Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 258

Thread: "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe"

  1. #101
    Registered Users
    Posts
    567
    Sex
    Location
    Greece
    Y-DNA (P)
    G-L91>FTA40859
    mtDNA (M)
    T2f2d
    mtDNA (P)
    T2c1

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyh View Post
    I don’t think there’s any evidence of some pre-Greek Anatolian language in Greece either
    There's a theory of a "Luwian substrate" in the Greek language. Even though it's almost certain some Luwians and Hittites would have set their foot on Greece and the Aegean islands, I think the most likely scenario is that the increase in Iran_N and CHG ancestry happened with the migration of a non-IE Anatolian population (related to Minoans possibly?)

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to peloponnesian For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  Andrewid (06-20-2022),  Archetype0ne (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-23-2022),  Jack Johnson (06-20-2022),  Megalophias (06-20-2022),  parasar (06-20-2022),  Principe (06-20-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022),  Straboo (06-21-2022),  XXD (06-21-2022)

  3. #102
    Registered Users
    Posts
    788
    Sex
    Location
    Rome _ Aventine Hill
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1B-U152-L2-Z367
    mtDNA (M)
    T1A1L

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy European Union Vatican
    I have some questions. Is this abstract arguing for an Anatolian PIE homeland or an Iranian one? Do they argue it just based on genetics? What about archeology and linguistics? What about the fact that Neolithic\Bronze age Iran and BA Anatolia admixture is not in Yamna or modern Northern Europe? What about the fact that Armenia got steppe admixture early? The Yamnas had cultural and genetic contact with the South, but with transcaucasian Maycop\Kura Araxes not with Anatolian or Iranian cultures. If you tell me that those caucasian were the source of PIE, I wouldn't blink, it always has been a possibility. But further South is just impossible on geographical base, those shadow invaders had to fly over those caucasian cultures (I would not take seriously the eastern route around the black sea, no evidence of that whatsoever). But then, are they really implying a massive migration of sort, that left no archaeological signatures? (But left a genetic signature typical of the Northern Caucasus and not of the place they are arguing PIE came from)

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ariel90 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  Caspian (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-23-2022),  Jack Johnson (06-20-2022),  pegasus (06-20-2022)

  5. #103
    Registered Users
    Posts
    988
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a YP445+ YP729+
    mtDNA (M)
    H80

    European Union Germany Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    Eh? How so? Do you think those Anatolians came to Italy speaking Latin? Speaking Lydian? You guys were talking about mass slaves imported directly from the Near East, about Punics and what not lol.

    I and others have continually mentioned that by Greeks we don't mean solely BA Mycenaean like - but Hellenized people from all over.

    Anatolia came under Roman control following the Mithridatic Wars in the 1st century BCE. Unless you suggest mass migration in 100 years into Italy, you need to face the possibility that Hellenized Anatolians settled in Italy before Roman rule on S. Italy and Anatolia, and after it.
    i think you misunderstood
    the slaves were not imported they came as migrants and on a scale for the source for a population-wide shift; the integral part of roman slavery was the manumissio (incl. civitas) which was granted per rule after just five years of servitude (mostly urbana 98%) and non restricted pre augustus; from epigraphics its known that the provenance was indeed anatolia and syria and this also well before the mithridatic wars (see:nicomedes III); potential hellensitic migrants in the poleis of magna graecia have yet to be attested especially on such a scale

    the cultural hellenization of italy is already an IA phenomenon (see:etruscans and samnites) not an imperial era phenomenon
    GENO2.0 51SEURO 19WCEURO 13SCANDINAVIA 5ASIAMINOR 4EEURO 4GB/IRELAND 3ARABIA MYORIGINS 52WCEUROPE 40SEEUROPE 5BRITISHISLES 3WMIDEAST DNA.LAND 49NWEURO 27SEURO 13MED.ISLANDER 11SARDINIAN MYHERITAGE 51.8NWEURO 33.2ITALIAN 7.9GREEK/S.ITALY 7.1BALKAN GENEPLAZA 54.4NWEURO 37.6GRE/ALB 5.6WASIAN 2.4SWASIA LIVINGDNA 57.4S.GER 3.3NE.GER 25.8N.ITA 5S.ITA 4.3TUSCANY 2.5CYPRUS 1.7AEGEAN FTDNA 49.7 WESTERN EUROPE britain/ireland,cen.europe,scandinavia 50.3 SOUTHERN EUROPE ita-peninsula,greece&balkan,sardinia

