New scientific evidence for the history and occupants of Tomb I (“Tomb of Persephone”) in the Great Tumulus at Vergina

1/1 A0-T>A1>A1b>BT>CT>CF>F>GHIJK>HIJK>IJK>K>K2>K2b>P>P-V1651>P-M1254>P-P337>P-P284>P-P226>R>R-Y482>R1>R1b>R-L754>R-L389>R-P297>R-M269>R-L23>R-L51>R-L52>R-PF6538>R-L151
xR-L151>R-P312>R-DF27>R-BY2285>R-Y5076>R-FT64483
xR-L151>R-P312>R-DF27>R-BY2285>R-Y5076>R-Y5058
xR-L151>R-P312>R-DF27>R-BY2285>R-Y56490>R-BY43858>R-Y45921
xR-L151>R-P312>R-DF27>R-BY2285>R-Y56490>R-Y163611
Hello KingDavid.
I agree with Bigsnake49 that there was a slight deviation from the topic in posts talking about phenotypes that could or could not be attributed to classical Greeks and Macedonians. However, I believe that the approach about YDNA and/or auDNA would be pertinent. It seems that the sample from individual DEM3237 is contaminated to the point that it is difficult to determine whether he/she is man, woman, hermaphrodite, adult or child (I don't know if I missed something). It seems that the only certain thing is that it is human (lol).
However, if it is a man he could be an R-L151, with predictions that he could even be an R-BY2285. I am an R-BY2285 (2370 BCE) and I am a little further downstream -> R-FGC35133 (1190 BCE). It would be really cool to know that I have an ancestral cousin in ancient Macedonia. Were these predictions made using the Y-DNA Haplogroup Predictor - NEVGEN.ORG algorithm from files made available by the authors via the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA)?
In this case DEM3237 would be more a displacing to Ireland, since there is a prediction that it could also be an R-Y5076 and I would be more a displacing to England/Iberia - Atlantic BA? - (I am below R-Y56490). R-Y5076 and R-56490 are subclades of R-BY2285. Even cooler if it is an R-Y45921. That is my exact clade and corresponds to SNP R-FGC35133. Until Yfull and/or FTDNA BIG Y 700 further refines my subclade, both, me and DEM3237 could have a common ancestor that would have lived around 1190 BCE. Pretty cool!
 
Last edited:
Hello KingDavid.
I agree with Bigsnake49 that there was a slight deviation from the topic in posts talking about phenotypes that could or could not be attributed to classical Greeks and Macedonians. However, I believe that the approach about YDNA and/or auDNA would be pertinent. It seems that the sample from individual DEM3237 is contaminated to the point that it is difficult to determine whether he/she is man, woman, hermaphrodite, adult or child (I don't know if I missed something). It seems that the only certain thing is that it is human (lol).
However, if it is a man he could be an R-L151, with predictions that he could even be an R-BY2285. I am an R-BY2285 (2370 BCE) and I am a little further downstream -> R-FGC35134 (1190 BCE). It would be really cool to know that I have an ancestral cousin in ancient Macedonia. Were these predictions made using the Y-DNA Haplogroup Predictor - NEVGEN.ORG algorithm from files made available by the authors via the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA)?
In this case DEM3237 would be more a displacing to Ireland, since there is a prediction that it could also be an R-Y5076 and I would be more a displacing to England/Iberia - Atlantic BA? - (I am below R-Y56490). R-Y5076 and R-56490 are subclades of R-BY2285. Even cooler if it is an R-Y45921. That is my exact clade and corresponds to SNP R-FGC35133. Until Yfull and/or FTDNA BIG Y 700 further refines my subclade, both, me and DEM3237 could have a common ancestor that would have lived around 1190 BCE. Pretty cool!

Open genomes expert from genarchivist site
And an expert from yfull

His words on this DEM3235 individual:

The main point is that if the Y-DNA was as heavily contaminated as the autosomal DNA results would indicate, we would see a clear chain of Y haplogroups with mulitple derived SNPs each down from R-M269 or R-L52 or R-L151 to a modern clade.

We've seen this sort of thing before, in the contaminated EURAC samples from ancient Egypt. The Y-DNA matched the Northern Italian autosomal and multiple different ancient samples from different burials and locations were all homozygous and came from the same individual.

