Genetic study Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

@Ihype,

Please provide data constituting proof of the following:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ihype02

Maybe E-V13 is essentially Thracian in origin. The Slavic migration pulled Thracians south in great numbers. Also many Peloponnesians have origin from other Mainland parts. 40% of Peloponnese population was resettled from Venetians in 18th/17th century. This could've happened in history many times but in lower numbers sure.

I thought it had been made abundantly clear that unsupported assertions would not go unchallenged here.

I'd like you, in that regard, to show me all the U-152 and U-106 and some I1 in the Peloponnese which would certainly be present if 40% of the population were of Venetian descent.

I guess I have to remind you all again that this isn't theapricity or some Albanian language site; you don't get to make up your own facts here.


40% of population of Peloponnese population was resettled from (not with) Venetians BUT mostly from other mainland parts. Some few Venetians did settle though.

"Already in 1688, with their control of the country practically complete, the Venetians appointed Giacomo Corner as the governor-general (provveditore generale) of the Morea to administer their new territory. The task he faced was daunting, as the population had fled from the coming of war: 656 out of 2,115 villages were deserted, almost all the Muslim population had abandoned the peninsula for lands still in Ottoman hands, while even towns like Patras, which numbered 25,000 inhabitants before the war, now had 1,615 left. Apart from the region of Corinthia and the autonomous Mani Peninsula, the Venetians counted only 86,468 inhabitants in 1688, out of an estimated pre-war population of 200,000.[6][7] Other sources, however, like the Englishman Bernard Randolph, who lived in Greece in 1671–1679, assessed the population of the Morea at the time at 120,000, of which one quarter Muslim and the rest Christian. This is commensurate with the attested demographic decline across the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, and the demands made by the Ottoman government on the peninsula's resources during the long Cretan War.[8]
According to the first census conducted by the Venetians, there were 86,468 people in the peninsula compared to a pre-war population of around 200,000.[72] Although the Venetians managed to restore some prosperity – the population allegedly rose to some 250,000 by 1708, probably driven by immigration[72] – they failed to win the trust of their Greek Orthodox subjects, who were used to a relative autonomy under the Turks and resented the Venetian bureaucracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morean_War
 
@Ihype,

Please provide data constituting proof of the following:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ihype02

Maybe E-V13 is essentially Thracian in origin. The Slavic migration pulled Thracians south in great numbers. Also many Peloponnesians have origin from other Mainland parts. 40% of Peloponnese population was resettled from Venetians in 18th/17th century. This could've happened in history many times but in lower numbers sure.

I thought it had been made abundantly clear that unsupported assertions would not go unchallenged here.

I'd like you, in that regard, to show me all the U-152 and U-106 and some I1 in the Peloponnese which would certainly be present if 40% of the population were of Venetian descent.

I guess I have to remind you all again that this isn't theapricity or some Albanian language site; you don't get to make up your own facts here.



There is no historical info to back that up. There was a substantial Venetian population in Crete and possibly in Naflio and Koroni but evacuated along with some Greek families to Venice when The Ottomans conquered Greece. Some Arbereshe that were given lands around the castles in exchange for guarding them evacuated along with them to Calabria and Sicily.
BTW, I was contacted by an Italian family originally from Venice who traced their descent to a Greek family that evacuated with the Venetians from Crete. Since we shared a substantial amount of autosomal DNA they were asking if I was somehow related to them.
 
There is no historical info to back that up. There was a substantial Venetian population in Crete and possibly in Naflio and Koroni but evacuated along with some Greek families to Venice when The Ottomans conquered Greece. Some Arbereshe that were given lands around the castles in exchange for guarding them evacuated along with them to Calabria and Sicily.
BTW, I was contacted by an Italian family originally from Venice who traced their descent to a Greek family that evacuated with the Venetians from Crete. Since we shared a substantial amount of autosomal DNA they were asking if I was somehow related to them.
Apart from Italy , the only place where Venetian families ( ie wives and children )resided in their colonies was in Crete ( or as the Venetians called it Candia ) from 1204 to 1669.

I am interested in the surname of that family .

