Continuity of Greek people through centuries

[Flipper]

Also, after a genetic study done very recently, genetists from Greece, Turkey, USA and Canada came to the conclussion that Greeks today trace their roots in the first people that came to the Helladic area from Anatolia and other palaeobalkanic people during the neolithic times.

So no matter if we had Turks, Slavs etc invading, we obviously kept our original element stronger.

Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic

# R. J. King11, S. S. Özcan22, T. Carter33, E. Kalfoğlu22, S. Atasoy22, C. Triantaphyllidis44, A. Kouvatsi44, A. A. Lin55, C-E. T. Chow55, L. A. Zhivotovsky66, M. Michalodimitrakis77 and P. A. Underhill5,*5

The earliest Neolithic sites of Europe are located in Crete and mainland Greece. A debate persists concerning whether these farmers originated in neighboring Anatolia and the role of maritime colonization. To address these issues 171 samples were collected from areas near three known early Neolithic settlements in Greece together with 193 samples from Crete. An analysis of Y-chromosome haplogroups determined that the samples from the Greek Neolithic sites showed strong affinity to Balkan data, while Crete shows affinity with central/Mediterranean Anatolia. Haplogroup J2b-M12 was frequent in Thessaly and Greek Macedonia while haplogroup J2a-M410 was scarce. Alternatively, Crete, like Anatolia showed a high frequency of J2a-M410 and a low frequency of J2b-M12. This dichotomy parallels archaeobotanical evidence, specifically that while bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) is known from Neolithic Anatolia, Crete and southern Italy; it is absent from earliest Neolithic Greece. The expansion time of YSTR variation for haplogroup E3b1a2-V13, in the Peloponnese was consistent with an indigenous Mesolithic presence. In turn, two distinctive haplogroups, J2a1h-M319 and J2a1b1-M92, have demographic properties consistent with Bronze Age expansions in Crete, arguably from NW/W Anatolia and Syro-Palestine, while a later mainland (Mycenaean) contribution to Crete is indicated by relative frequencies of V13.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...9.2007.00414.x

and here is the press report (translated from Greek to English by me) from the Aristotelean University of Thessaloniki

Thessaloniki 2/4/2008

"The origins of the Neolithic people of Greece" is the title of the research conducted by professor Konstantinos Triantafilidis of the Aristotelean University of Thessaloniki in cooperation with the university of Crete and universities in the USA, Canada, Russia and Turkey. In the research 193 blood samples were collected from men living in Crete and 171 from men living in the Greek mainland, near to known neolithic settlements. Specifically from New Nicomedia (Veria, Makedonia), Sesklo and Dimini (Thessaly), Phracti and Lerni (Kranidi, Argolis).

The results of the research were compared to researches made in Europe, Anatolia and Africa.

The absence of the genetic markers J2b-M12 in the inhabitants of the neighbouring areas of Bosporus, shows that those neolithic people came to Greece through sea.

The Y-Chomosome results of the Cretan population showed that it is grouped together with the people of Anatolia. The samples of the Greek mainland are paritaly grouped with the palaiobalkanic cultures. This cocludes that the neolithic people of Crete came from Anatolia. Ofcourse the other genetic markers of the Greek mainland show that a part of those neolithic people came from Anatolia as well.

It is worth to mention that the case of the samples from the Phracti cave in Peloponesus, show relation to the populations of Crete. This fact probably prooves the geographic ifluence between Crete, Peloponesus and Anatolia. Also, it should be mentioned that the later settlements in crete around 1100BC are from people of the mainland and is represented by the V13 genetic marker. This marker appered in a frequency of 35% in Thessaly and Peloponesus while in Crete it reached 7% and therefore shows the genetic effect the those people produced. The wider genetic effect of the mainland in Crete reached 20%.

The dating of the halogroup J2a1h-M319 in Crete is placed at 3100BC. The importance of these results in archeology is very valuable for the historians, since it marks the limits between the Neolithic and the broze age in Crete, which is related to a sequence of important changes in the organization of the social services, the demographics, the material culture, the technology, the iconography and the burial rites. Many researchers suggested that the arrival of the new settlers was responsible for those changes; a social/cultural ressurection from which the famous Minoan civilization rised. Those new impressive characteristics that are connected with the early bronze age in crete have been previously proposed to originate from Egypt, Libya, Syra, Palestine, eastern Aegean an Anatolia. Contrary to the theory that the minoan civilization was a result of settlers from Egypt and Libya, the majority of the halogroups e3b1-m78 is characterized from the monocleuid marker V13, in Crete and equally in the mainland of Greece. In the samples however from Egypt this marker was not found. This shows that there was no recent genetic contact between Egypt and Crete/Greek Mainland. In other words, the Helladic area was not invaded by Egyptian populations as the DNA analysis show, but by settlers from Anatolia. Those results disprove the Aphrocentric theory or Black Athina, which was presented by some scientists of questionable nature. According to that theory the Greek civilization was a result of africans.

It is worth to mention that the study of the mitochondrial DNA and the Y-Chomosome, showed that the 80% of the inhabitatnts of Europe have palaiolithic origins. It is also known that the oldest neolithic settlements in europe are found in Greece. The scientific research of the origins of those people is done based on the findings provided by different scientific fields e.g archeology, linguistics, genetics; while many discussions are held about how, when and from where those people can from in the neolithic period in south eastern europe.

In order to answer those questions, the DNA of the chromosome Y was studied. The markers of the Y-Chromosome are inherited and unaltered from father to son, from generation to generation and therefore create paternal genetic trees. This gives us the chance to understand the origins of human populations.

[Flipper]

Here are two more frequent Halogroups that appear in Greece P15 and M172. Both pass through Anatolia. Still, those are similar to Mediteranean people and the roots are traced between 10 000 to 8000 years ago.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/atlas.html

[Astoria]

wow...thank you flip

[Alita]

Read the story of Noah's Ark. Noah's family started out from Anatolia.

[Ehetlaios]

What does Noah have to do with Greeks?

[Alita]

Did you look at the map Ehetlaios? It shows the genes started out from Anatolia and that's where Mt Ararat is situated: the place Noah's Ark came to rest and from where his family began to multiply and fill the earth.

But all this genetic study is needless. We know we're Greek. Look in a museum; if you don't see a resemblance with yourself, your Greek family or friends and at least one ancient Greek sculpture there, then you can be said to have room for doubt.

[Spartan]

Alita do you really believe that is the location of Noahs Ark? Let's say for an example that there is a large boat up on Ararat how can one know that it is actually the Ark?

I do totally agree with this "But all this genetic study is needless. We know we're Greek. Look in a museum; if you don't see a resemblance with yourself, your Greek family or friends and at least one ancient Greek sculpture there, then you can be said to have room for doubt."

Great comment!

[chicagogeorge]

an interesting note on the continuity of the Greek language.

[Andrew]

Continuity of the Greek people and the greekness af the ancient Macedonians ALL in one package ....with love from Roumlouki / Emathia / Greek Macedonia !

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...html#post82753

[Bardas]

Not to sure if this has been posted but I assume it may be known to a few of you.

Dienekes Greek anthropolgy blog



http://dienekes.110mb.com/


The notion that the ancient Greeks were predominantly Nords with blonde hair and blue eyes has much to do with the Romanticism/Darwinsm of the North Europeans who came to view our ancestors in their likeness rather than as a Mediterranean people. It's the same with Jesus, whom would have definitely have had the classic dark Semitic features of a middle-eastern Jew, but is still portrayed as fair-haired and blue-eyed. But it also has much to do that the ancient Greek physical characteristics have not been studied and/or taught in mainstream academia that many just assume this Nordism. So in other words what we rather have is an assumption that perpetuates the myth of the Nordic ancient Greek, adding to the miscontruction that the modern Greeks are a mix of the “various invaders”.

But who were these invaders everyone keeps harping about? Only two groups have successful occupied the classic Greek lands surrounding the Aegean and Ionian lands: the Romans and Turks. The other people were the Slavs but there occupation and settlement in some of these lands during the Byzantine period. There is an excellent thread in here that confirms this settlement was short lived and these Slavs were relocated en mass to Bithynia in Asia Minor. As for the Romans and their footprint in the demographics of the Greeks land its ironic how this possibility is virtually ignored, same with the lands and islands occupied for centuries by Italians, French and Catalan crusaders following the Fourth Crusade. But even this becomes a mute point since with the Romans we would have been of same stock, as with the other peoples of the regions, and they never colonized in huge numbers.

So there comes the racist myth that the Greek physical characteristic suddenly changed with the arrival of Turks. Firstly, the Turks were not an ethnos or race. The term “Turk” and “Turkey” were Italian terms unknown to the Ottomans, who referred to their empire as “The Well Protected Domains” and themselves as “Muslims”. But most importantly is that the Ottoman Empire was a theocracy, where Muslims enjoyed more rights and privileges as the Christian subjects. If a Muslim converted to Christianity they would face execution for “betraying the Prophet”. Therefore there was much segregation and no mixing, even in Ionia and Pontus. Today very few Turks are descedents of the Mongoloid Seljuk invaders. They are a amalgamation of all the once Christian peoples of the Balkans and Anatolia, the latter included many Greeks, hence the reason for the much touted resemblence between the two people.

So in Greece, any Greek who became Muslim became in effect “a Turk” and left with all of them during the population exchange of 1923. But keep in mind the main areas of Muslim settlement and conversion in the Balkans during the Ottoman period was not in Greece proper or the islands (with the exception of Crete and Cyprus) but the region running from southern Thrace, through northern Macedonia, Varda region and the Sanjak region adjoining Bosnia and the Albanian lands. But much of modern day Greece did not experience such large settlements, and the Ionian Islands escaped Turkish occupation altogether.

