Y-DNA haplogroups of Greeks by region of origin

There's also a misunderstanding of what makes Cretans different from mainland Greeks...
E1b1b in Di Giaccomo's paper is :
Patra : 44.4% (8/18)
Ioannina : 29.2% (7/24)
Heraklion : 26.2 (11/42) Crete
Chania : 24.1% (7/29) Crete

Karditsa : 24.0% (6/25)
Serres : 24.0% (6/25)
Chios : 23.8% (10/42)
Thessalonike : 20.0% (4/20)
Mytilene : 18.5% (5/27)
Larissa : 14.3% (3/21)
Agrinio : 9.5% (2/21)
Rethymno : 9.1 (2/22) Crete
Lasithi : 4.0% (2/50) Crete

so Cretans with a 15.4% E1b1b in Di Giaccomo's paper look quite closer to mainland Greeks than the paper of King et.al (2007-08) suggested, primarly becauce of the large percentage of E1b1b in Argolis and Sesclo(where they tested villagers who are unlikely to represent the mainstream Greek population) in contrast to the low percentage of E1b1b observed from the 193 samples of Cretans.
Cretans are on the one extreme of Greek variation with 35% J2 / 11% E1b1b while
Peloponnesians are on the other extreme with 16% J2 / 37% E1b1b.
All the other Greeks fall within this two extremes, so Cretans are not more differentiated from other Greeks than Peloponnesians are. Why are always Cretans associated with the old and possible outdated conclusions of King et.al is something I can't understand...

 
I don't know what I did wrong in the above post. What I wrote is that Cretans in King et.al 2007 seem far away from mainland Greek samples but those Greek samples don't represent the mainstream Greek population (because they exxagerate E1b1b frequency) while the low frequency observed in Crete is doubled in Di Giaccomo's paper...
Cretans are on the one extreme of Greek variation with 35% J2 / 11% E1b1b while
Peloponnesian Greeks are on the other extreme with 16% J2 / 37% E1b1b
All the other Greeks fall within this two extremes so Cretans are as much atypical Greeks as Peloponnesians but it's only Cretans who are thought of as different than other Greeks...
 
I have recalculated all the data for Greece using the same nominal geographic division as archaiocapilos, except that I placed the data of Agrinion in Central Greece instead of South Greece, and I didn't take Ionia into account.

There are two ways of calculating the frequencies for the whole country :

1) make the total of the samples of all regions for each haplogroup and calculate the percentages. The problem with this method is that it gives more weight to regions with more samples, like Crete which has 40% of the samples.

2) the average of percentage for the five regions, which gives a better balance country-wide.

There is one main difference between the two methods. The first gives a higher percentage of J2 (24% against 20.5%) and a lower percentage of E1b1b (19% against 22%). I actually did an average of the two methods. Other haplogroups don't vary much with either method.
 
ok, so do you have data for the greek islands between Italy and greece ?

Yes, I'd be interested in that data too zanipolo. The islands extend from Kerkyra (Corfu) in the north and continue down to Kythera and Antikythera (18kms) off western Crete. They have a different history and influence than the easten islands being under Venetian, French and lastly British rule before their return to Greece.
 
Yes, I'd be interested in that data too zanipolo. The islands extend from Kerkyra (Corfu) in the north and continue down to Kythera and Antikythera (18kms) off western Crete. They have a different history and influence than the easten islands being under Venetian, French and lastly British rule before their return to Greece.
So they would have more R1b1a2 -U152 and G2a3b1,J1 while less of E1b1b,R1a1a and I-M170 than the rest of Greeks...haplogroup J2 would remain the same
 
So they would have more R1b1a2 -U152 and G2a3b1,J1 while less of E1b1b,R1a1a and I-M170 than the rest of Greeks...haplogroup J2 would remain the same

nope I don't believe so, all will be decreased except R1b which might be raised, and a possible raise of I from east Adriatic,

a possible case of G2a3b1 is standar in greece and almost equal scattered except 2-3 areas, which raise a little,

Corfu and Kythera should be tottaly diferent,

remember Kythera was destroyed 2-3 last centuries,

while Corfu had Linton (a libro d' oro area) Venetian elite,

I am interesting in Ithake and Cephallonia and zakynthos
 
Thanks archaiocapilos and iapetoc!

Yes, Kerkyra, Kythera and even Antikythera are very different from each other. Kytherians have a Peloponnesian influence where as Antikythera is more influenced by Crete. But you can still see the Venetian and British influences as well.
 