My grandmother family also has a church in Crete named after her surname .................her surname was one of the 26 founding surnames of Venice
 
There is no historical info to back that up. There was a substantial Venetian population in Crete and possibly in Naflio and Koroni but evacuated along with some Greek families to Venice when The Ottomans conquered Greece. Some Arbereshe that were given lands around the castles in exchange for guarding them evacuated along with them to Calabria and Sicily.
BTW, I was contacted by an Italian family originally from Venice who traced their descent to a Greek family that evacuated with the Venetians from Crete. Since we shared a substantial amount of autosomal DNA they were asking if I was somehow related to them.

That's what I figured.
 
40% of population of Peloponnese population was resettled from (not with) Venetians BUT mostly from other mainland parts. Some few Venetians did settle though.

"Already in 1688, with their control of the country practically complete, the Venetians appointed Giacomo Corner as the governor-general (provveditore generale) of the Morea to administer their new territory. The task he faced was daunting, as the population had fled from the coming of war: 656 out of 2,115 villages were deserted, almost all the Muslim population had abandoned the peninsula for lands still in Ottoman hands, while even towns like Patras, which numbered 25,000 inhabitants before the war, now had 1,615 left. Apart from the region of Corinthia and the autonomous Mani Peninsula, the Venetians counted only 86,468 inhabitants in 1688, out of an estimated pre-war population of 200,000.[6][7] Other sources, however, like the Englishman Bernard Randolph, who lived in Greece in 1671–1679, assessed the population of the Morea at the time at 120,000, of which one quarter Muslim and the rest Christian. This is commensurate with the attested demographic decline across the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, and the demands made by the Ottoman government on the peninsula's resources during the long Cretan War.[8]


According to the first census conducted by the Venetians, there were 86,468 people in the peninsula compared to a pre-war population of around 200,000.[72] Although the Venetians managed to restore some prosperity – the population allegedly rose to some 250,000 by 1708, probably driven by immigration[72] – they failed to win the trust of their Greek Orthodox subjects, who were used to a relative autonomy under the Turks and resented the Venetian bureaucracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morean_War


which part of the Morea ( it means the Peloponnese )

argos ?

In 1395 Argos was raided by the Ottomans and the Venetians repopulated the town by bringing in Albanians. The light cavalry of the Venetian army was made up of stradiotti, Albanian mercenaries, known for their unorthodox tactics and cruelty. In 1463 the Venetians surrendered Argos, but they were able to retain control of Nauplia until 1540.
The Ottomans did not care to upgrade the fortifications of Argos to the new requirements brought about by the development of cannon. In 1686 they preferred to abandon the fortress to concentrate their troops in the defence of Nauplia, which was besieged by the Venetians.

During their occupation of Morea (Peloponnese) in 1686-1715 the Venetians embarked on a large program aimed at strengthening old fortresses e.g. those of Methoni and Koroni and building new ones e.g. that of Palamidi near Nauplia, but they did not significantly upgrade the fortress of Argo, nor did the Ottomans when they recaptured it, probably because it lacked access to a source of water.
 
We need many more ancient DNA sample from the Thrace area during different eras. Remember that the Macedons before the 4th century were a rather small kingdom. They expand greatly through alliances, marriages and conquests.It helped greatly that both Sparta and Athens were very weak because of all the wars.

I think it's mixed Slavs, Thracians, Arvanites and some other Balkanites feeling the Barbarian inclusions.
Cretans have only 6% E-V13, which is less than Slavic R1a in Crete, which might suggest that Arvanites probably gave it a bust in Peloponnese in late Middle Ages. Bulgarians have more I2a and R1a than E-V13, so E-V13 cannot be essentially Slavic, even though it might appear only during the Middle Ages.

It is not definitely Classical Peloponnesian though, at least not mostly.
 
40% of population of Peloponnese population was resettled from (not with) Venetians BUT mostly from other mainland parts. Some few Venetians did settle though.

"Already in 1688, with their control of the country practically complete, the Venetians appointed Giacomo Corner as the governor-general (provveditore generale) of the Morea to administer their new territory. The task he faced was daunting, as the population had fled from the coming of war: 656 out of 2,115 villages were deserted, almost all the Muslim population had abandoned the peninsula for lands still in Ottoman hands, while even towns like Patras, which numbered 25,000 inhabitants before the war, now had 1,615 left. Apart from the region of Corinthia and the autonomous Mani Peninsula, the Venetians counted only 86,468 inhabitants in 1688, out of an estimated pre-war population of 200,000.[6][7] Other sources, however, like the Englishman Bernard Randolph, who lived in Greece in 1671–1679, assessed the population of the Morea at the time at 120,000, of which one quarter Muslim and the rest Christian. This is commensurate with the attested demographic decline across the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, and the demands made by the Ottoman government on the peninsula's resources during the long Cretan War.[8]
According to the first census conducted by the Venetians, there were 86,468 people in the peninsula compared to a pre-war population of around 200,000.[72] Although the Venetians managed to restore some prosperity – the population allegedly rose to some 250,000 by 1708, probably driven by immigration[72] – they failed to win the trust of their Greek Orthodox subjects, who were used to a relative autonomy under the Turks and resented the Venetian bureaucracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morean_War