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to alexfritz For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  Erikl86 (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-23-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022),  Riverman (06-20-2022),  tikosg (06-20-2022)

  7. #104
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,339
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Ethnicity
    NW Tuscan/Italian
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+Z36+A7967
    mtDNA (M)
    U6a7a1c1

    Scotland Italy Tuscany
    Quote Originally Posted by alexfritz View Post
    i think you misunderstood
    the slaves were not imported they came as migrants and on a scale for the source for a population-wide shift; the integral part of roman slavery was the manumissio (incl. civitas) which was granted per rule after just five years of servitude (mostly urbana 98%) and non restricted pre augustus; from epigraphics its known that the provenance was indeed anatolia and syria and this also well before the mithridatic wars (see:nicomedes III); potential hellensitic migrants in the poleis of magna graecia have yet to be attested especially on such a scale

    the cultural hellenization of italy is already an IA phenomenon (see:etruscans and samnites) not an imperial era phenomenon
    We are splitting hairs here, folks.

    The fact is that genetically the Iron Age Central Italians (Etruscans and Romans) were more SW European-like while Imperial Age Central Italians were much more SE European, or East Med if you like.

    Does it matter if this was caused by free migration by Magna Graecia South Italians into every remote corner of the Italian mountains (35pc of Italy is mountainous and 42pc hilly); or manumitted foreigners. Both factors were involved and it's just deciding which factor was more important.

    The result is the same.

  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Cascio For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  alexfritz (06-20-2022),  Erikl86 (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-23-2022),  J.delajara (06-20-2022),  Principe (06-20-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022),  Straboo (06-21-2022),  Tutut (06-20-2022)

  9. #105
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,339
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Ethnicity
    NW Tuscan/Italian
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+Z36+A7967
    mtDNA (M)
    U6a7a1c1

    Scotland Italy Tuscany
    Quote Originally Posted by alexfritz View Post
    i think you misunderstood
    the slaves were not imported they came as migrants and on a scale for the source for a population-wide shift; the integral part of roman slavery was the manumissio (incl. civitas) which was granted per rule after just five years of servitude (mostly urbana 98%) and non restricted pre augustus; from epigraphics its known that the provenance was indeed anatolia and syria and this also well before the mithridatic wars (see:nicomedes III); potential hellensitic migrants in the poleis of magna graecia have yet to be attested especially on such a scale

    the cultural hellenization of italy is already an IA phenomenon (see:etruscans and samnites) not an imperial era phenomenon
    I am fascinated by this post but why didn't any ancient author mention this 5-year servitude rule?

    What about all the slaves captured in Rome's wars across the Mediterranean including the Iberian Peninsula.
    What happened to them?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Cascio For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-23-2022)

  11. #106
    Registered Users
    Posts
    567
    Sex
    Location
    Greece
    Y-DNA (P)
    G-L91>FTA40859
    mtDNA (M)
    T2f2d
    mtDNA (P)
    T2c1