Therefore, this R-L151 or R-L52 result is extremely unlikely to be contamination. As I said, the single R-L151 could however be "reference bias" from the hg19 reference, which is also extremely common or almost universal in ancient DNA.
 
Cool, so we got R1b-L51 and E-L618/E-V13 (Roman times but still local Macedonian) so far.

If this is true he descended from Carpathian Tumulus people, we already have 1 R1b-L51 from LBA Serbia. Tumulus Culture which was rich in R1b-L51 was present in Northern Balkans from MBA 1500 B.C: https://www.barpublishing.com/veleb...uthern-carpathian-basin-vojvodina-serbia.html

You can read Draga Garasanin take on LBA Aegean migration from Central-Northern Balkans: https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dgarasanin-the_bronze.htm

I know that chances are the sample is not truthy, but it is not shocking at all, during the so called LBA-EIA Aegean migration some R1b-L51 might have tagged alongside E-V13 down from Balkan-Carpathian horizon to Northern Aegean.
 
Last edited:
Open genomes expert from genarchivist site
And an expert from yfull

His words on this DEM3235 individual:

The main point is that if the Y-DNA was as heavily contaminated as the autosomal DNA results would indicate, we would see a clear chain of Y haplogroups with mulitple derived SNPs each down from R-M269 or R-L52 or R-L151 to a modern clade.

We've seen this sort of thing before, in the contaminated EURAC samples from ancient Egypt. The Y-DNA matched the Northern Italian autosomal and multiple different ancient samples from different burials and locations were all homozygous and came from the same individual.

Therefore, this R-L151 or R-L52 result is extremely unlikely to be contamination. As I said, the single R-L151 could however be "reference bias" from the hg19 reference, which is also extremely common or almost universal in ancient DNA.
Back then the same people wanted us to believe that Beaker ancestry in ancient Egypt is real.

Now, we‘re going to ignore the autosomal DNA of this NW European man?
 
Hello KingDavid.
I agree with Bigsnake49 that there was a slight deviation from the topic in posts talking about phenotypes that could or could not be attributed to classical Greeks and Macedonians. However, I believe that the approach about YDNA and/or auDNA would be pertinent. It seems that the sample from individual DEM3237 is contaminated to the point that it is difficult to determine whether he/she is man, woman, hermaphrodite, adult or child (I don't know if I missed something). It seems that the only certain thing is that it is human (lol).
However, if it is a man he could be an R-L151, with predictions that he could even be an R-BY2285. I am an R-BY2285 (2370 BCE) and I am a little further downstream -> R-FGC35134 (1190 BCE). It would be really cool to know that I have an ancestral cousin in ancient Macedonia. Were these predictions made using the Y-DNA Haplogroup Predictor - NEVGEN.ORG algorithm from files made available by the authors via the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA)?
In this case DEM3237 would be more a displacing to Ireland, since there is a prediction that it could also be an R-Y5076 and I would be more a displacing to England/Iberia - Atlantic BA? - (I am below R-Y56490). R-Y5076 and R-56490 are subclades of R-BY2285. Even cooler if it is an R-Y45921. That is my exact clade and corresponds to SNP R-FGC35133. Until Yfull and/or FTDNA BIG Y 700 further refines my subclade, both, me and DEM3237 could have a common ancestor that would have lived around 1190 BCE. Pretty cool!

Open genomes expert from genarchivist site
And an expert from yfull

His words on this DEM3235 individual:

The main point is that if the Y-DNA was as heavily contaminated as the autosomal DNA results would indicate, we would see a clear chain of Y haplogroups with mulitple derived SNPs each down from R-M269 or R-L52 or R-L151 to a modern clade.

We've seen this sort of thing before, in the contaminated EURAC samples from ancient Egypt. The Y-DNA matched the Northern Italian autosomal and multiple different ancient samples from different burials and locations were all homozygous and came from the same individual.

Therefore, this R-L151 or R-L52 result is extremely unlikely to be contamination. As I said, the single R-L151 could however be "reference bias" from the hg19 reference, which is also extremely common or almost universal in ancient DNA.
Back then the same people wanted us to believe that Beaker ancestry in ancient Egypt is real.

Now, we‘re going to ignore the autosomal DNA of this NW European man?

