# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  How much Turks and Slavic influence the Greek genetic pool ?

## Etrusco-romano

Speaking about greek genetic, especially with regard to the north of the country, we see a peak of *I1*, *I2*, *I2a* and *R1a*, these haplogroups, with some exceptions, may be charged to the Germanic and Slavic peoples; in northern Greece this haplogroups "take" half of the male population, with similar results, but also slightly lower, in central and southern Greece.
We can do the same analysis for the quantity of *J2* and *J1*, many are natives, but probably many arrived with the Ottoman invasions (We know that the Turks enlisted in their ranks many Arabs).
What is the "genetic gift" of centuries of ottoman domination in Greece? And also: why almost 50% of the Greek population of the north seems to be of Slavic origin?

----------


## Knovas

Autosomal data provides more concrete clues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...COCa89AJ#gid=0

According to this, Turks are more than 40% West Asian, while Greeks 25.7%. This could be ancient, however, there's not a huge distance between the Greek Southwest Asian and the Turkish one (6.8% and 8.9%), suggesting a more recent influence.

11% East European between the Greeks looks significant in my book. The highest percent in all Southern Europe if we consider the Balkans apart.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

So, according with these estimates, over 25% of the autosomal greek DNA is of Asian origin?

----------


## Knovas

Not Asian (Mongoloid), but Near Eastern. And adding the Southwest Asian, it's over 30%.

Yes, it's perfectly possible. In this regard Turks are more or less 50% Near Eastern.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

So the purely Asian influence (southwest: mongoloid) is equal to 5% , while the remaining 25% is in the Near East, therefore, Turkish of Anatolia, Arabs, and so on and so forth. Interesting, I did not think that the Ottoman occupation of Greece had influenced so much.

----------


## Knovas

No, wait. Southwest Asian refers to the Arabian Peninusula, so it's not considered Mongoloid. Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian are the main Mongoloid groups, and Greeks have very low scores there (probably noise in most cases). Turks for example have higher percents there, and also more South Asian, wich is something intermediate.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Ok, i was wrong couse in Italy we use the name "Asian" only to indicate the countries beyond Iran, generally.

----------


## Knovas

Well, it's obvious the two components have some Asian affinities, but they don't deviate too much. Both are closer to Europe.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Well, it's obvious the two components have some Asian affinities, but they don't deviate too much. Both are closer to Europe.


Autosomal DNA distinguishes the differences nicely. The West Asian component should read Eastern Mediterranean but this would also be too inclusive and would suggest affinities to Northwest Africa which is less compared to the Med-Asian component.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Speaking about greek genetic, especially with regard to the north of the country, we see a peak of *I1*, *I2*, *I2a* and *R1a*, these haplogroups, with some exceptions, may be charged to the Germanic and Slavic peoples; in northern Greece this haplogroups "take" half of the male population, with similar results, but also slightly lower, in central and southern Greece.
> We can do the same analysis for the quantity of *J2* and *J1*, many are natives, but probably many arrived with the Ottoman invasions (We know that the Turks enlisted in their ranks many Arabs).
> What is the "genetic gift" of centuries of ottoman domination in Greece? And also: why almost 50% of the Greek population of the north seems to be of Slavic origin?


The Mongolian Turks who carried Asiatic-Mongoloid Haplogroups is a tiny fraction of the Turkish population and it appears Turks are in general local Anatolians for the most part. You will not find Mongoloid haplogroups in the Greek population. The Slavic admixture in Greeks is from the Eastern Roman Empire and can be seen in M458+ Greek men. This is found in about 5% of Greek men in Northern Greece and represents 15-20% of R1a in North Greece.

----------


## Knovas

The best to understand what the componenets mean and imply, is to check a single component in comparison to the rest: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON.../s1600/fst.png

For example, it's perfectly clear that West Asian deviates towards Mongoloids (Northeast and Southeast Asian), while Southwest Asian has not incredibly high Mongoloid affinties (note for example that East and West European deviate even more) and it's much closer to Africans than the West Asian is. That gives a clue about the geographic location, matching exceedingly well the Caucasus in the first case, and the Arabian Peninsula in the second one.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

5% seems a little bit, since the percentage of almost 50% of R1a, I1, I2 and I2a in Northern Greece (and the frequencies of nearly 20/30% in the rest of Greece).
On average we are talking about almost 30% of the Greek population. 
And I'm not considering the percentage of R1b Slavic

----------


## Dorianfinder

> 5% seems a little bit, since the percentage of almost 50% of R1a, I1, I2 and I2a in Northern Greece (and the frequencies of nearly 20/30% in the rest of Greece).