Maciamo I think that you should reconsider the whole -Ionian Greeks- issue because...
1. ex-Ottoman Empire was multi-ethnic with all of this ethnic/religious classes not inter-marrying with each other (especially Christians vs Muslims). This is confirmed by genetics where it is obvious that Asia Minor Greeks are completely different from Asia Minor Turks...
2. Their Y-DNA allmost perfectly resembles that of Aegean Greeks with whom I have classified them under Eastern Greeks (GREEKS not Greece). It also resembles average or mainstream Greek Y-DNA.
3. Their descendants live in Greece today and like all other Anatolian Greeks who were expelled from their homeland have contributed to the Greek gene pool, so if anything, their Y-DNA is relevant with modern Greece rather than modern Turkey
4. Greeks resemble Jews and Armenians in this matter (all of them being international peoples untill 200 years ago). Religion played a significant role in keeping this three peoples distinct from the people they lived among... so if you don't classify German Jews as Germans but as Ashkenazi you shouldn't classify Anatolian Greeks as Turks but as Eastern Greeks
5. Turkey as a distinct modern state was formed after the ex-change of populations between Greeks and Turks. So litterally speaking Ionian Greeks descend from Ottoman Empire Greeks 100 years ago...but Macedonian Greeks also origin from Ottoman Empire Greeks 100 years ago (because Macedonia was under Ottoman rule untill 1912) and so did all of Greeks 200 years ago (because all of Greece-and the Balkans-was Ottoman ruled back then). In fact Ionia region was for a while given to Greece between 1919-1922 because it was a region with significant Greek population (more than 50%) but Greeks lost the war and the current borders of Greece-Turkey were finally formed in 1922...
6. Finally why do you accept Anatolian Kurds as different from Anatolian Turks and you don't do the same for Anatolian Greeks?
 
Finally and interesting,

I2a2<I1 !!!!!! + I2*-B !!!!!!
No Iapetoc I think you got it wrong...what was called I2a2-Din now is called I2a1b-Din and what was called I2b now is called I2a2. The nomenclature changes fast as new mutations that link haplogroups are being identified...
 
In other words, Greeks who used to live in Anatolia should only be used for the data about Turkey.
Why should they be used for Turkey since they never lived in a country named Turkey?
The point of Y-DNA studies is to estimate the ethnic admixtures in a country or region. If you intentionally remove an ethnic group that has lived in that region for thousands of years, the results will be skewed.
Now look Maciamo, when Turkish scientists sample an Afshar village (Afshars being nomadic Turks from central Asia who settled in Anatolia in various waves, even recently) this samples are not included in central Asia (Iran, Afghanistan or Uzbekistan) but under Turkey where they currently live...they also include Tatars and Turkmens and others who live in Turkey under their broad Turkish category and they rightly do it because they want to estimate the ethnic admixtures in modern Turks. I'm sure they include Turks of Albanian,Bosnian and Cretan origin too and they don't name them Balkan Turks or classify them under Albania, Bosnia or Crete.
Greeks who used to live in Anatolia are usefull to compare them with Anatolian Turks and detect the level of Greek admixture in Turks and the Turkish admixture in Greeks or the native/Anatolian admixture in both of them...but are not usefull to detect the modern ethnic admixture in Turkey since they don't live there, they live in Greece (Anatolian Greeks constitute close to 25% of modern Greeks) and should be used to identify modern Greek ethnic admixture, don't you think?
 
If not classify them as Eastern Greeks, what about Anatolian Greeks in a category of their own without including them under Greece or Turkey, the same way you do with Kurds?
 
If not classify them as Eastern Greeks, what about Anatolian Greeks in a category of their own without including them under Greece or Turkey, the same way you do with Kurds?
Do these 'Eastern Greeks' speak their own native language?

The issue with the Kurds is that the Anatolian Kurds are not assimilated into the Turkish nation and Turkish culture. And they do still consider themselves as 'Kurds'. They still speak their own language and have a distinguish culture (Kurdish/Iranic) to other Turk. What about those 'Eastern' Greeks?
 
Do these 'Eastern Greeks' speak their own native language?

The issue with the Kurds is that the Anatolian Kurds are not assimilated into the Turkish nation and Turkish culture. And they do still consider themselves as 'Kurds'. They still speak their own language and have a distinguish culture (Kurdish/Iranic) to other Turk. What about those 'Eastern' Greeks?
It's obvious that you didn't understand anything of what I said...this 89 samples are from Greek men who are currently living in Greece but have a paternal-origin from Anatolia region (Fokaia and Smyrne) like 25% of modern Greeks. Their ancestors who lived under Ottoman Empire had a native Greek language, were Christian Orthodox and allways thought of themselves as Greeks (which is now proven by genetics).
After the ex-change of populations between Greece and Turkey they came in Greece like 1.200.000 other Anatolian Greeks and settled in various places. If we are interested on who modern Greeks are by a genetic point of view they SHOULD definetely be included under Greece not Turkey, the same way that Turks of Albanian or Bosniac or Tatar origin are included under Turkey and German Jews under Ashkenazi.
 
Do these 'Eastern Greeks' speak their own native language?

The issue with the Kurds is that the Anatolian Kurds are not assimilated into the Turkish nation and Turkish culture. And they do still consider themselves as 'Kurds'. They still speak their own language and have a distinguish culture (Kurdish/Iranic) to other Turk. What about those 'Eastern' Greeks?

better ask your shelf are they alllowed to speak it?

kurds are muslim so 'not enemy for Turks,
kurds were allied with turks,

Greek is forbiden language in turkey except Polis so don't compare things
 
In fact Goga the case of Anatolian Kurds holds even less credibility than the case of Anatolian Greeks because:
1. A lot of Kurds are assimilated into Turkish society.
2. They currently live in modern state of Turkey.
But Maciamo correctly sees the inconsistance of placing Kurds under Turkey so he even gives them a non-official region name (Kurdistan/Turkey Kurds)... but he classifies Greeks who speak Greek, live in Greece and would consider it an insult to be called Turks
under Turkey. Do you see how biased against Greeks he is?
 
If we are interested on who modern Greeks are by a genetic point of view they SHOULD definetely be included under Greece not Turkey, the same way that Turks of Albanian or Bosniac or Tatar origin are included under Turkey and German Jews under Ashkenazi.
Take it easy man. I don't know much about the Greeks.

But I do agree with you about the Greeks from Turkey are Greeks. There're a lot Kurds in Central Asia. Persian kings deported many Kurds into Turkmenistan. They changed their DNA, but somehow I do consider them as Kurds..
 
better ask your shelf are they alllowed to speak it?
Ρε φιλε ουτε κι εσυ καταλαβες μου φαινεται. Η συγκεκριμενη ερευνα αφορα Ελληνες που εχουν πατρικη καταγωγη απο Ιωνια και ζουν στην Ελλαδα σημερα. Ο Ματσιαμος ομως υποστηριζει οτι πρεπει να περιληφθουν στην Τουρκια και δινει μια ηλιθια δικαιολογια για την επιλογη του. Πιστευω οτι το κανει επειδη
1. Εχουν πολυ R1b και θα ανεβασουν τον Ελληνικο μεσο ορο
2. Ειναι πολυ κοντα στους Χιωτες και Μυτιληνιους αποδεικνυοντας οτι οι Ελληνες δεν μπασταρδευτηκαν με τους Τουρκους (τουλαχιστον οι Σμυρνιοι)
Το οτι ειναι προκατειλημενος με τους Ελληνες φαινεται και απο αλλα πραγματα αλλα βαριεμαι να τα πιανω ενα-ενα. Προσεξε μονο οτι ενω ηξερε για ολες τις μελετες που αφορουσαν Ελληνες (το παραδεχτηκε) χρησιμοποιουσε εκεινες τις μελετες που αυξαναν το E1b1b και μειωναν το R1b.
Αν ειχε αγαθες προθεσεις η δικαιολογια του οτι αφου καταγονται απο το κρατος που σημερα ονομαζουμε Τουρκια πρεπει να συμπεριληφθουν στην κατηγορια Τουρκια θα εκανε το ιδιο και με τους Εβραιους ή τους Κουρδους. Ομως εφαρμοζει αυτον τον κανονα μονο για τους Ελληνες
 
Btw, Greeks from Anatolia are less 'Afro-Asiatic' than native Greeks in Greece. Anatolian Greeks lived much more inland in Anatolia and had less contact with the Semites from Levant (Lebanon) and Egyptians...
 
Btw, Greeks from Anatolia are less 'Afro-Asiatic' than native Greeks in Greece. Anatolian Greeks lived much more inland in Anatolia and had less contact with the Semites from Levant (Lebanon) and Egyptians...
If you call E1b1b Afro-Asiatic you are definetely confused because the sub-clades we find in Greece are either European (E1b1b1a2) or Levantine (E1b1b1a3 + E1b1b1c) while Greeks (native or Anatolian) score 0% African in Autosomal percentages. You should get more information about sub-clades of haplogroups...
 
But Maciamo correctly sees the inconsistance of placing Kurds under Turkey so he even gives them a non-official region name (Kurdistan/Turkey Kurds)... but he classifies Greeks who speak Greek, live in Greece and would consider it an insult to be called Turks
under Turkey. Do you see how biased against Greeks he is?

Well, I understand where he is coming from, and it doesn't seem like flat bias to me. Those Greeks who can trace their ancestry back to what is now Turkey he considers to be in a similar situation as me... I'm an American, but my Y-line would not be useful for a study of Native Americans, it would be useful (if anything) in a study of historic Swiss populations, because my Y-line comes from Switzerland. Similarly, Maciamo wants to remove Anatolian Greeks from his sample pool of those native to the land encompassed by modern Greece.

I think there's value in both your methods and Maciamo's methods. I think the difference is that you're doing a summary of "Greeks," and he is doing a summary of "Greece."
 

This thread has been viewed 359777 times.

Back
Top