I don't know man
I am only putting his words
He is an expert in reading bam files👍
I have no agenda here
This sample is already at ftdna discover
( but at the classical tree no the regular ancient connections so ftdna experts also believe it is the real deal)
You are correct that both he and goran could be wrong They are humans
 
@BoNe
I add let's not confuse paternal genealogy and population genetic and ethno-cultural groups. An unique Y terminal of linage, even if it's easy to trace his ancestors, cannot tell us by itself if the last bearer has/had kept on living with his brethren in their original culture or has/had switched culture, drown in another ethny. This kind of change can be more or less approached by autosomal composition even if we can often mistake.

You don't contradict me in fact. Not 100%, only if you consider some targeted and dominant visible traits in the case of your dogs. But human pop's are not dogs with strict breeding-selection process, if selection exists, is not so systhematic, so it demands more generations even if not by force a lot. Do notice I don't contradict you completely either. To date I'm not aware of an ancient pop where dominant male elite mated only with submitted female pop. But I dont' deny some washing occurred, maybe the case for Mycenians or Basques by instance.

What we absolutely cannot do is classify L151 as “Steppe” when its most directly documented empirical ancestors are a cousin of the Samara clade, separated by around 1000 years from the branch from which modern Europeans descend.

And yet that’s the damn consensus everyone takes for granted.


From the Atlantic Bronze Age and the Bell Beaker period emerged hundreds of hyper-dominant L151 lines, and most of them probably went extinct killing each other.

It’s well known that they sailed across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic a thousand years before the Phoenicians, but only certain elite lineages would have done so. That’s why we haven’t found ships from that period. They spread out across the Mediterranean mainly between 3000–2500 BC. It’s not surprising that some lineage reached the Balkans around 2000 BC and became isolated among the Mycenaeans > Heracleidae > Dorians > Argeads.

It’s also known that today there are basal L2 branches in that area.

There’s a lot of biological illiteracy in these matters — and I don’t mean that as an insult to anyone — but rather, people cling to technicalities they don’t really understand.

Most people I’ve seen debating this topic elsewhere rely on raw BAM file comparisons and then say dumb things like “they were Vikings” because of PCA proximity, when it’s crystal clear that the only valid thing that can be inferred from that sample is that it’s R1b — and L151 has been detected. With manual refinement we could probably go further, but that depends on the limitations of the software and the skill of the person operating it. What suffers the most are the autosomes used for PCA readings.

It’s like telling someone, “Don’t press that doorbell, it’s broken and will electrocute you” — and they go and press it anyway, then get mad that they were electrocuted. If the BAM file hasn’t been refined by someone well-regarded in bioinformatics, what the hell do they expect?

PCA by itself is virtually useless for anything serious, because it’s tied to biases already established by other authors, and on top of that, sample coverage is always inconsistent. So you can never truly determine the origin of a genetic mix with that method, because it will always lump samples into one cluster or another. If the sample has 20% coverage, the other 80% is fantasy, filled in by a calculator and overestimation.

Genetics isn’t about seeking “mixes” — it’s about cataloguing specific allelic mutations as references to know where and when they first truly appeared. Not whether they were the result of some endogamous transfer, which, as I’ve explained, can be forced in just four generations — even two sibling pairings can completely mess with someone relying on PCA.

Investigating these issues through PCA is utterly impossible. Only Y-DNA refinement of ancient samples will illuminate the path. PCA is, in fact, the worst tool because it doesn’t tell you if genes are going or coming — only Y-DNA and mtDNA chronologies can do that.

The latest study on the Punics and Phoenicians is another example where, based on how they present the data, they clarify absolutely nothing. The moment I saw the PCA charts, I thought, “Damn, the Sea Peoples.”

Since they don’t refine the Y trees, we can’t know anything — not even the order.

I’ve spent hours and hours analyzing pedigrees, and I can mentally calculate inbreeding levels. That’s essentially what these ancestry calculators do — estimating based on what kind of mix would’ve been born in a given time frame.

When I apply those same criteria to L151 populations, they make up 50% of all Europeans. That’s why we are European — especially Western Europeans. The Eastern part, as you know, has other founding males. We are, ancestrally, very inbred — like all peoples, really.

Any Spaniard who tells me they belong to haplogroup E or T — they don’t even have to say it — I already know that 4 to 6 of their great-great-grandfathers were DF27. So I can predict their autosomes with pretty good accuracy. It’s impossible to reproduce with a Spanish woman and not have your descendants “catch the virus.” And this applies to any population where R1b exceeds 50%. You just have to know when those minority Y haplogroups were introduced.

A Basque person? 7–8 of their great-great-grandfathers will be DF27; 5–8 of those will be Z278.

An Irish person? 7 out of 8 will be DF13.

PCA does the same thing but with 1000 more mathematical variables.

All those paths go through proto-Celtic cultures of transhumant cattle herders around 3000–2500 BC — which were basically the Bell Beakers.

What connects all noteworthy L151 lineages, regardless of where they migrated or whom they mixed with, is that they were breeding horses and bulls without interruption since 3500 BC in Iberia, France, Germany, Italy, the Danube zone, and the Aegean. Even today, horses with DA1-U, DA1-N, and DA1-R haplogroups still survive — remnants from before the massive DAC replacement (formerly called DOM2).

It’s also extremely curious that when they compare bulls using PCA, they end up ordered almost exactly like L151, which shows they exchanged livestock — or stole it — just as their own myths recount.

So the Argeads and Mycenaeans surely had something to do with maintaining horse breeding in that region. That’s why today we still find around 10% of Pf7562 and P312 in that area — which many assume are from later migrations, but they could date back to 2000 BC. This L151 found in the Argead dynasty is proof of that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to fall under U152.
 
What we absolutely cannot do is classify L151 as “Steppe” when its most directly documented empirical ancestors are a cousin of the Samara clade, separated by around 1000 years from the branch from which modern Europeans descend.

And yet that’s the damn consensus everyone takes for granted.


From the Atlantic Bronze Age and the Bell Beaker period emerged hundreds of hyper-dominant L151 lines, and most of them probably went extinct killing each other.

It’s well known that they sailed across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic a thousand years before the Phoenicians, but only certain elite lineages would have done so. That’s why we haven’t found ships from that period. They spread out across the Mediterranean mainly between 3000–2500 BC. It’s not surprising that some lineage reached the Balkans around 2000 BC and became isolated among the Mycenaeans > Heracleidae > Dorians > Argeads.

It’s also known that today there are basal L2 branches in that area.

There’s a lot of biological illiteracy in these matters — and I don’t mean that as an insult to anyone — but rather, people cling to technicalities they don’t really understand.

Most people I’ve seen debating this topic elsewhere rely on raw BAM file comparisons and then say dumb things like “they were Vikings” because of PCA proximity, when it’s crystal clear that the only valid thing that can be inferred from that sample is that it’s R1b — and L151 has been detected. With manual refinement we could probably go further, but that depends on the limitations of the software and the skill of the person operating it. What suffers the most are the autosomes used for PCA readings.

It’s like telling someone, “Don’t press that doorbell, it’s broken and will electrocute you” — and they go and press it anyway, then get mad that they were electrocuted. If the BAM file hasn’t been refined by someone well-regarded in bioinformatics, what the hell do they expect?

PCA by itself is virtually useless for anything serious, because it’s tied to biases already established by other authors, and on top of that, sample coverage is always inconsistent. So you can never truly determine the origin of a genetic mix with that method, because it will always lump samples into one cluster or another. If the sample has 20% coverage, the other 80% is fantasy, filled in by a calculator and overestimation.

Genetics isn’t about seeking “mixes” — it’s about cataloguing specific allelic mutations as references to know where and when they first truly appeared. Not whether they were the result of some endogamous transfer, which, as I’ve explained, can be forced in just four generations — even two sibling pairings can completely mess with someone relying on PCA.

Investigating these issues through PCA is utterly impossible. Only Y-DNA refinement of ancient samples will illuminate the path. PCA is, in fact, the worst tool because it doesn’t tell you if genes are going or coming — only Y-DNA and mtDNA chronologies can do that.

The latest study on the Punics and Phoenicians is another example where, based on how they present the data, they clarify absolutely nothing. The moment I saw the PCA charts, I thought, “Damn, the Sea Peoples.”

Since they don’t refine the Y trees, we can’t know anything — not even the order.

I’ve spent hours and hours analyzing pedigrees, and I can mentally calculate inbreeding levels. That’s essentially what these ancestry calculators do — estimating based on what kind of mix would’ve been born in a given time frame.

When I apply those same criteria to L151 populations, they make up 50% of all Europeans. That’s why we are European — especially Western Europeans. The Eastern part, as you know, has other founding males. We are, ancestrally, very inbred — like all peoples, really.