Battaglia found 16.3% R1a in Greek Macedonians and 10% in the general Greek population. 
King found 21% in Greek Macedonia and 10.5% in Thessaly.

Underhill found that Slavic R1a in Poland contained 35% M458 whereas in Greece this Slavic admixture was significantly reduced:
Greece = 4.2% M458
Greek Macedonia = 8.8% M458 
Slavo-Macedonia = 3.8% M458 

Therefore we can work out what the Slavic admixture in Greece would have been. If 4.2% of Total Greek R1a is M458 and typical Slavic admixture has approximately 35% M458 of Total R1a, we can estimate it and say (35/100 x 10) x 0.42 = *1.47%* est. Slavic admix. within total Greek pop.

Similarly, Slavic R1a in Greek Macedonia: (35/100 x 20) x 0.88 = *6.16%* est. Slavic R1a 




> On average we are talking about almost 30% of the Greek population. 
> And I'm not considering the percentage of R1b Slavic


What are you trying to say?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Sorry I did not understand your perplexity: i'm saying that, apparently, a good part of the Greeks descended from Slavs arrived in Byzantine age and post-Byzantine age. I see on Eupedia that the frequency of R1a in all Greece is 11.50, and i also think that not only M458 it's slavic, so the percentage can improve. 
However, remain the I1, I2 and I2a (present in Greece in a really good quantitative), Slavo-Germanic? We must remember that the Goths (and all the other people who come with Goths) in Roman time, were made to allocate in Greece as "foederati", for example. 
But we can also assume that the Turks have "put" in some gaps in Greece some Slavic settlers, much easier to control for them.

Other important issue is Turkish: how many J1, J2 and E arrived in Greece through the centuries of Ottoman rule? J1 was typically Semitic, for example, and could be reached by Arab soldiers of the Ottoman army

----------


## Taranis

Where are you taking from that all (or most) Greek must be Slavic? R1a has been in Europe since the copper age. The Greeks, like the Germanics, Balts and Slavs, speak an Indo-European language. Isn't it likely that at least some, if not a sizable fraction, of Greek R1a is derived from the Proto-Indo-Europeans? Especially non-M458 R1a.

Consider, for comparison, that R1a reaches 20% in Scandinavia.

Regarding "Turkish" I think that is a big misnomer. For one, the vast bulk of the modern population of Turkey is essentially pre-Turkic. The question should not be how much Turkish influence is there in the genetic pool of the modern Greeks, but how much _Anatolian_ influence? Consider that the Byzantines controlled Anatolia for many centuries, and that the center of Byzantine power was western Anatolia, and not modern-day Greece.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Sorry I did not understand your perplexity


What would you like me to explain?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

I _do not want explain_ and i don now want somebody _explain to me_, I simply raised a question on the genetics and Greece and I would like to compare myself with other peoples. 

I do not think that the "pre-Indo-European R1a" 'is a wildcard that we can use when we want. And 'certainly likely that some of R1a in Greece, as in other countries, are pre-Indo-Europeans, but to say that 9-10% of R1a in Greece is pre Indo-European seems excessive. 
In Italy, France and Spain, there are percentages of R1a, of course, but if they were related mainly to the pre Indo-European peoples they would be *most frequently in these countries*, which did not happen. 
However, we are neglecting I1, I2 and I2b, and we are work only on R1a.

_For the Turkish question,_ 

Of course, a good part of the Turkish population comes, to date, to the old Anatolian peoples, but many are descended from Arabs and Kurds Also as with the Ottomans, this is a fact Also Justified by the high presence of J1.

----------


## Taranis

> I _do not want explain_ and i don now want somebody _explain to me_, I simply raised a question on the genetics and Greece and I would like to compare myself with other peoples. 
> 
> I do not think that the "pre-Indo-European R1a" 'is a wildcard that we can use when we want. And 'certainly likely that some of R1a in Greece, as in other countries, are pre-Indo-Europeans, but to say that 9-10% of R1a in Greece is pre Indo-European seems excessive. 
> In Italy, France and Spain, there are percentages of R1a, of course, but if they were related mainly to the pre Indo-European peoples they would be *most frequently in these countries*, which did not happen. 
> However, we are neglecting I1, I2 and I2b, and we are work only on R1a.