    Quote Originally Posted by alexfritz View Post
    i think you misunderstood
    the slaves were not imported they came as migrants and on a scale for the source for a population-wide shift; the integral part of roman slavery was the manumissio (incl. civitas) which was granted per rule after just five years of servitude (mostly urbana 98%) and non restricted pre augustus; from epigraphics its known that the provenance was indeed anatolia and syria and this also well before the mithridatic wars (see:nicomedes III); potential hellensitic migrants in the poleis of magna graecia have yet to be attested especially on such a scale

    the cultural hellenization of italy is already an IA phenomenon (see:etruscans and samnites) not an imperial era phenomenon
    I'm not against the slave explanation on principle, but how would it explain the shift we see in Greece itself (and to a lesser extent the Balkans)? Were there big agricultural estates needing a huge amount of slaves in Roman-era Greece? Was Greece settled by Italians already carrying Anatolian ancestry? Did the shift happen earlier in Greece than in Italy (Hellenistic period) or later (Late Antiquity, early Byzantine period)? Anyway, I hope we get some relevant samples from Greece apart from the Mycenaeans because by god we need them.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to peloponnesian For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  alexfritz (06-20-2022),  Cascio (06-20-2022),  Erikl86 (06-20-2022),  J.delajara (06-20-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022),  Ryukendo (06-20-2022),  Straboo (06-21-2022)

  13. #107
    With all the new fancy tools at hand such as IBD-sharing and Admixture dating software, Harvard and co. will really have to make the case that the shared "ancestry components" between Steppe peoples and Transcaucasian/Anatolian/Iranian (nice obfuscation they are doing here lol, very promising) actually come from a single common population that then spread both ways. In 2015 you could make the argument that because you have "iranian-related" ancestry going both ways that this is the common denominator of Anatolian and Common PIE speaking populations, but in 2022 you will really have to make the case that this came from a single cohesive population.

    Lets say Reich/Harvard argues that Archaic PIE was spoken 7000-5000 BC, then they would have to make the case that the east-west geneflow in Anatolia is of the exact same kind as the south>north geneflow in the steppes and that these populations split within the timeframe of when they argue Archaic PIE was spoken. Patterson's article with admixture dating was a good attempt but there were several flaws with their results and interpretations as Mystic Altvred pointed out. If they are using the same type of "broad ancestry analysis" then it is all just hogwash. You can't simply tie PIE to a broad component carried by pretty much all speakers of attested languages in the ancient Near East, not with all the tools they have at their disposal in this day and age.

    And that is simply just genetics, never mind finer details like archaeology of areas, the degree of shared (and lacking) terminology between Anatolian and Common PIE or simply the distribution of Anatolian languages within Anatolia as well as the degree of linguistic/cultural influence they acquired from non-IE peoples and the linguistic/cultural influence they had on their neighbours.

    As I tend to say "I don't really care what academics think, I only care about what they can prove" and for a reinventing of the kweklos on this order of magnitude, going against the consensus that developed in two fields separately (linguistics and archaeology) they will really need some strong, strong evidence to make their case. We will see eventually.
    Latest blog entry:
    Hidden Content

    Also worth checking out:
    Hidden Content

  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  Ariel90 (06-20-2022),  Arlus (06-20-2022),  chitosechitose (06-20-2022),  ESPLover4 (06-21-2022),  Hando (06-24-2022),  pegasus (06-20-2022),  Pribislav (06-20-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022)

  15. #108
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,090
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by peloponnesian View Post
    I'm not against the slave explanation on principle, but how would it explain the shift we see in Greece itself (and to a lesser extent the Balkans)? Were there big agricultural estates needing a huge amount of slaves in Roman-era Greece? Was Greece settled by Italians already carrying Anatolian ancestry? Did the shift happen earlier in Greece than in Italy (Hellenistic period) or later (Late Antiquity, early Byzantine period)? Anyway, I hope we get some relevant samples from Greece apart from the Mycenaeans because by god we need them.
    It surely started in Greece earlier than in Italia. We know from Anatolian slaves and migrants in Greece very early on. But contrary to Italia, I think we might find more generalised migrations and substrate effects also, which being so far not covered and fully understood. Because there was actual mass migration from Anatolia in the Aegean, even Thrace, on various occasions and we might, in part, deal with homogenisation effects as well.