Any Spaniard who tells me they belong to haplogroup E or T — they don’t even have to say it — I already know that 4 to 6 of their great-great-grandfathers were DF27. So I can predict their autosomes with pretty good accuracy. It’s impossible to reproduce with a Spanish woman and not have your descendants “catch the virus.” And this applies to any population where R1b exceeds 50%. You just have to know when those minority Y haplogroups were introduced.

A Basque person? 7–8 of their great-great-grandfathers will be DF27; 5–8 of those will be Z278.

An Irish person? 7 out of 8 will be DF13.

PCA does the same thing but with 1000 more mathematical variables.

All those paths go through proto-Celtic cultures of transhumant cattle herders around 3000–2500 BC — which were basically the Bell Beakers.

What connects all noteworthy L151 lineages, regardless of where they migrated or whom they mixed with, is that they were breeding horses and bulls without interruption since 3500 BC in Iberia, France, Germany, Italy, the Danube zone, and the Aegean. Even today, horses with DA1-U, DA1-N, and DA1-R haplogroups still survive — remnants from before the massive DAC replacement (formerly called DOM2).

It’s also extremely curious that when they compare bulls using PCA, they end up ordered almost exactly like L151, which shows they exchanged livestock — or stole it — just as their own myths recount.

So the Argeads and Mycenaeans surely had something to do with maintaining horse breeding in that region. That’s why today we still find around 10% of Pf7562 and P312 in that area — which many assume are from later migrations, but they could date back to 2000 BC. This L151 found in the Argead dynasty is proof of that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to fall under U152.

Big talk no substance, i believe you completely lack the picture of Balkan archaeology and are utterly ignorant on that to make such conclusions. Let's say the results are correct (which i doubt it btw, they will be falsified in upcoming studies), what archaeological sites/changes do u apply to intruduction of R1b-L151? None there are in inner Balkans and Aegean, except for tagging alongside the Eastern Balkan-Carpathian Urnfielders as minority.

Horse-breeding and horseriding of Macedonians was a trait shared together with their neighbors the Thracians (heavy on E-V13), who were notoriously known for that, and who adopted that trait from their R1a-Z93 Iranic steppe populations north-eastern neighbors during Bronze Age, likely Noua-Sabatinovska who was a legitimate equestrian culture.

Perhaps you should just chill out with all these Turkish coffee cup predictions and do not engage emotionally in this until we got verified reputable publications of the Argeads or whatever, whatever their Y-DNA is, is.
 
Last edited:
I'm speculating that Macedonians will most likely be more northern shifted than Mycenaeans. How far north-shifted they are, of course, I can't tell. So the question is whether Macedonians will plot more with modern-day (Northern) Greeks or even Thracians or Illyrians. Regardless, any genetic outcome will be fire and dynamite, as Alexander the Great is a person whom the entire Balkans fight over, and any country would love to claim him. The same is true with Old and New Kingdom Egyptian papers. It's a bummer that we still haven't had decent papers about AE.
 
To be Fair Colin Farrell looks more Southern European in his natural look.
Sure but why not just actually cast a Greek to play Alexander? Is it so difficult to use ethnically accurate actors in films portraying real historic events and people?
 
I'm speculating that Macedonians will most likely be more northern shifted than Mycenaeans. How far north-shifted they are, of course, I can't tell. So the question is whether Macedonians will plot more with modern-day (Northern) Greeks or even Thracians or Illyrians. Regardless, any genetic outcome will be fire and dynamite, as Alexander the Great is a person whom the entire Balkans fight over, and any country would love to claim him. The same is true with Old and New Kingdom Egyptian papers. It's a bummer that we still haven't had decent papers about AE.
I agree. I've said it before but I anticipate Macedonians of Alexander's era will likely be autosomally similar to the ancient paeonians we already have. It would surprise me if we get anything averaging what was found in LBA crete.
 
What we absolutely cannot do is classify L151 as “Steppe” when its most directly documented empirical ancestors are a cousin of the Samara clade, separated by around 1000 years from the branch from which modern Europeans descend.

And yet that’s the damn consensus everyone takes for granted.


From the Atlantic Bronze Age and the Bell Beaker period emerged hundreds of hyper-dominant L151 lines, and most of them probably went extinct killing each other.