Sorry, at no point me, or anybody else here, said that R1a was "_Pre_-Indo-European". I said "_Proto-_Indo-European" (big difference!). I'm not using it in any excessive way if we consider that R1a accounts for approximately 20% in Scandinavia. The original spread of R1a in Europe probably occured in the Chalcolithic with the spread of the Corded Ware Culture, which, through it's offshot (the Battle Axe Culture) spread into southern Scandinavia. We obviously do not know when the Proto-Greek speakers arrived in Greece, and from where they arrived, but if they arrived from the Black Sea areas (which is certainly plausible) then it's entirely plausible that they were, to a fair degree, carriers of R1a.

I agree of course that there are possibilities how R1a could be younger, and I also will not rule out that a fraction of it is Slavic (the fact that there is R1a-M458 in Greece suggests that there prettymuch is), but I doubt for the above described reasons that R1a in Greece is exclusively Slavic.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> I _do not want explain_ and i don now want somebody _explain to me_, I simply raised a question on the genetics and Greece and I would like to compare myself with other peoples. 
> 
> I do not think that the "*pre-Indo-European R1a*" 'is a wildcard that we can use when we want. And 'certainly likely that some of R1a in Greece, as in other countries, are pre-Indo-Europeans, but to say that 9-10% of *R1a in Greece is pre Indo-European* seems excessive. 
> In Italy, France and Spain, there are percentages of R1a, of course, but if they were related mainly to the *pre Indo-European* peoples they would be *most frequently in these countries*, which did not happen. 
> However, we are neglecting I1, I2 and I2b, and we are work only on R1a.


R1a is Indo-European. What do you mean by *pre-Indo-European R1a*?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

Yes, i'm sorry i translate bad the word. In fact I'm not saying that all R1a in Greece are Slavic, but it seems excessive to say that only 1,47% of it was Slavic, and the remaining 10.5% (approximate) was proto Indo-European.

----------


## Bodin

I2a2 , I2b and I1 are not Slavic . Who said anything about Pre - IE R1a , carriers of Hellen languague - IE was probably significantly R1a .
So the Thracians probably had some R1a - they languague was closest to Balto-Slavic.
On Balkans - Serbia , Bosnia , Macedonia , there is 11.000 years old R1a , and Slavic is old about 3.500 years .
I think Slavic settlement on Balkans are exejurated 
Turkic settlement on Balkan was also not significant , except in Thrace . Most of governors were islamized lokal nobility . Similarities betwen Greek and Turkic DNA is mostly arived from Greek settlements in Asia Minor during antiquity and Byzantium , not from Turkic settlements in Greece

----------


## Etrusco-romano

I say slavo-germanic. 

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...europe.shtml#I 

I think I2a is slavic, honestly I do not think is Illyrian.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

I1 and I2B, arrived with the barbarian invasions? Perhaps with the migration of the Goths?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Yes, i'm sorry i translate bad the word. In fact I'm not saying that all R1a in Greece are Slavic, but it seems excessive to say that only 1,47% of it was Slavic, and the remaining 10.5% (approximate) was proto Indo-European.


The R1a in Greece is spread evenly throughout much of Greece at approximately 10%. It is in Northern Greece where we find R1a climbs to approximately 20%. The levels of Slavic R1a suggest a much later introduction of Slavic R1a in the North, this is proven by the fact that in the R1a of Greek Macedonia we only find 8.8% of the Slavic M458. This marker is only found in 4.2% of the general Greek population and has not been found in Greek R1a in Calabria that I know of.

----------


## Bodin

> I say slavo-germanic. 
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...europe.shtml#I 
> 
> I think I2a is slavic, honestly I do not think is Illyrian.


Me neither think it is Illyrian , but nor the Slavic , it is Sarmathian

----------


## Etrusco-romano

What subclades belong to R1a in the central and southern Greece?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Me neither think it is Illyrian , but nor the Slavic , it is Sarmathian


Sarmatian groups were associated themselves with the various peoples who occupied Illyria, but not in such large quantities. Honestly this is the first time I hear talk of Sarmatians group co-dominant (because with these frequencies would be this one) in Illyria. How can 42% of the Croats to be a descendant of the Sarmatians?