I don't find that paragraph in the article you cite. I find it here:
Kingdom of the Morea - Wikipedia

It's no wonder, as the "editors" are constantly playing with that first article.

What you didn't include is the remainder of the paragraph...

"Already in 1688, with their control of the country practically complete, the Venetians appointed Giacomo Corner as the governor-general (provveditore generale) of the Morea to administer their new territory. The task he faced was daunting, as the population had fled from the coming of war: 656 out of 2,115 villages were deserted, almost all the Muslim population had abandoned the peninsula for lands still in Ottoman hands, while even towns like Patras, which numbered 25,000 inhabitants before the war, now had 1,615 left. APART from the region of Corinthia and the autonomous Mani Peninsula, the Venetians counted only 86,468 inhabitants in 1688, out of an estimated pre-war population of 200,000.[6][7] Other sources, however, like the Englishman Bernard Randolph, who lived in Greece in 1671–1679, assessed the population of the Morea at the time at 120,000, of which one quarter Muslim and the rest Christian. This is commensurate with the attested demographic decline across the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, and the demands made by the Ottoman government on the peninsula's resources during the long Cretan War.[8]

This is in no way "proof" of your statement. The 200,000 figure is highly questionable. It doesn't include Corinthia or Mani, and there was no CENSUS, only an estimate for the pre-war population.

If I had been a Greek living in the area at the time, I would have fled, yes, and hid in the Mani or other areas.

Indeed, in other parts of the article mention is made of migration into the Peloponnese. However, please take a look at what happened to those people.
"To restore the province, settlers were encouraged to immigrate from the other Greek lands with the lure of considerable land grants, chiefly from Attica but also from other parts of Central Greece, especially the areas that suffered during the war. 2,000 Cretans, and also Catholic Chians, Venetian citizens from the Ionian Islands and even some Bulgarians answered this call. In addition, mention is made of 1,317 Muslim families that remained behind, converted to Christianity and were given lands or enterprises as concessions. As a result of these policies, the population recovered rapidly: apart from Mani, the Venetian registers record 97,118 inhabitants in 1691, 116,000 a year later and 176,844 by 1700. Due to the relative privileges granted the urban population, the period was also marked by an influx of the agrarian population to the cities.[10][17][18]"

'
the Venetian period was marked by intense social mobility. Although in general both the original inhabitants and the new settlers remained in the social class to which they had belonged originally, the policies of the Venetian authorities with their continual land grants to their supporters—including the hereditary quasi-fiefs known as conteas ("countships")—coupled with the economic upturn, brought about the emergence, for the first time after the disbandment of the Christian sipahis of the Peloponnese in the early 1570s, of a new affluent class of merchants and land-holders, many of whom were from Athens, Chios and the Ionian islands. According to the Greek historian Apostolos Vakalopoulos, here lies the origin of the oligarchy of the kodjabashis, who dominated the peninsula's affairs from the late 18th century until the Greek War of Independence.[23][24] By contrast, for the mass of the peasants, both natives and immigrants, the situation progressively worsened; whether due to debts, transgressions of officials, the exactions of corvée or the increasing scarcity of land, many peasants, especially those who had migrated from Central Greece, chose to flee to the Ottoman-held territories across the Gulf of Corinth. They were welcomed by the Ottoman authorities, while the Venetian authorities were forced to institute military patrols to stop them.[25] This demonstrates a deepening gulf in Moreot society: when the Turks returned in 1715, the bulk of the population remained unaffected, and only the better-off such as the contea possessors actively supported Venice, and in many cases abandoned the peninsula for Italy following the Venetian defeat.[26]


So, your statement is in fact contradicted by the available evidence, and worse, is actually very misleading. I see absolutely no evidence for a 40% replacement in the Peloponnese.
 