It’s well known that they sailed across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic a thousand years before the Phoenicians, but only certain elite lineages would have done so. That’s why we haven’t found ships from that period. They spread out across the Mediterranean mainly between 3000–2500 BC. It’s not surprising that some lineage reached the Balkans around 2000 BC and became isolated among the Mycenaeans > Heracleidae > Dorians > Argeads.

It’s also known that today there are basal L2 branches in that area.

There’s a lot of biological illiteracy in these matters — and I don’t mean that as an insult to anyone — but rather, people cling to technicalities they don’t really understand.

Most people I’ve seen debating this topic elsewhere rely on raw BAM file comparisons and then say dumb things like “they were Vikings” because of PCA proximity, when it’s crystal clear that the only valid thing that can be inferred from that sample is that it’s R1b — and L151 has been detected. With manual refinement we could probably go further, but that depends on the limitations of the software and the skill of the person operating it. What suffers the most are the autosomes used for PCA readings.

It’s like telling someone, “Don’t press that doorbell, it’s broken and will electrocute you” — and they go and press it anyway, then get mad that they were electrocuted. If the BAM file hasn’t been refined by someone well-regarded in bioinformatics, what the hell do they expect?

PCA by itself is virtually useless for anything serious, because it’s tied to biases already established by other authors, and on top of that, sample coverage is always inconsistent. So you can never truly determine the origin of a genetic mix with that method, because it will always lump samples into one cluster or another. If the sample has 20% coverage, the other 80% is fantasy, filled in by a calculator and overestimation.

Genetics isn’t about seeking “mixes” — it’s about cataloguing specific allelic mutations as references to know where and when they first truly appeared. Not whether they were the result of some endogamous transfer, which, as I’ve explained, can be forced in just four generations — even two sibling pairings can completely mess with someone relying on PCA.

Investigating these issues through PCA is utterly impossible. Only Y-DNA refinement of ancient samples will illuminate the path. PCA is, in fact, the worst tool because it doesn’t tell you if genes are going or coming — only Y-DNA and mtDNA chronologies can do that.

The latest study on the Punics and Phoenicians is another example where, based on how they present the data, they clarify absolutely nothing. The moment I saw the PCA charts, I thought, “Damn, the Sea Peoples.”

Since they don’t refine the Y trees, we can’t know anything — not even the order.

I’ve spent hours and hours analyzing pedigrees, and I can mentally calculate inbreeding levels. That’s essentially what these ancestry calculators do — estimating based on what kind of mix would’ve been born in a given time frame.

When I apply those same criteria to L151 populations, they make up 50% of all Europeans. That’s why we are European — especially Western Europeans. The Eastern part, as you know, has other founding males. We are, ancestrally, very inbred — like all peoples, really.

Any Spaniard who tells me they belong to haplogroup E or T — they don’t even have to say it — I already know that 4 to 6 of their great-great-grandfathers were DF27. So I can predict their autosomes with pretty good accuracy. It’s impossible to reproduce with a Spanish woman and not have your descendants “catch the virus.” And this applies to any population where R1b exceeds 50%. You just have to know when those minority Y haplogroups were introduced.

A Basque person? 7–8 of their great-great-grandfathers will be DF27; 5–8 of those will be Z278.

An Irish person? 7 out of 8 will be DF13.

PCA does the same thing but with 1000 more mathematical variables.

All those paths go through proto-Celtic cultures of transhumant cattle herders around 3000–2500 BC — which were basically the Bell Beakers.

What connects all noteworthy L151 lineages, regardless of where they migrated or whom they mixed with, is that they were breeding horses and bulls without interruption since 3500 BC in Iberia, France, Germany, Italy, the Danube zone, and the Aegean. Even today, horses with DA1-U, DA1-N, and DA1-R haplogroups still survive — remnants from before the massive DAC replacement (formerly called DOM2).

It’s also extremely curious that when they compare bulls using PCA, they end up ordered almost exactly like L151, which shows they exchanged livestock — or stole it — just as their own myths recount.

So the Argeads and Mycenaeans surely had something to do with maintaining horse breeding in that region. That’s why today we still find around 10% of Pf7562 and P312 in that area — which many assume are from later migrations, but they could date back to 2000 BC. This L151 found in the Argead dynasty is proof of that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to fall under U152.
You address your post at me, OK.
I never contradicted you on every aspect you developped. Just I don't share with you your repulsion for auDNA: auDNA is what unifies a pop. auDNA is not reduced to a simple PCA, it contains other clues (IBD's)... auDNA except some aspects is of 0 value when it concerned an individual only, but has some when it concerned groups.
 