----------


## Bodin

Because Pliny Elder mention Sarmathian nations of Serboi and Harauata - Serbs and Croats - they are not Slavic , they just took Slavic languagues , Serbs have only 5% Slavic R1a . 
Also you should remember emperor Constantine , helped Yazigi ( Sarmathians), from Banat to defeat rebeled slaves , and settled 500.000 Sarmathians to Balkans , and how many inhabitabts do Balkan had in that time ?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> What subclades belong to R1a in the central and southern Greece?


The Greeks in Italy and the R1a samples from Anatolia show 0% to 1% of R1a-M458. This means that the prevalent subclades include various amounts of R1a*, R1a1* and R1a1a* but not R1a1a7. The most common subclade is R1a1a7 (M458+) and it is found predominantly in Slavic men.

----------


## Knovas

R1a matches the 11% East European exceedingly well (11.5%). However, plain I2a + I1 (Paleolithic, not necesarily Nordic) can do the job too going at 13%.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Because Pliny Elder mention Sarmathian nations of Serboi and Harauata - Serbs and Croats - they are not Slavic , they just took Slavic languagues , Serbs have only 5% Slavic R1a . 
> Also you should remember emperor Constantine , helped Yazigi ( Sarmathians), from Banat to defeat rebeled slaves , and settled 500.000 Sarmathians to Balkans , and how many inhabitabts do Balkan had in that time ?


Honestly i I did not know this fact, however, i will inform me about it, because it intrigues me.

----------


## Elias2

The question of "slavic" admixture in greece is a good one, but I think the other question should be how much greek DNA influence is in anatolia (turkey) and not the other way around. Greeks had a significant genetical impact in western anatolia then the Ottoman elite had in Greece.

----------


## Knovas

Yes Elias, would be interesting to see reliable samples from Western Turkey. It's possible some of them cluster with Greeks.

----------


## Elias2

I would guess the genetical impact of greeks in western anatolia would be similar in degree to that of southern Italy, maybe someone like dorianfinder can shed some light on this?

----------


## Taranis

> The question of "slavic" admixture in greece is a good one, but I think the other question should be how much greek DNA influence is in anatolia (turkey) and not the other way around. Greeks had a significant genetical impact in western anatolia then the Ottoman elite had in Greece.


Absolutely. As I phrased the question earlier: how much Anatolian Y-DNA is there in the modern Greeks. But conversely, you must also ask the question of how much ancient Greek Y-DNA is in modern-day Turks.

----------


## Bodin

There is definetly lot of Hellenic DNA in west Asia Minor , maybe even more than in South Italy , because Acheans started to colonise that aeria in XII century , and Italy was colonised since VII century . And Asia Minor was in Byzantium and Italy was mostly not .

----------


## Dorianfinder

> I would guess the genetical impact of greeks in western anatolia would be similar in degree to that of southern Italy, maybe someone like dorianfinder can shed some light on this?


Dienekes uses the populations surrounding Turkey, namely the Greeks, the Georgians, the Armenians and the Syrians as a proportionate indication of what the old Anatolian admixture would have looked like prior to the arrival of the Turkic tribes. 

Below are average admixture proportions visa vie the Dodecad Ancestry Project indicating a very definite cline with the Greek sample positioned firmly at the top of the plot with the highest proportion of West-Eurasian at 99.4%. The fact that the West-Eurasian proportion within the Turkish sample from Anatolia clusters with the Greek sample is proof enough that there is a 90% Greek (and Georgian, Russian, Armenian & Syrian) admixture within Anatolian Turks. We can infer that this West-Eurasian proportion is representative of Greek and other non-Turkic admixture within Turks.

Conversely, Turkish East-Eurasian admixture can be determined by analyzing the East-Eurasian proportion in Greeks. If we consider that it is found in 8% of the Turkish sample and 0.3% of the Greek sample, we can calculate Turkish admixture within the Greek sample as an approximate est. of *3.75%*. 

If we reverse the tables and estimate possible non-Turkic admixture within the Turkish sample we get an approximate est. of *91%*. 