    But clearly, the biggest shift likely came about as in Italy, with small scale migration, workers and slaves in particular. E.g. if you read the Anabasis, many of the Greek menials and slaves came from the East when they started their campaign. Like one being mentioned, which knew the customs and language of the locals, because it was his homeland! So they could rely on his expertise. On the way back, the Greeks picked up a lot of local women and slaves, which they took back at home. Apparently, some even married the women and had offspring with them while still being on campaign.
    The Anabasis story took place about 400 BC! Its therefore quite telling, that workers, mercenaries and migrants from deep in Anatolia being widespread at that time already in all likelihood.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon#Anabasis

    One interesting question, especially for Greece, but also Italia, is the ratio of male : female haplogroups. Because more generally speaking, I think that a more worker and slave based gene flow would have resulted in a lower impact in yDNA and higher in mtDNA, usually. Like even in Germania, there seems to have been a trend of more Roman citizens/male : Germanic local/female. Therefore the higher status citizens were fairly likely to marry or have otherwise offspring with non-citizens and slaves, whereas the opposite was less common and sometimes even harder restricted by law, which is just logical for any classical era community.

    But for all of that, for such comparisons, we need a good and diversified reference from the Greeks themselves. So far its not even known whether Bronze Age migrations brought E-V13 in larger numbers to Greece, or whether it just came later in the historical period with Thracians, Slavs, Vlachs and Albanians.
    As long as we don't even know such basics about the paternal make up of Greece, we can't start talking about sex biased migrations and impacts.

    The modern Greek yDNA can't be used for that as easily, because of the obvious significant Vlach, Albanian and Slav input especially on the paternal side dating from later periods. But that should result in a female Anatolian presence being all the more prominent in Greeks. Can that be verified?

    There is e.g. this paper:
    The genetic trees that were constructed revealed homogeneity between Europeans. Median networks revealed that most of the Greek mtDNA haplotypes are clustered to the five known haplogroups and that a number of haplotypes are shared among Greeks and other European and Near Eastern populations.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11804201/

    It could have been the other way around, in theory, if the migration itself was heavily male based, but we have accounts from female slaves and servants, especially from Rome, but I think it won't be that different in Greece. But there could be surprises, which is why it needs to be checked.
    Last edited by Riverman; 06-20-2022 at 12:10 PM.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  alexfritz (06-20-2022),  Cascio (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-25-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022)

  17. #109
    Registered Users
    Posts
    58
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pontus
    Nationality
    Pontic Greek
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13

    Empire of Trebizond Kurdistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    It surely started in Greece earlier than in Italia. We know from Anatolian slaves and migrants in Greece very early on. But contrary to Italia, I think we might find more generalised migrations and substrate effects also, which being so far not covered and fully understood. Because there was actual mass migration from Anatolia in the Aegean, even Thrace, on various occasions and we might, in part, deal with homogenisation effects as well.

    But clearly, the biggest shift likely came about as in Italy, with small scale migration, workers and slaves in particular. E.g. if you read the Anabasis, many of the Greek menials and slaves came from the East when they started their campaign. Like one being mentioned, which knew the customs and language of the locals, because it was his homeland! So they could rely on his expertise. On the way back, the Greeks picked up a lot of local women and slaves, which they took back at home. Apparently, some even married the women and had offspring with them while still being on campaign.
    The Anabasis story took place about 400 BC! Its therefore quite telling, that workers, mercenaries and migrants from deep in Anatolia being widespread at that time already in all likelihood.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon#Anabasis

    One interesting question, especially for Greece, but also Italia, is the ratio of male : female haplogroups. Because more generally speaking, I think that a more worker and slave based gene flow would have resulted in a lower impact in yDNA and higher in mtDNA, usually. Like even in Germania, there seems to have been a trend of more Roman citizens/male : Germanic local/female. Therefore the higher status citizens were fairly likely to marry or have otherwise offspring with non-citizens and slaves, whereas the opposite was less common and sometimes even harder restricted by law, which is just logical for any classical era community.