Big talk no substance, i believe you completely lack the picture of Balkan archaeology and are utterly ignorant on that to make such conclusions. Let's say the results are correct (which i doubt it btw, they will be falsified in upcoming studies), what archaeological sites/changes do u apply to intruduction of R1b-L151? None there are in inner Balkans and Aegean, except for tagging alongside the Eastern Balkan-Carpathian Urnfielders as minority.

Horse-breeding and horseriding of Macedonians was a trait shared together with their neighbors the Thracians (heavy on E-V13), who were notoriously known for that, and who adopted that trait from their R1a-Z93 Iranic steppe populations north-eastern neighbors during Bronze Age, likely Noua-Sabatinovska who was a legitimate equestrian culture.

Perhaps you should just chill out with all these Turkish coffee cup predictions and do not engage emotionally in this until we got verified reputable publications of the Argeads or whatever, whatever their Y-DNA is, is.
You sound like an E-V13 crying because things didn’t turn out the way you dreamed.
 
You address your post at me, OK.
I never contradicted you on every aspect you developped. Just I don't share with you your repulsion for auDNA: auDNA is what unifies a pop. auDNA is not reduced to a simple PCA, it contains other clues (IBD's)... auDNA except some aspects is of 0 value when it concerned an individual only, but has some when it concerned groups.
Look, it’s not that I don’t trust autosomal DNA — what I don’t trust is how the so-called “experts” in archaeogenetics use PCAs to argue in their studies.

In this specific case, we’re dealing with a sample with very low coverage, so the only thing that can be considered reliable is the Y-chromosome. Neither mtDNA nor autosomal DNA should be taken seriously, as they are the most affected by “contamination” when the BAM file hasn’t been properly refined.

Of course PCAs can be informative, but only when used under certain criteria — not when they’re given disproportionate importance.

I’m not attacking anyone in particular; this is an open criticism of the distortion this field is undergoing in general.

The correct order of doing things should be:
  1. Radiocarbon dating, combined with a broad context of the grave goods and culture.
  2. Y-DNA with the deepest subclade possible, consistent with the dated period.
  3. mtDNA with the deepest subclade possible.
  4. Autosomal DNA, using the actual coverage percentage, and multiple PCAs with different time-period biases.
    The raw BAM files should be published for independent review, alongside the cleaned versions, stating the name of the bioinformatician who did the processing.

What they actually do is:
  1. Autosomal DNA without indicating coverage, and a single biased PCA — often using calculators based on Neolithic or Bronze Age samples to interpret Iron Age remains.
  2. Y-DNA without a deep subclade.
  3. mtDNA without a deep subclade.
  4. Archaeological context with few details — half the article is always about methodologies and technical jargon nobody really cares about.
Every new study seems less serious and is edging dangerously close to pseudoscience.

The way they’re doing things now, every time something comes out that doesn’t align with their emotional agenda, the dissenters start throwing around baseless claims about contamination — as if we were still in 2010 doing classical PCR.

If the most important corpses analyzed to date have been poorly analyzed or refined…

Why do you think the rest are done properly?

It makes no sense to trust the scientific method and then not use it correctly — or to question it without understanding how it actually works.
 
You sound like an E-V13 crying because things didn’t turn out the way you dreamed.

It doesn't have to go my way, stop with your tantrums around. We have low resolution samples and very likely contaminated. Same story as Old Kingdom Egypt samples, and i bet that 18th dynasty was contaminated as well. Chill out dude. You don't have to go rampage to explain yourself.

You are having strong opinions on extremely weak evidence, that tells you something. When a study specifically dedicated for the Y-DNA with reliable peer-review will be published, then we can have a talk around. For now, i don't see a value.
 
It doesn't have to go my way, stop with your tantrums around. We have low resolution samples and very likely contaminated. Same story as Old Kingdom Egypt samples, and i bet that 18th dynasty was contaminated as well. Chill out dude. You don't have to go rampage to explain yourself.

You are having strong opinions on extremely weak evidence, that tells you something. When a study specifically dedicated for the Y-DNA with reliable peer-review will be published, then we can have a talk around. For now, i don't see a value.
Yes… That’s what many Islamists on Twitter say.


All of them experts, from the first to the last, in BAM file refinement.
 