Below we can see how the Greek sample is dominant in West-Eurasian (Dark blue) in the middle with the closest samples to it being the Georgian, Russian, Polish and Armenian samples. In case you were wondering what sample is on the right with all that West-Eurasian, it is the Syrian sample. The Turkish sample is on the far left.

----------


## Bodin

> Honestly i I did not know this fact, however, i will inform me about it, because it intrigues me.


Have you informed yourself , and am I wright or am I wright ? ( joke :) )

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Have you informed yourself , and am I wright or am I wright ? ( joke :) )


I hope you're right, I like the Sarmatians, and i like the idea that i have their near my country :)
Where can I find some text published about it, may be public in more languages and may be in Italian?

----------


## Bodin

It is realy rearly mentioned in Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian- Montenegro-Macedonian literature that there is posibility we are Sarmathians. It was very important to Serbian ortodox church to conect us with Slavs - orthodox Russians , and even now it is very important for nationalists of Serbs , Croats and Bosniacs , because religion is only diference betwen those nations . I think former Croatian president Franyo Tudyman( he was doctor of historic science) published some works about Croatian Sarmathian-Iranic origins , but I dont know is that translated . You can try to find historian Mauro Orbin from XVI century he was from Dalmatia and wrote in Italian . About settling of Sarmathians by Constantine , you can find it in every book about him or Byzantium .

----------


## Dorianfinder

Here are the *B*alkan - *A*natolian - *T*urkish admixture percentages for the Dodecad *BAT* calculator.

----------


## Goga

How is it possible that Uygur and Uzbeks have so much Balkan admixture? I mean from 16.4 - 20.4 % is very much for Turkic people in Central Asia.

----------


## Goga

> Because Pliny Elder mention Sarmathian nations of Serboi and Harauata - Serbs and Croats - they are not Slavic , they just took Slavic languagues , Serbs have only 5% Slavic R1a . 
> Also you should remember emperor Constantine , helped Yazigi ( Sarmathians), from Banat to defeat rebeled slaves , and settled 500.000 Sarmathians to Balkans , and how many inhabitabts do Balkan had in that time ?


Seriously, maybe is this your answer/proof to your claims that there is 'Sarmatian (Balcanic) DNA' in Central Asia!




>

----------


## Goga

I think that Greeks aren't West Asian at all. I mean their West Asian autosomal DNA component is mostly from West Anatolia, and as far as I know West Anatolia (Byzantium) has been always considered as historical part of Southeast EUROPE!

----------


## Dorianfinder

> How is it possible that Uygur and Uzbeks have so much Balkan admixture? I mean from 16.4 - 20.4 % is very much for Turkic people in Central Asia.


It is the West Asian component in these populations that Dienekes has incorporated into the Balkan admixture.

----------


## Goga

> It is the West Asian component in these populations that Dienekes has incorporated into the Balkan admixture.


Ok, thank you very much. But why? West Asian component is not from the Balkans. It is just from West Asia. According to me is West Asia: East Anatolia (+ maybe some parts the Taurus Mountains), the Caucasus Mountains (North + South), Kurdistan & the Zagros Mountains/Iranian Plateau!

I don't understand this.

----------


## Knovas

It's easy: humans migrate. And Greece is next to Turkey (the main way), quite easy to get the component at substantial level after thousands of year of migrations.

Geographic notions in terms of ancestry shouldn't be taken that serious. Even the British & Irish carry the component (6.2%), the French (7.2%), Indians (12.5%) (North Italy (12.9%), Yemenese (19.3%), etc., etc.

I don't see nothing rare.

----------


## Goga

> It's easy: humans migrate. And Greece is next to Turkey (the main way), quite easy to get the component at substantial level after thousands of year of migrations.
> 
> Geographic notions in terms of ancestry shouldn't be taken that serious. Even the British & Irish carry the component (6.2%), the French (7.2%), Indians (12.5%) (North Italy (12.9%), Yemenese (19.3%), etc., etc.
> 
> I don't see nothing rare.


Do you have about the Balkanic or West Asian component? I don't understad you.

----------


## Knovas

Dorian said Balkanic includes West Asian if I understood well, but I think the Anatolian component is what reflects more West Asian admixture (and others, it's quite unclear). Balkans show more European admixture than the other populations at K=12 v3, that makes no sense.

Anatolia peaks in Armenians, the ones who show more West Asian admixture of the groups listed there.

