern ones? BGR_IA was from Northern Bulgaria.

Nothing revealing came out of this study. None of the E-V13 samples looked pure unmixed IA profiles, all have BA Anatolian and Levant admixture, at rates equal to or higher than Thracians.
These three samples are most likely North Thracian/Moesian.

Ukraine_Babadag.SG:MJ-12,0.138864,0.141159,0.018479,-0.005491,0.023697,-0.00753,-0.003525,-0.004615,-0.002454,0.028611,0.00406,0.006894,-0.004311,-0.007569,-0.010993,0.003447,0.026077,0.00076,0.014707,0.01088,-0.014474,0.007914,0.002711,0.01217,0.006945
Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast:I18832_E-V13,0.120652,0.147252,0.024513,-0.023579,0.026466,-0.007809,0.00141,-0.006923,0.011249,0.032438,0.001786,0.007194,-0.01888,-0.009496,-0.024158,0.001193,0.028163,0.006081,0.005656,-0.008004,-0.01435,0.000495,0.005053,0.005543,-0.000838
Skopje_IA:I10379,0.129758,0.149283,0.024136,-0.029716,0.028313,-0.016176,0.005405,-0.000923,0.000205,0.03426,-0.003573,0.011839,-0.010258,-0.003853,-0.017236,0.0118,0.029597,-0.00038,0.006662,-0.002376,-0.018093,0.000866,-0.001232,0.007109,-0.004311

 

[ihype02]

Nothing revealing came out of this study. None of the E-V13 samples looked pure unmixed IA profiles, all have BA Anatolian and Levant admixture, at rates equal to or higher than Thracians.
These three samples are most likely North Thracian/Moesian.

Ukraine_Babadag.SG:MJ-12,0.138864,0.141159,0.018479,-0.005491,0.023697,-0.00753,-0.003525,-0.004615,-0.002454,0.028611,0.00406,0.006894,-0.004311,-0.007569,-0.010993,0.003447,0.026077,0.00076,0.014707,0.01088,-0.014474,0.007914,0.002711,0.01217,0.006945
Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast:I18832_E-V13,0.120652,0.147252,0.024513,-0.023579,0.026466,-0.007809,0.00141,-0.006923,0.011249,0.032438,0.001786,0.007194,-0.01888,-0.009496,-0.024158,0.001193,0.028163,0.006081,0.005656,-0.008004,-0.01435,0.000495,0.005053,0.005543,-0.000838
Skopje_IA:I10379,0.129758,0.149283,0.024136,-0.029716,0.028313,-0.016176,0.005405,-0.000923,0.000205,0.03426,-0.003573,0.011839,-0.010258,-0.003853,-0.017236,0.0118,0.029597,-0.00038,0.006662,-0.002376,-0.018093,0.000866,-0.001232,0.007109,-0.004311

E-V13 was extremely confusing, now it is even more confusing.

 

[Vitruvius]

In my opinion what we see here is not some kind of modern-like samples, but samples clustering in a cline between Balkans and Anatolia which makes sense.

Even ignoring most of the samples and taking the higher Steppe admixed of them, we see that they plot closer to Central Italians because they lack the Anatolian components. So we need an Anatolian source as well which will lead them to a more "southeastern" direction towards Aegean and not the modern Mainland. If we also include the rest which have very low Steppe, then we are again to the typical group modelled as Dodecanese + Sardinian-like mix (I speak on average because variations exist).

I would have a different approach if 1) the average of the Steppe in the samples was different and 2) we had found highly Steppe admixed profiles with higher CHG/Iran N (Maniot or Cyclades-like, not 70% Maniot +30% Sardinian mix).

About the source of the extra Steppe, I have already clarified that I don't think the extra Steppe in modern exists comes just from Slavs. The native Balkan element seems also strong based on the data

Central Italians overlap Greek mainlanders, so I don't really see your point here. You can check the PCA I posted earlier or their distances and the Italian population of modern Lazio directly simply overlaps Laconian Greeks.

It's like trying to claim that a population overlaps Cretans but not Southern Italians - they share the same type of ancestral profile so this is really impossible to claim. The "northern" ancestry in modern central Italians comes from in turn northern Italians who derive it from Bronze age populations that emerged out of the Carpathian basin. What this means is that when looking at populations that sit on this N. Balkan > W. Anatolian cline they will appear ancestrally identical until you begin to add in further cultural identifiers, similar to many northern and central European nations. To say that any of these LBA greeks looked like modern central Italians is the same as saying they look like modern Greek mainlanders.

 

[Vitruvius]

It’s not just the Marathon sample. Also the ancient inhabitants of Thessaloniki seem to have more Anatolian input. Hellenistic Greeks seem to be more Western Anatolian than Mycenaeans. They also may have more Steppe ancestry. Yet, these results have not been published yet and are just assumptions.

I personally wonder if Dorians had a decent amount of recent West Anatolian admixture.

In order to have a good estimation of admixture throughout the ages, we should compare specimens from each region to modern individuals from the same area.

It is quite remarkable that already we have evidence that some Eastern Greek islanders today are identical to the Ionian Greeks of antiquity.

I would certainly like to see some 50 specimens of Hellenistic mainland Greece. North to South. Then we can make some assumptions. As for the Slavs, we would need samples from 5th century mainland Greek specimens to compare.

One way or the other, Thucydides mentioned lots of population movement until after the Trojan War. Writing was not just suddenly forgotten without ANY sort of genetic impact.

Can you post the study and/or G25 coordinates of these ancient Greeks of Thessaloniki? I'm unfamiliar with them and I'm also unfamiliar with their dating. Personally I don't think comparing ancient to modern regional averages within Greece is a great way to identify Slavic admixture because such a method by default assumes that Greeks themselves haven't moved around internally or differed in fertility rates over time. My thought is simply that if modern Greek mainland profiles were found as an average in the northern and central parts of Greece, then these same types are those responsible for any spread of any steppe ancestry southward. If a slavic replacement scenario were to occur, we should instead expect modern northern Greek profiles to not exist at all until the 700s and onward as there is no reason for Slavs to avoid colonizing and affecting the northern part of the country.

 

[xri34]

Central Italians overlap Greek mainlanders, so I don't really see your point here. You can check the PCA I posted earlier and the Italian population of modern Lazio directly simply overlaps Laconian Greeks.

View attachment 14665It's like trying to claim that a population overlaps Cretans but not Southern Italians - they share the same type of ancestral profile so this is really impossible to claim. The "northern" ancestry in modern central Italians comes from in turn northern Italians who derive it from Bronze age populations that emerged out of the Carpathian basin. What this means is that when looking at populations that sit on this N. Balkan > W. Anatolian cline they will appear ancestrally identical until you begin to add in further cultural identifiers, similar to many northern and central European nations. To say that any of these LBA greeks looked like modern central Italians is the same as saying they look like modern Greek mainlanders.

I didn't say the samples plot with central Italians. I said the most Steppe admixed are closer to central Italians comparing to the rest of the modern pops.

The more significant part though is not their closer modern pop but

1) They are modelled as Sardinian + Aegean, a combo of neolithic components which indicates you need extra CHG/Iran N and then extra Steppe to create a proper modern mainland Greek profile

2) In their own historic and geographic context they are a group plotting between Balkans and Anatolia which makes sense

Check this. I made models with the closest to modern Peloponnese sample. It is one of the highest Steppe-admixed samples

Distance to:	Greek_Peloponnese
0.02912728	Albania_Medieval
0.03228959	Greece_LBA_Chania:XAN030
0.06538920	TUR_C_Gordion_Anc:I4029_all
0.10036221	Ukrainian_Zakarpattia

Target: Greek_Peloponnese Distance: 0.0153% / 0.01532306
40.3	Greece_LBA_Chania:XAN030
37.0	TUR_C_Gordion_Anc:I4029_all
22.7	Ukrainian_Zakarpattia

Target: Greek_Peloponnese Distance: 0.0131% / 0.01306812
29.8	TUR_C_Gordion_Anc:I4029_all
26.0	Greece_LBA_Chania:XAN030
24.7	Albania_Medieval
19.5	Ukrainian_Zakarpattia

 

[Dianatomia]

Can you post the study and/or G25 coordinates of these ancient Greeks of Thessaloniki? I'm unfamiliar with them and I'm also unfamiliar with their dating. Personally I don't think comparing ancient to modern regional averages within Greece is a great way to identify Slavic admixture because such a method by default assumes that Greeks themselves haven't moved around internally or differed in fertility rates over time. My thought is simply that if modern Greek mainland profiles were found as an average in the northern and central parts of Greece, then these same types are those responsible for any spread of any steppe ancestry southward. If a slavic replacement scenario were to occur, we should instead expect modern northern Greek profiles to not exist at all until the 700s and onward as there is no reason for Slavs to avoid colonizing and affecting the northern part of the country.

Unfortunatelly they haven’t been officially published yet. Hence my point that it’s just an assumption so far. I wrote the researcher. But no reply yet.

I don’t fully agree with you regarding higher steppe individuals in Northern Greece can be the sole source of higher levels of Steppe ancestry in modern Greeks. Because this steppe component will largely have been deluded with time. Unless ofcourse there has been a selection process for higher Steppe individuals. There are too many factors to contemplate. Wars, famine, plagues. Did anyone research how the plague in Ancient Greece impacted the genetic pool?

How about Thalassemia? Higher Steppe individuals are more immune to this illness. Some researches show that people who carried the Thalassemia genes are resistant to certain plagues. After the epidemic, people who carry these genes survive. But if inherited from both parents, it will lead to the death of the infant. So the infant mortality rate of people carrying these genes is far higher than people who do not carry these genes. Give it a few centuries and the Steppe levels will change.

There is a lot to contemplate. Best way to find out about Slavic admixture is to test 5th venture and 8th century mainland Greeks.

 

[Dianatomia]

In my opinion what we see here is not some kind of modern-like samples, but samples clustering in a cline between Balkans and Anatolia which makes sense.

Even ignoring most of the samples and taking the higher Steppe admixed of them, we see that they plot closer to Central Italians because they lack the Anatolian components. So we need an Anatolian source as well which will lead them to a more "southeastern" direction towards Aegean and not the modern Mainland. If we also include the rest which have very low Steppe, then we are again to the typical group modelled as Dodecanese + Sardinian-like mix (I speak on average because variations exist).

I would have a different approach if 1) the average of the Steppe in the samples was different and 2) we had found highly Steppe admixed profiles with higher CHG/Iran N (Maniot or Cyclades-like, not 70% Maniot +30% Sardinian mix).

About the source of the extra Steppe, I have already clarified that I don't think the extra Steppe in modern Greeks comes just from Slavs. The native Balkan element seems also strong based on the data

You do realise that after the 7th century B.C. Asia Minor was was an inherent part of the Greek world. The biggest Greek cities aside from say Athens and perhaps another one or two were in Asia Minor. Lots of discoveries were made there. Lots of philosophers were from there. The Greeks were a Sea people, the Aegean was their habitat. And it is well known that they traveled beyond.

If the Greeks would lack this West Anatolian component, it would be a sign of discontinuation. Even Rome was overrun by this component. Are we to suppose that mainland Greece was isolated from it until after the Hellenistic era?

In the MBA the Greeks melted in Thessaly and Epirus
In the Late Broze Age they melted in the Peloponnese and the Aegean
In the Iron Age and in the Classical Age they melted in Asia Minor.
In the Hellenistic Age and early Roman era they melted in Alexandria and Macedonia.
And in the Middle Ages they melted in Constantinople.

People see the higher levels of Steppe in Greeks as a form of discontinuation, but fail to acknowledge that higher levels of Asia Minor component is a sign of continuation of Greeks prior to the Slavs.

 

[Francesco]

As i wrote in other threads, I also believe that during the Iron Age, from archaic to classical period (VIII-V century BC), we will see an increase of west asian admixture in mainland Greece (and a symmetrical increase of greek admixture in West Asia) due to a significant mobility in the Aegean Sea, whose signals are somewhat detectable in some LBA samples as well..

Under this perspective, I wouldn't even be sure that the hellenistic age showed and increase of this intra-aegean mobility, wich was likely already there in the previous centuries.

I might be wrong though. Extensive sampling from the classical age period will help in determine if this shift was already there or if it happened only after the hellenistic period.

 

[TetaEglantina]

Weren't Minoans mostly EEF? Mycenaeans had some Steppe (30%) and then would have mixed with Minoans over time reducing their Steppe. Then people from the north (Urnfield related) destroyed Mycenae but we don't know how much genetic input they left - depending on this input Greeks may have had increased Steppe + WHG. Before 700BC Greece shouldn't have had much levantine or anatolian input. However after the rise of Persian empire is when Greece would have had some levantine and anatolian input, and then again during the Roman era

 

[Riverman]

Weren't Minoans mostly EEF? Mycenaeans had some Steppe (30%) and then would have mixed with Minoans over time reducing their Steppe. Then people from the north (Urnfield related) destroyed Mycenae but we don't know how much genetic input they left - depending on this input Greeks may have had increased Steppe + WHG. Before 700BC Greece shouldn't have had much levantine or anatolian input. However after the rise of Persian empire is when Greece would have had some levantine and anatolian input, and then again during the Roman era

Keep in mind that both Greeks and incoming Thracians settled in Anatolia and we do know there was an Anatolian influx already in the EIA. People with the same language (Greek and Thracian respectively) are more likely to mix and it looks like they picked something up in the East, both of them.
When and how much exactly is up to debate. It could also be different for Greeks depending on their tribe and community - like if they had an Anatolian colony or not etc.

 

[blevins13]

In the MBA the Greeks melted in Thessaly and Epirus

Assuming that there was something to melt to being with. Mycenaean do not have Balkan Huntergather which is an indication of low melting chances in Epirus.

While for the eastern model there was no need for melting, just simple sporadic mingle with intruders.

And let not forget Pelops came from Anatolia which would imply an eastern model.

 

[Dianatomia]

Assuming that there was something to melt to being with. Mycenaean do not have Balkan Huntergather which is an indication of low melting chances in Epirus.

While for the eastern model there was no need for melting, just simple sporadic mingle with intruders.

And let not forget Pelops came from Anatolia which would imply an eastern model.

If the original inhabitants from the Peloponnese were Minoan like, they were from Anatolia indeed. That accounts for Pelops being from Anatolia. But then Logkas like individuals intermingled with them. One out of three Logkas like individuals is enough to create Mycenaean genetic proportions. Mycenaeans are still largely Anatolian.

And even if the Steppe did come from Anatolia, it could have taken the Balkan route. Not from the Sea.

Sporadic intermingling does not coincide with the historical record. The Ancients clearly spoke of natives and newcomers.

 

[Hawk]

If the original inhabitants from the Peloponnese were Minoan like, they were from Anatolia indeed. That accounts for Pelops being from Anatolia. But then Logkas like individuals intermingled with them. One out of three Logkas like individuals is enough to create Mycenaean genetic proportions. Mycenaeans are still largely Anatolian.

Maybe we have discussed this, but how do you view E-V13 entrance in Greece? Considering it is the main line in mainland Greece, do you view it as possible it was present among Northern Greeks or it's a. Late Antuiqity Byzantine/Thracian lineage?

 

[blevins13]

If the original inhabitants from the Peloponnese were Minoan like, they were from Anatolia indeed. That accounts for Pelops being from Anatolia. But then Logkas like individuals intermingled with them. One out of three Logkas like individuals is enough to create Mycenaean genetic proportions. Mycenaeans are still largely Anatolian.

And even if the Steppe did come from Anatolia, it could have taken the Balkan route. Not from the Sea.

Sporadic intermingling does not coincide with the historical record. The Ancients clearly spoke of natives and newcomers.

Logkas samples are an extension of the eastern Adriatic continuum, along Illyrian shores that start in Croatia and ends in Northern Greece with Logkas.

 

[xri34]

You do realise that after the 7th century B.C. Asia Minor was was an inherent part of the Greek world. The biggest Greek cities aside from say Athens and perhaps another one or two were in Asia Minor. Lots of discoveries were made there. Lots of philosophers were from there. The Greeks were a Sea people, the Aegean was their habitat. And it is well known that they traveled beyond.

If the Greeks would lack this West Anatolian component, it would be a sign of discontinuation. Even Rome was overrun by this component. Are we to suppose that mainland Greece was isolated from it until after the Hellenistic era?

In the MBA the Greeks melted in Thessaly and Epirus
In the Late Broze Age they melted in the Peloponnese and the Aegean
In the Iron Age and in the Classical Age they melted in Asia Minor.
In the Hellenistic Age and early Roman era they melted in Alexandria and Macedonia.
And in the Middle Ages they melted in Constantinople.

People see the higher levels of Steppe in Greeks as a form of discontinuation, but fail to acknowledge that higher levels of Asia Minor component is a sign of continuation of Greeks prior to the Slavs.

Until 300 BC it was just the west coast (and to some extent the northern one) of Anatolia that was an inherent part of the Greek world. Almost the entire peninsula had non-Hellenic people, with their own languages, cultures and kingdoms.

It was after Alexander's death when the hellenization process of the whole peninsula begins with the creation of a new world with its own unique culture, the Hellenistic world (the synthesis of ancient Greece and west Asia). This is when the mass migrations start.

These are historical facts.

Anatolia was a very populous area. The Greek element was enhanced by new settlers during this era. It seems though that migrations existed from both sides.

You mention Rome but it was overrun by Anatolians during Imperial era (after the Hellenistic) according to the relevant study when there was a political and cultural assimilation of this region by the Greco-Roman world.

Furthermore we know that migrations from Asia Minor to Greece took place multiple times during Byzantine years. For example Slavs were forced to move from Greece to Anatolia and Anatolian Romans moved in Greece instead.

 

[Dianatomia]

Logkas samples are an extension of the eastern Adriatic continuum, along Illyrian shores that start in Croatia and ends in Northern Greece with Logkas.

I have seen PCA maps where Logkas individuals along with Thracians are intermediate between Adriatic and Mycenaeans. It’s all about how one presents it.

That said, I fail to understand your point. What would the end result be of a mix between a MBA Logkas individual and a Minoan? A LBA Mycenaean. Or perhaps Crete Armenoi. Let‘s not forget that Specimen in post Trojan War Crete.

 

[blevins13]

I have seen PCA maps where Logkas individuals along with Thracians are intermediate between Adriatic and Mycenaeans. It’s all about how one presents it.

That said, I fail to understand your point. What would the end result be of a mix between a MBA Logkas individual and a Minoan? A LBA Mycenaean. Or perhaps Crete Armenoi. Let‘s not forget that Specimen in post Trojan War Crete.

My point is clear Greek Language was introduced by Pelops and his kind coming from Anatolia. The few intruders coming from north had nothing to do with it.