I don't find that paragraph in the article you cite. I find it here:
Kingdom of the Morea - Wikipedia

It's no wonder, as the "editors" are constantly playing with that first article.

What you didn't include is the remainder of the paragraph...

"Already in 1688, with their control of the country practically complete, the Venetians appointed Giacomo Corner as the governor-general (provveditore generale) of the Morea to administer their new territory. The task he faced was daunting, as the population had fled from the coming of war: 656 out of 2,115 villages were deserted, almost all the Muslim population had abandoned the peninsula for lands still in Ottoman hands, while even towns like Patras, which numbered 25,000 inhabitants before the war, now had 1,615 left. APART from the region of Corinthia and the autonomous Mani Peninsula, the Venetians counted only 86,468 inhabitants in 1688, out of an estimated pre-war population of 200,000.[6][7] Other sources, however, like the Englishman Bernard Randolph, who lived in Greece in 1671–1679, assessed the population of the Morea at the time at 120,000, of which one quarter Muslim and the rest Christian. This is commensurate with the attested demographic decline across the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, and the demands made by the Ottoman government on the peninsula's resources during the long Cretan War.[8]

This is in no way "proof" of your statement. The 200,000 figure is highly questionable. It doesn't include Corinthia or Mani, and there was no CENSUS, only an estimate for the pre-war population.

If I had been a Greek living in the area at the time, I would have fled, yes, and hid in the Mani or other areas.

Indeed, in other parts of the article mention is made of migration into the Peloponnese. However, please take a look at what happened to those people.
"To restore the province, settlers were encouraged to immigrate from the other Greek lands with the lure of considerable land grants, chiefly from Attica but also from other parts of Central Greece, especially the areas that suffered during the war. 2,000 Cretans, and also Catholic Chians, Venetian citizens from the Ionian Islands and even some Bulgarians answered this call. In addition, mention is made of 1,317 Muslim families that remained behind, converted to Christianity and were given lands or enterprises as concessions. As a result of these policies, the population recovered rapidly: apart from Mani, the Venetian registers record 97,118 inhabitants in 1691, 116,000 a year later and 176,844 by 1700. Due to the relative privileges granted the urban population, the period was also marked by an influx of the agrarian population to the cities.[10][17][18]"

'
the Venetian period was marked by intense social mobility. Although in general both the original inhabitants and the new settlers remained in the social class to which they had belonged originally, the policies of the Venetian authorities with their continual land grants to their supporters—including the hereditary quasi-fiefs known as conteas ("countships")—coupled with the economic upturn, brought about the emergence, for the first time after the disbandment of the Christian sipahis of the Peloponnese in the early 1570s, of a new affluent class of merchants and land-holders, many of whom were from Athens, Chios and the Ionian islands. According to the Greek historian Apostolos Vakalopoulos, here lies the origin of the oligarchy of the kodjabashis, who dominated the peninsula's affairs from the late 18th century until the Greek War of Independence.[23][24] By contrast, for the mass of the peasants, both natives and immigrants, the situation progressively worsened; whether due to debts, transgressions of officials, the exactions of corvée or the increasing scarcity of land, many peasants, especially those who had migrated from Central Greece, chose to flee to the Ottoman-held territories across the Gulf of Corinth. They were welcomed by the Ottoman authorities, while the Venetian authorities were forced to institute military patrols to stop them.[25] This demonstrates a deepening gulf in Moreot society: when the Turks returned in 1715, the bulk of the population remained unaffected, and only the better-off such as the contea possessors actively supported Venice, and in many cases abandoned the peninsula for Italy following the Venetian defeat.[26]


So, your statement is in fact contradicted by the available evidence, and worse, is actually very misleading. I see absolutely no evidence for a 40% replacement in the Peloponnese.

The 40% was given by me, taking in consideration the population of Mani, Corinthia and birthrates by natives.
I did include the quote saying that Mani and Corinthia were not included in the census. It was a rapid increase within 20 years form 98,000 (excluding Mani) to allegedly 250,000 (too high). However the data given by Venetians is questionable that is why I lowered it to 40%.
I did not know some Greeks went back to Central Greece. But still it proves a significant percentage that came from other mainland whenever it was 40% or not.

Venetians did settle Albanians from Attica in Corinthia to repopulate the region, so it probably did not have a large population.
 