Big talk no substance, i believe you completely lack the picture of Balkan archaeology and are utterly ignorant on that to make such conclusions. Let's say the results are correct (which i doubt it btw, they will be falsified in upcoming studies), what archaeological sites/changes do u apply to intruduction of R1b-L151? None there are in inner Balkans and Aegean, except for tagging alongside the Eastern Balkan-Carpathian Urnfielders as minority.

Horse-breeding and horseriding of Macedonians was a trait shared together with their neighbors the Thracians (heavy on E-V13), who were notoriously known for that, and who adopted that trait from their R1a-Z93 Iranic steppe populations north-eastern neighbors during Bronze Age, likely Noua-Sabatinovska who was a legitimate equestrian culture.

Perhaps you should just chill out with all these Turkish coffee cup predictions and do not engage emotionally in this until we got verified reputable publications of the Argeads or whatever, whatever their Y-DNA is, is.
Mmm Thracians were described as red haired and blue eyes now of course thats probably a bit of stereotype as i have doubts there were that many red heads corresponding too all these ancient descriptions but i find it a but surprising E is now the Thracian haplogroup.

Perhaps we need some more samples.
 
This might explain why the Greeks werent sure if they were Greeks or Barbarians.
 
Last edited:
Sure but why not just actually cast a Greek to play Alexander? Is it so difficult to use ethnically accurate actors in films portraying real historic events and people?
I am Greek. My conclusion to this question is that Hollywood considers Ancient Greece as part of “western canon” and so it historically cast your standard white actors to play Greeks, sometimes dying their hair dark and giving them brown contact lenses (eg Gerard Butler in 300). I don’t see any malice and I don’t expect from Hollywood or Netflix to ever shoot anything involving Ancient Greece with mostly Greek actors. And frankly, most Greeks don’t care one bit.

As for Macedon and its genetic footprint, I don’t expect royals to give us a solid idea on how the actual people precisely plot since they were usually just half Macedon. We will get nice info and uniparentals will be super interesting but I would rather see commoners sampled.
 
I'm speculating that Macedonians will most likely be more northern shifted than Mycenaeans. How far north-shifted they are, of course, I can't tell. So the question is whether Macedonians will plot more with modern-day (Northern) Greeks or even Thracians or Illyrians. Regardless, any genetic outcome will be fire and dynamite, as Alexander the Great is a person whom the entire Balkans fight over, and any country would love to claim him. The same is true with Old and New Kingdom Egyptian papers. It's a bummer that we still haven't had decent papers about AE.

It is interesting it also brings some questions to the forefront like are the modern macedonains even related to the Ancients and are the Greeks correct that they are Bulgarians.
I am Greek. My conclusion to this question is that Hollywood considers Ancient Greece as part of “western canon” and so it historically cast your standard white actors to play Greeks, sometimes dying their hair dark and giving them brown contact lenses (eg Gerard Butler in 300). I don’t see any malice and I don’t expect from Hollywood or Netflix to ever shoot anything involving Ancient Greece with mostly Greek actors. And frankly, most Greeks don’t care one bit.

As for Macedon and its genetic footprint, I don’t expect royals to give us a solid idea on how the actual people precisely plot since they were usually just half Macedon. We will get nice info and uniparentals will be super interesting but I would rather see commoners sampled.

I dont see any malice either but they should atleast pick a few Greek actors when making a movie about Greece. More so if its a big budget film.
 
Last edited:
I am Greek. My conclusion to this question is that Hollywood considers Ancient Greece as part of “western canon” and so it historically cast your standard white actors to play Greeks, sometimes dying their hair dark and giving them brown contact lenses (eg Gerard Butler in 300). I don’t see any malice and I don’t expect from Hollywood or Netflix to ever shoot anything involving Ancient Greece with mostly Greek actors. And frankly, most Greeks don’t care one bit.

As for Macedon and its genetic footprint, I don’t expect royals to give us a solid idea on how the actual people precisely plot since they were usually just half Macedon. We will get nice info and uniparentals will be super interesting but I would rather see commoners sampled.
You're free to your personal opinion but it is a bit presumptuous to speak on behalf of most Greeks. I don't buy that part of your statement. I'd be willing to bet, if polled, most would prefer Greek actors portraying Greek historical figures over broadly white actors of other ethnic backgrounds.
 
Back
Top