----------


## Goga

> Dorian said Balkanic includes West Asian if I understood well, but I think the Anatolian component is what reflects more West Asian admixture (and others, it's quite unclear). Balkans show more European admixture than the other populations, that makes no sense.


Yes. The Balkans = is Europe. But West Anatolia = is Europe too. 

My point is that the West Asian component is NOT from the Balkans. Why did he rename West Asian DNA in Uygur and Uzbeks into Balkanic component? I don't uderstand this.

Almost all haplogroups in Europe are from West Asia. Maybe only E, Q and N are not from West Asia. And some subgroups of R1a are from Central Asia. Even the ancestor of I, hg. IJ is from to West Asia. West Asian DNA in India is due to the Aryans who invaded India from the Central Asia. These Aryans came originally from West Asia too.

----------


## Knovas

Of course the West Asian component wasn't originated in the Balkans. The caucassus is the most likely place.

However, the component it's quite widespread in all Eurasia, even parts of Africa.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Yes. The Balkans = is Europe. But West Anatolia = is Europe too. 
> 
> My point is that the West Asian component is NOT from the Balkans. Why did he rename West Asian DNA in Uygur and Uzbeks into Balkanic component? I don't uderstand this.
> 
> Almost all haplogroups in Europe are from West Asia. Maybe only E is not from West Asia. And some subgroups of R1a are from Central Asia. Even the ancestor of I, hg. IJ is from to West Asia. West Asian DNA in India is due to the Aryans who invaded India from the Central Asia. These Aryans came originally from West Asia too.


The easiest way to understand it is to realize firstly that these so-called groups used to identify an admixture are not set in stone, they change with every analysis depending on the needs of the study. If you take West Asian and try to understand it in terms of history and archaeology it will drive you around the bend. Don't think of it as a 'standard' group, it is more helpful to view this group as a 'variable measuring instrument' used to illustrate differences between populations more clearly.

For example, if we compare Poland and Greece, the admixture known as 'West Asian' will incorporate more South Asian and less West Asian to bring out the difference between Polish and Greek admixtures. Greeks and Polish may have similar levels of West Asian, but in such a comparison Polish should indicate much less West Asian and more North European. Contrast is good and altering one calibrates the measurement to get the best contrast. The names stay the same but their respective values and make-up alter to get the best effect.

Conversely, if we compare Sicilians and Greeks the admixture known as 'West Asian' will be dominant in Sicilians and North European identifiably more in Greeks. Where did they get North European in Greeks all of a sudden you may ask, because it is where the difference lies, the only difference is that now the weight of North European within Greeks is elevated and it appears proportionally higher than it would otherwise seem. 

The Dodecad program puts more emphasis on a characteristic unique to a certain population. This characteristic may only be 5% of the population but it is significant if not found in the population you want to compare with. Therefore the proportion of 5% is in fact illustrated as 100% and 2.5% as 50% etc. etc. This is only for effect and helps make the comparison more representative and easier to read. Ultimately these types of analyzes are of limited value when comparing similar populations.

----------


## Goga

> The easiest way to understand it is to realize firstly that these so-called groups used to identify an admixture are not set in stone, they change with every analysis depending on the needs of the study. If you take West Asian and try to understand it in terms of history and archaeology it will drive you around the bend. Don't think of it as a 'standard' group, it is more helpful to view this group as a 'measuring instrument' used to illustrate differences between populations more clearly.
> 
> For example, if we compare Poland and Greece, the admixture known as 'West Asian' will incorporate more South Asian and less West Asian to bring out the difference between Polish and Greek admixtures. Greeks and Polish may have similar levels of West Asian, but in such a comparison Polish should indicate much less West Asian and more North European. Contrast is good and altering one calibrates the measurement to get the best contrast. The names stay the same but their respective values and make-up alter to get the best effect.
> 
> Conversely, if we compare Sicilians and Greeks the admixture known as 'West Asian' will be dominant in Sicilians and North European identifiably more in Greeks. Where did they get North European in Greeks all of a sudden you may ask, because it is where the difference lies, the only difference is that now the weight of North European within Greeks is elevated and it appears proportionally higher than it would otherwise seem. 
> 
> The Dodecad program puts more emphasis on a characteristic unique to a certain population. This characteristic may only be 5% of the population but it is significant if not found in the population you want to compare with. Therefore the proportion of 5% is in fact illustrated as 100% and 2.5% as 50% etc. etc. This is only for effect and helps make the comparison more representative and easier to read. Ultimately these types of analyzes are of limited value when comparing similar populations.


Thank you very much that you took so much time to explain this to me! You just opened the whole new world for me!

----------


## phoenix

I2A2 are Indo-Europeanized for sure.But their identity remains mystery

----------


## Templar

All HP I people were the original native Cro-Magnon. J and E people came during the neolithic migrations of Near Eastern farmers. And last came: R1a and R1b from the central Asian Steppes and brought with them the genes for light hair and eyes, and the ability to digest milk. Most Greeks are descendants of neolithic farmers, but their oligarchs and leaders were mostly R1b/R1a descendants (they conquered the area and made themselves the dominant class). Later on, more R1b/R1a genes came during the Germanic and Slavic invasions. The original I people mostly preserved their genetic traits in the mountainous regions of the Balkans: former Yugoslavia. That is why most people in Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia are tall, have high bone density, and wide shoulders. These are all Cro-Magnon traits.

----------


## Dianatomia

> Most Greeks are descendants of neolithic farmers, but their oligarchs and leaders were mostly R1b/R1a descendants (they conquered the area and made themselves the dominant class)


This claim is unsubstantiated. I would be interested to know on what historical basis you can make such an assumption.

----------


## Templar

> This claim is unsubstantiated. I would be interested to know on what historical basis you can make such an assumption.


During the Bronze Age Indo-Europeans (who are mostly R1b/R1a) conquered most of Europe. Conquerors are usually the new leaders of a country/land.

----------


## MOESAN

> The Mongolian Turks who carried Asiatic-Mongoloid Haplogroups is a tiny fraction of the Turkish population and it appears Turks are in general local Anatolians for the most part. You will not find Mongoloid haplogroups in the Greek population. The Slavic admixture in Greeks is from the Eastern Roman Empire and can be seen in M458+ Greek men. This is found in about 5% of Greek men in Northern Greece and represents 15-20% of R1a in North Greece.


_Don't forget the Turkmenes or Turcomans of ancient iranic speaking regions of East Caspian, türkic speakers but with principally 'indo-afghan' phénotypes and surely for a big part ancient iranic speaking people: they got some mongoloïd blood during their acculturation_ _but at low levels and they went to Anatolia; that can explain the very low level of East asian autosomals among anatolian Turks today - these Turkmens, I think, had a lot of western asian autosomals very + some south asian ones and are hard to segregate from other ethnic influences_

----------


## MOESAN

we have to be very carefull when speaking about HGs;
Y-R1a is present at 9% in Kreta and I'm not Kreta has been a place under strong slavic occupation... (I think in first I-Es waves
Y-J2 is very frequent in Kreta and that denotes rather old migrations in Greece from Anatolia than about strong turkish heritage
Y-J1 has to be lookad at in details, beacause Y-J1 is from the peri-Caucasus region at first and not are all its sublineages the mark of recent arabic intrusions... I think the slavic demic influence in Greece is lighter than a first sight to global HGs could bring us to conclude - surely it exists in some proportions, more in Northern Greece as can be hoped? the turkic one is very uneasy to evaluate.

----------


## zanipolo

> we have to be very carefull when speaking about HGs;
> Y-R1a is present at 9% in Kreta and I'm not Kreta has been a place under strong slavic occupation... (I think in first I-Es waves
> Y-J2 is very frequent in Kreta and that denotes rather old migrations in Greece from Anatolia than about strong turkish heritage
> Y-J1 has to be lookad at in details, beacause Y-J1 is from the peri-Caucasus region at first and not are all its sublineages the mark of recent arabic intrusions... I think the slavic demic influence in Greece is lighter than a first sight to global HGs could bring us to conclude - surely it exists in some proportions, more in Northern Greece as can be hoped? the turkic one is very uneasy to evaluate.


what do you mean by Kreta?....crete, if so, it has no slavic occupation. If crete, then early occupation ( not including minoans) , was the Doric people,

currently, I read that R1a came into europe via the Thracians and the E Hg in the balkans was the migrating Hittites from anatolia at the time of the great bronze age migrations around 1200BCE.

as for J1, these are coastal levant people...most likely the ancient Phoencians and the J2 are mesopotamians .

Again, I stress, I am still unsure on these facts as i still have not read anything in great depth

----------


## Yetos

There is a new search in Greece focusing local Makedonians before 1860 from central Makedonia, upper Makedonia and parts of Thessaly and Epirus wich were considered as ancient Makedonia Connected,

it is at old man more than 70 years old awhose grand fathers were locals at the villages before 1860 (Thessaly Greek-Turkish wars), 

we have to wait for the publish, but from what I heard we maybe have surprising differences with R1a G2 and J2 .
the samples are many, so to give a good map.
from the search populations are excluded, like Pontian and Smyrna Greeks, Aromani, Arbanites, Epirotans, Romanians, Slavic Makedonians, Cretans, Peloponese, Bulgarians etc, so to have clear view,
you may get surprised.


Now about Turkish and Turkic populations in Balkans,
1rst Turkic, as well known Turkic is the case of Cumans which we know they inhabit Kumanovo in Fyrom and some other places, so a search there couls help, 
2nd Turkish, the known migration of authentic Turkish populations were mainly in East parts of Turkey and Azerbaijan, reaching Mirsini (Mercina) and a part of them with Turkish assimilated population at Adrianoupolis -Edirne, and the migrations to Con/polis-Istabul. the rest Turkish populations are mainly assimilated locals to Islam and to Turkish language, so it is clear that major Turkish population is local pre-Turkish.

Now about Slavic populations. that is a fact since we have even linguistic elements, 
it seems like Slavic migrations to Greece happened through 4 ways, from wich 2 were short 
1 Dusan of Serbia short influence
2 Cymeon of Bulgaria also small influebce
3 marriages of Nobles and small migrations, that explains why Mt Αροανια Aroania is changed to Helmos
4 through Ottoman empire, 
Ottomans wanted to break a national continuity were ever they went, so they took small populations from every part, that helped them also in merchantise, that small communities gave an international colour, and could help avoiding rebellions. 
the last is clear since even today we find Slavic to be turned to Greek sounds mainly at big merchants families, and the opposite in South Slavic countries,
I mean one who was named Bogdan become Bogdanos and one with name Nikolaou in Greece become Nikolic or Nikolov or Nikolu in Balkans,

the case among Greek-Makedonian and Slavic Makedonian is not as some people say,
a good example is to check Monasterion-Bitola population and around Florina-Lerin population, 
and what is the population today. 
Monasterion town was more than 40% Greek inhabited, while Florina villages had more than 30% Slavic populations, yet today Monasterion share almost Zero Greek population and Florina numbered Slavic speaking,

----------


## Beast

> It is realy rearly mentioned in Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian- Montenegro-Macedonian literature that there is posibility we are Sarmathians. It was very important to Serbian ortodox church to conect us with Slavs - orthodox Russians , and even now it is very important for nationalists of Serbs , Croats and Bosniacs , because religion is only diference betwen those nations . I think former Croatian president Franyo Tudyman( he was doctor of historic science) published some works about Croatian Sarmathian-Iranic origins , but I dont know is that translated . You can try to find historian Mauro Orbin from XVI century he was from Dalmatia and wrote in Italian . About settling of Sarmathians by Constantine , you can find it in every book about him or Byzantium .


There was a Sarmatian or Scythian tribe called Serboi that settled in todays east europe/middle europe (Poland) sarmatians also settled in ukraina and romania, I think.

This Serboi tribe where they lived was called white Serbia (west serbia) and another was called white croatia, became fully slavicized by language but they immigrated down to czechia and then the Balkans, they are historically called Slavs... but they might not of been slavs. but today there is still a slavic speaking people in Poland called Sorbs. the Serbs and croats though settled in the balkans But from historical sources it says many of the people that lived there in todays croatia, serbia etc were Vlachs (Romanized people) and many were fully assimilated into croat and serb population, even serbs marrying Vlachs until 19th century... you have some famous serb people of Vlach origin. But if you look at Romanians/Wallachians it's very high I2a too... it's a theory.

But that about the Sarmatian tribe Serboi and Sorbs of Poland, and white serbia, white croatia, and then the seperation of Serbs and Sorbs becoming different people because Serbs moved, is not even a theory, it's a historical fact, I think.

also Serbs have high E too.

----------