But even with smaller groups of non-Greeks within modern Greece, they were never in large numbers and were eventually absorbed. The Vlachs still remain a small, distinct group in the Pindos, who self-identify themselves as Greeks. But there also really isn’t any sheer physical differences between them and other Greeks. The other more obvious groups are the Gypsies, who have always kept to themselves albeit marginalized by the wider community. As for the Turks and Pomaks in Western Thrace, they continues to remain a distinctly obvious community. The other “controversial” group is the Arvanites, who once spoke Albanians. Were they Greek-speaking Albanians or not is a mute point since they had always identified themselves as Greeks. And they wouldn't have been phsyically different to start wit. The same will apply with the slavophone communities after WWI, which itself becomes ambiguous because they were always divided amongst the Patriarchates who were obviously Greek in national conscience and religion and referred to their idiom as ntopika, and the Bulgarians. With the latter those in eastern Macedonia went to Bulgaria and the “mini” population exchange following the Treaty of Neuilly, whereas many in western Macedonia fled to Yugoslavia following the Greek Civil War.

Please note the above is just a hastily posted and simplistic summation from the top of my head rather than anything heavily researched for this post so it will great if anyone can correct me or add to it.

This is from the Britannica Encyclopedia edition 1973 Vol 4 under the title “Balkan Peoples”



And what does it show? That even the ancient Greeks never had uniformity in physical characteristics, much like us today. That itself confirms the physical characteristics between ancient and modern Greeks has remained consistent. Geography was also a main factor. Even though the Greek-speaking world at one stage spread from southern Italy to Pakistan, there core Hellenic lands of the Aegean, that included classic Greece, historic Macedonia and Ionia till 1922 always remained Greek and were not the Hellenized lands.

Back to the blog, an interesting read is "Racial Types of the Ancient Hellenes"

http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/hellenes/

The most complete study of Greek skeletal material from Neolithic to modern times was carried out by American anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel [6] who found that in the early age racial variability in Greece was 7% above average, indicating that the Greeks had multiple origins within the Europid racial family. Angel noted that from the earliest times to the present “racial continuity in Greece is striking.” Buxton [30] who had earlier studied Greek skeletal material and measured modern Greeks, especially in Cyprus, finds that the modern Greeks “possess physical characteristics not differing essentially from those of the former [ancient Greeks].”

The most extensive study of modern Greeks has been carried by the Greek anthropologist Aris N. Poulianos [10,11]. Poulianos’ study included the collection and study of more than seventy anthropometric measurements from a large sample of thousands of Greeks from different parts of the country. His main conclusions are that both Greeks and their neighboring populations are basically a mixture of Aegeans (a Mediterranean type local to the area) and Epirotics (Dinarics(e)) and are descended from the ancient inhabitants of the lands in which they live. The presence of individuals which approximate the Nordic subrace is minimal, and does not exceed 4-6% even in the most depigmented groups of Greece. More frequent are individuals which approximate the Alpine race of Central Europe. These reach up to 20-30% of some groups and are often blended with more southern racial types. Poulianos’ conclusions of Greek continuity are not simply the wishful thinking of a modern Greek. In a critical review of his book [53], J. Lawrence Angel states that “Poulianos is correct in pointing out ... that there is complete continuity genetically from ancient to modern times.”
Nikolaos Xirotiris [37], more recently, surveyed Greek skeletal material and a number of genetical and anthropometrical studies on modern Greeks. His discoveries were that like in antiquity, the Greek terrain which favors isolation, has led to the formation of local types by micro-evolution. He too concludes racial continuity in Greece, not finding traces of any significant alteration of the Greek racial complex, from prehistory, through classical and medieval, to modern times.

The American anthropologist Roland Dixon studied the funeral masks of Spartans and found them to be Alpine [23]. Italian anthropologist Raffaello Battaglia found the death masks of the Shaft Grave Mycenaeans to represent Dinaric physiognomies [35]. J. Lawrence Angel expressed similar opinions in that he believed that northern intruders in Greece were always of “Dinaroid-Alpine central trend” [19] added to the earlier Mediterranean/Alpine blend. Racial elements were not separate but combined to produce Greek civilization [19]. Finally, a more recent statistical comparison [18] of ancient and modern Greek skulls resulted in the discovery of “a remarkable similarity in craniofacial morphology between modern and ancient Greeks.”

Examples of Ancient Greek types: “Mediterranean”: Pericles, 5th c. BC statesman, narrow-faced and fine-featured; “Alpine”: Plato, 4th c. BC philosopher, broad-faced and broad-headed; “Dinaric”: Aristippos, 4th c. BC philosopher, short and high-headed, salient nose

And the resemblance between ancient and modern Greeks remains uncanny





More examples in this link

http://dienekes.110mb.com/pictures/parallels/