As I said, your conclusion is questionable at best, misleading at worst.
 
As I said, your conclusion is questionable at best, misleading at worst.

Central Greek migration (expect for Attica and Boeotia) would decrease the Albanian numbers in Peloponnese though. Albanians were a significant minority in 15th century Peloponnese.
 
Thessaloniki was a Metropolitan Centre that probably attracted many Anatolians, Anatolia to Eastern Roman Empire was like Italy to Western Roman Empire. The Macedonians of G25 are from an official paper. They all have their grandparents, Macedonians, prior to population exchange. Modern Macedonians are roughly 33% shifted towards Poles compared to BGR_IA. And many late Roman Period samples plot close and even south of BGR_IA. Considering neither the Slavs nor the Goths were pure Northern European, I don't know why a 50-55% replacement theory involving Slavs and Anatolians is so unlikely.

Anatolia had its own metropolitan centers. If anything, Thessalonica may have attracted people from other parts of mainland Greece, and why not the islands. Besides, if any Anatolians settled in Thessalonica I suppose they would be from adjecent areas like Thrace/Constantinople or Ionia. People who genetically were similar to IA Aegeans, like the people were from Macedonia prior to the Slavic migrations. So while there has been influx, I would not be so keen in regarding it as population replacement.
 
Anatolia had its own metropolitan centers. If anything, Thessalonica may have attracted people from other parts of mainland Greece, and why not the islands. Besides, if any Anatolians settled in Thessalonica I suppose they would be from adjecent areas like Thrace/Constantinople or Ionia. People who genetically were similar to IA Aegeans, like the people were from Macedonia prior to the Slavic migrations. So while there has been influx, I would not be so keen in regarding it as acomponent of population replacement. The Slavs are however.

On that note, did anyone emphasize that the people from the Danubian basin were very similar to IA Aegeans. I am saying this because the Macedonians were claimed by some Balkan peoples. Yet, even the IA Danubians are a closer match to modern Greeks, then to most people in the Balkans.

35% Northern input and 5% Anatolian is the bare minimum in Macedonia. As well as at least 20% Slavic in Peloponnese.
Don't except anything lower than that if you don't want to be disappointed.
 
35% Northern input and 5% Anatolian is the bare minimum in Macedonia. As well as at least 20% Slavic in Peloponnese.
Don't except anything lower than that if you don't want to be disappointed.

If you ask me even 30 Slavic admixture in mainland Greeks is quite moderate. The percentages of the mainland may or may not be true, but at the same time they are quite misleading. This is because for starters, the largest metropolitan centers (Athens and Thessalonica) have attracted Greeks from all areas in the Greek world. Half the population of Athens may be from places like the Islands, Asia Minor, Alexandria and the like. Places were the Slavic admix was much lower. Macedonia likewise has many Greeks from Asia Minor. Then most diaspora Greeks (which number in the millions) in North America or Australia are islanders or refugees from Asia Minor. It goes without saying 200 years ago, only less than half of all Greeks lived in the mainland. So taking that into consideration the average Slavic admixture in the Greek genepool, if we suppose that this research is right, would be much less.

But why should anyone be dissapointed. If true, I wholeheartedly accept any admixture. It is what constitutes us. It's just that I wouldn't want to be mislead.
 
Central Greek migration (expect for Attica and Boeotia) would decrease the Albanian numbers in Peloponnese though. Albanians were a significant minority in 15th century Peloponnese.

I suggest you re-read the excerpt. The Central Greeks, at least the non elite majority, RETURNED to Central Greece.

If your comments about the amount of Albanian ancestry in the Peloponnese is based on similarly shaky ground, don't expect outsiders to give it much credence.

As for the paper on the Peloponnese, samples were not taken from Albanian villages. Also, as I pointed out above thread, only elderly people with all four grandparents from BEFORE the population exchanges were included in the data.

This makes probably the 20TH TIME I've pointed these facts out.
 
Apart from Italy , the only place where Venetian families ( ie wives and children )resided in their colonies was in Crete ( or as the Venetians called it Candia ) from 1204 to 1669.
I am interested in the surname of that family .
My grandmother family also has a church in Crete named after her surname .................her surname was one of the 26 founding surnames of Venice

The current surname of the family is Manca but the Greek surname was Ieranò. I think they settled down in Cinquefrondi in the Reggio Calabria area.
 
I suggest you re-read the excerpt. The Central Greeks, at least the non elite majority, RETURNED to Central Greece.

If your comments about the amount of Albanian ancestry in the Peloponnese is based on similarly shaky ground, don't expect outsiders to give it much credence.

As for the paper on the Peloponnese, samples were not taken from Albanian villages. Also, as I pointed out above thread, only elderly people with all four grandparents from BEFORE the population exchanges were included in the data.

This makes probably the 20TH TIME I've pointed these facts out.

The Albanians that were settled around the Venetian walled cities in Peloponnese to guard them pretty much followed the Venetians to Italy and settled in Calabria and Sicily. Now that does not account for any Arvanites that settled in the interior on their own or by the Ottoman Turks. I don't know of any documentation as to their numbers.
 
Yes, I know.

Don't worry; someone will make them up.
 
I suggest you re-read the excerpt. The Central Greeks, at least the non elite majority, RETURNED to Central Greece.

If your comments about the amount of Albanian ancestry in the Peloponnese is based on similarly shaky ground, don't expect outsiders to give it much credence.

As for the paper on the Peloponnese, samples were not taken from Albanian villages. Also, as I pointed out above thread, only elderly people with all four grandparents from BEFORE the population exchanges were included in the data.

This makes probably the 20TH TIME I've pointed these facts out.

It says many not the majority. But it does not matter either way, let's say the majority went back. It's no big deal to me.

The Peloponnesian paper of 2017 was garbage either way.
And I was not talking about that paper I was talking about E-V13 being increased by northern mainlanders, which Sicilians, Calabrese and Cretans lack.​
 
Last edited:
https://indo-european.eu/2019/04/co...wer-danube-expanding-with-haplogroup-e1b-v13/

* Iberian samples of the Visigothic period in Spain show up to 25% E1b-V13 samples, with a mixture of haplogroups including local and foreign lineages, as well as some more E1b-V13 samples later during the Muslim period. Out of the two E1b samples from Longobards in Amorim et al. (2018), only SZ18 from Szólád (ca. AD 412-604) is within E1b-V13, in a very specific early branch (SNP M35.2), further locating the expansion of hg. E1b-V13 near the Danube. Samples of haplogroup J (maybe J2a) or G2a among Germanic tribes (and possibly in Poland’s Roman Iron Age / Early Middle Ages) are impossible to compare with early Hungarian ones without precise subclades.

"Y-chromosome haplogroups are, in those cases, useful for ascertaining a more recent origin of the population. Like the finding of certain R1a-Z645, I2a-L621 & N-L392 lineages among Hungarians shows a recent origin near the Trans-Urals forest-steppes, or the finding of I1, R1b-U106 & E1b-V13 among Visigoths shows a recent origin near the Danube, the finding of Early Slavs (ca. AD 6th-7th c.) originally with small elite groups of hg. R1a-M458 & E1b-V13 from the Lower/Middle Danube – if strengthened with more Early Slavic samples, with Slavonic partially expanding as a lingua franca in some regions – is not necessarily representative of the Proto-Slavic community, just as it is clearly not representative of the later expansion of Slavic dialects."

Riverman which study shows E-V13 in 6th century Slavs?



That's a funny question, because how many 6th century Slavic samples do we have to begin with?

The situation is pretty similar as it is with Hittites and E-V13/Channelled Ware, or early Jastorf-Germanics - they all cremated their dead. So we are left with the ashes and some stray finds, of which don't even know for sure whether they belonged to the majority population, since the burial rite was quite strictly cremation in many these cases. So we can only make a pre- and post-comparison. Like before an archaeological package came and shift came and afterwards, when cremation ceased to be the dominant form. That's why Tollense was so interesting, if probably representing a dead end.
Luckily for the Slavic case, they did transition in Central Europe and the Balkans quite early to inhumation in some groups, but these are all no Proto-Slavs any longer, which could have picked up other elements along the route. There are e.g. in Austria and Hungary huge Slavic cemeteries which could be tested, mass tested, to see what's the average, the outliers, the clusters and so on. Some day this material will be available hopefully.
 


But why should anyone be dissapointed. If true, I wholeheartedly accept any admixture. It is what constitutes us. It's just that I wouldn't want to be mislead.


Good for you. So many here seem to be emotionally invested in all this.
 

This thread has been viewed 193823 times.

Back
Top