    But for all of that, for such comparisons, we need a good and diversified reference from the Greeks themselves. So far its not even known whether Bronze Age migrations brought E-V13 in larger numbers to Greece, or whether it just came later in the historical period with Thracians, Slavs, Vlachs and Albanians.
    As long as we don't even know such basics about the paternal make up of Greece, we can't start talking about sex biased migrations and impacts.

    The modern Greek yDNA can't be used for that as easily, because of the obvious significant Vlach, Albanian and Slav input especially on the paternal side dating from later periods. But that should result in a female Anatolian presence being all the more prominent in Greeks. Can that be verified?

    There is e.g. this paper:


    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11804201/

    It could have been the other way around, in theory, if the migration itself was heavily male based, but we have accounts from female slaves and servants, especially from Rome, but I think it won't be that different in Greece. But there could be surprises, which is why it needs to be checked.
    You should not forget that there is a lot of J and some other MENA lineages/uniparentals in the Greco-Roman world...and we are not 100% sure if they are all associated with the Greeks.

    For example my pateral yDNA G-M406 it probably spread with anatolian migrations in Italy and Greece...since we haven't found it yet in any european neolithic site.Same goes for various J2,J1 folks that we see in south/southeast europe today.

    It wasn't just slaves and workers or females as you believe(or you want to believe)....but traders,merchants,professors,academics,mercenaries and ofc later with Christianity a lot of preachers and followers of Christianity arrived in Italy,Greece and the balkans from the Levant and Anatolia.

    A good video to watch.Christianity arrived in Europe mostly from Levantines and Anatolians who many of them would had been hellenized ofc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd2tITr9Tvg&t=91s
    Last edited by Avraam Kyriakidis; 06-20-2022 at 12:20 PM.

  18. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Avraam Kyriakidis For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  Cascio (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-25-2022),  Kanenas (06-20-2022),  parasar (06-20-2022),  peloponnesian (06-20-2022),  Principe (06-20-2022),  Riverman (06-20-2022),  Straboo (06-21-2022)

  19. #110
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,633
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Jew
    Y-DNA (P)
    Q-YP3924
    mtDNA (M)
    K1a1b1a
    mtDNA (P)
    K2a2a

    Israel Israel Jerusalem Star of David
    I never saw this as a black or white kind of situation - my point, as well as others, was, and is, always, that the change began from Magna Graecia, from those poleis.

    W. Anatolia had been settled by Greeks from the 11th century BCE.

    Miletus for instance, a West Anatolian Ionian polis, found anywhere from 25-80 poleis around the Black Sea shores.

    It is hilarious to assume that no Anatolian Hellenes settled in Magna Graecia.

    Did Roman conquest of Anatolia further increased this? Most likely.

    The main thing is that Hellenic people were migrating and settling in Italy enough to change it's demography - and again, thinking this had nothing to do with an early onset of Hellenization of the Roman Republic after the incorporation of the Magna Greacia poleis is ignoring the very obvious evidence.

    The funny thing is that on the Vesuvius thread, you have a sample from 79 CE (this is an accurate date thanks to the known historical date of the eruption) already fully East Med. But of course the 1st sample we have from Pompeii would accidentally be descendant of recent migrants from the last century.

    But I'm fine with that, no worries. Soon when we'll see more classical-era samples from upcoming studies, while I haven't seen them, rumors has it some even in Italy, they'd be East Med shifted even without the additional Anatolian-like component.
    Check out my Hidden Content

  20. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Erikl86 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-20-2022),  Andrewid (06-20-2022),  Archetype0ne (06-20-2022),  Cascio (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-25-2022),  J.delajara (06-20-2022),  peloponnesian (06-20-2022),  Principe (06-20-2022),  Psynome (06-20-2022),  Riverman (06-20-2022),  Ruderico (06-20-2022)

Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-19-2021, 11:58 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-25-2018, 11:02 AM
  3. "The genetic forge of Europe", by Carles Lalueza-Fox
    By razyn in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-18-2018, 05:52 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-16-2017, 05:36 PM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-18-2015, 02:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •