analysis from EUR 179
Post from nikolaos to 23.06.2011 04:06:52
i don't wanna discuss politics here, but macedonia-greece name dispute will never be solved, the name has taken a big nationalism in both countrys...not even macedonia (fyrom) will give it up, not even greece, 20 years solving the problem? 20 more to come. I'm from macedonia, and i don't think that the name dispute will be solved...which is that goverment that will change the name? who will take the responsability to decide over the national identity of 2 milion people? that can cause masive demonstrations in the country, and we all know alongside demonstraions, comes violence...
Post from stela to 22.06.2011 19:06:15
I think that everything is so clear. We just make it complicated! Modern Macedonians are closer to ancient Macedonians more that any other nation in the region! Very closer! And that speaks for itself! That's it!
Post from iGENEA to 01.09.2010 08:09:17
As we have not drawn up new statistics based on new data for a longe time i can not tell you to what extent modern Macedonians descend from ancient Macedonians.
We do not investigate ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences between modern nations. Regardings gentics there are differences and similarities between every neighboring peoples in Europe.
Some scientists calculate these differences, but they use autosmal data, not Y-DNA and mtDNA which is the only DNA we analyse.
Post from Rum to 30.08.2010 17:08:26
Basil... can't you understand were the problem is? Let's say that modern slavic speaking macedonians are not 30% antic macedonians (according to iGenea) but 100%! What would that mean? Nothing at all... just that about 1.000.000 citizen of FYROM or ROM, were slavized although they are descenants of Macedonian Greeks through the paternal line. Am I wrong?
Post from Basil to 30.08.2010 08:08:12
Can iGENEA - after all this dispute created by publishing of the results of this recent genetic research on the Macedonians (and the rest of the Europeans), - can iGENEA make a conclusion a on the issue?
Are the nowadays Macedonians with their genetic pool (by 30%) related to the Ancient Macedonians?
Are they clearly distinguishable (ethnicaly, geneticaly, culturaly, linguisticaly, etc. - 'cuz you claimed before: that all of this was used in the study) from the neighbouring nations?
p.s. I would like to ask you - please try to avoid 'politicaly corect' answer, but give us rather more concise and straight answer to this query!
Post from Deogenes to 12.08.2010 09:08:39
How about what was going on during those 500 years? First let me mention that many times in the past and even now you notice one ethnic ruler who’s people are either very mixed or of another nationality. Regardless those people assimilated (mentally at least) into the rulers language, lifestyle and ethnic way.
In ancient Macedonia we know Alexander told the Athenians that Macedonia protected the rest of Greece from invaders and that Macedonia itself had a lot of non Macedonian people from the north living in it. We see this in all borders around the world. Alexander said this because the city-states were ruled by the people. If you notice when you study ancient Greek that they don’t mention Athens but rather Athenians and not Sparta but Spartans. Alexander had a kingdom so he had to explain to the rest of Greece (or actually come back to the “insults” made by other city-states with the reasons) why they had to function the way they did. All those invaders and different people coming into the state would not be proper citizens and even threaten the whole function of Macedonia. So they didn’t form the proper city-states that the rest of the Greeks experienced and the Athenians called them out on it. The argument of the Macedonians was that those foreigners never made it very far south since Macedonia (as well as Epirus) held them back with their system. It is noted in history of the amount of foreigners in ancient Macedonia compared to the rest of Greece. This is why Alexander was used to the idea of a kingdom of all cultures and nations mixed with his, because the Macedonians were already more exposed to foreigners then the rest of the Greeks.
Before I go on it’s good to look at language more now. Let’s start with Slavic.
In fact some of the Slavic language was brought over by non Slavic people into the Balans. The Byzantines for example paid a group of people called the Antes to help them fight off invaders and also gave the Antes an abandoned city called Turris. The city was located in some place north of Ister in the Danube. The Antes came from the black sea (Pontus) area. These people were then taken over by Avars and because of that were spread out to Southeastern and Central Europe. Some scholars believe these people are responsible for East Slavic, Macedonian and Bulgarian language. Others think that the I2a2 people brought over the Slavic language as well and yet others say it was the actual Slavs who brought the language.
Another great example is the Turks. We all know they came from the area of Mongolia and their language is Turkic yet DNA does not show these traces. Why?
Some say the Huns who were a mixed group of Turkic people and Mongolian people among others people in their grouping came into Europe way before the Turks did and the Huns mixed with central and southeastern Europeans as well as others. Then they went back to their area and years later when the Turks invaded the Balkans and Asia Minor they already had that areas DNA/blood in them. As well as the time they occupied these areas they were taking so many Christian 1st born children and making them Muslim as well as having them join the Turkish military, basically making them Turkish. Some numbers say about 1 million children from Greece alone were taken. Imagine the amount from other countries combined with the number from Greece?
So, more traces of the Balkan area DNA are seen in the Turks and NOT the Turkic or Mongolian one. The good thing I guess is that they are not laying claims of being Trojan or Ionian or anything like that to further confuse an already complex area.
Now the Greek Cretans during the Turkish occupation had a lot of their population become Muslim. Christians who converted in those days to the Muslim religion had some good advantages so that’s what the Cretan’s did. When they did that their fellow Greeks started calling them Cretan Turks. This was because religion at that time played a WAY bigger role in who you were. So being called a Turk could mean any person from the Balkans who was Christian that converted to Islam. Interesting how instant that affected the gene pool huh?
Not to mention that during the Turkish occupation if a Bulgarian Priest for example gave language and writing lessons at no charge and a Greek priest for example charged, the non Bulgarian (Greek, Serb, Romanian, etc..) poor population of that specific area (Thessaloniki or Sofia or wherever) automatically went with the Bulgarian priest for example and learned the Bulgarian language. Once a different language dominates your speech you not only start to think in that language but you also relate to that group. After years and years of this, different people eventually spoke different languages so they associated with another group rather than their original ethnic one. We now have more instant changes in the DNA of an area.
Look at the US. It is half as old as the Turkish occupation lasted and we see so many different people saying that they’re American and only know the American culture. Imagine with 500 years what happens. Let’s not go that far back. You see those Jersey Shore Shows or if you live in the US you know that a lot of nationalities are against their own people. How and in what way? The Italians who are first generation from Italy or have kept the language even at 2nd or the rare 3rd generation do not consider the Italians who are 5th generation or any number of generations that have forgotten the Italian language to be real Italians. They call them American or Americanized. I’ve seen that with almost every nationality in the US and that’s how all of them feel. Some say if they want to learn and understand and study their history then they still are Italian for example. If they’re just acting like the Italians in the movies (mafia or New York style talk) they’re just Americans with an Italian background. So when some other nationalities call another nationality for example Slavic Macedonians it isn’t necessarily breaking down someone’s DNA when they describe them as such but they are looking at how they live. If you were to look at the Church customs and other customs they have, they are very similar to other Slavic countries around them (“Slavic Influenced Balkan People” might be a good way to describe them by the way).
Roman. Going to the Macedonian DNA issue, I was wondering if you had any information about the mtdna D. It is said to be found in western Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) and Bulgaria. It is said that it’s a more recent migration from the North East to the Balkans. Actually I heard it is from the North East but after that it first originated in Bulgaria and then in Macedonia (Republic of). The theory is that the Cumanian’s who were a Turkic tribe that was allied with the Turkic Bulgars settled in Macedonia (Republic of) in a town called Kumanovo. They converted to Christianity and since Bulgars and them were both Turkic as well as past allies they might have an older link and a reason for the similar language and the mtdna D.
So my last point in language. The mixing of the city-state of Macedonia had been noticed but because of that also questioned. An ancestor of Alexander also named Alexander was questioned about his heritage during the Olympic Games. He proved he was descended from Argos and allowed to participate in the games as well as many other Macedonians. He was not asked the nationality of all Macedonians just his. So all Macedonians who participated in the Olympics had to show they were of Greek stock. We do not have enough evidence of the ancient (pre ancient Greece) language of the Macedonians but the little we have can be related to the Greeks but not 100% sure. Regardless of that their known dialect is part of the 200 dialects of Ancient Greece. So with what proof we have they are linguistically Greek. The Macedonians were actually always known to speak Greek. No translator between Greeks (Athenians, Spartans, etc…) and Macedonians was ever needed. Alexander’s soldiers sometimes did not agree when Alexander did not use the Macedonian dialect when addressing them but they did not ever say they were not Greek. In fact when Alexander dedicated the plunder of Granicus in the name of “Macedonians and the other Hellenes” no one stood up against Alexander for him associating them with the rest of the Hellenes. In fact if the Macedonians were Hellenized and were not a Greek people to begin with there is no evidence that survived the Hellenization like a practice or a sacrifice to a non Greek deity. All discoveries of ancient Macedonia are in Greek. No other kind of finds have surfaced that would show any traces of not being Greek. Someone pointed out that if you live in that area you most likely belong to that group. Therefore the Greeks in Macedonia are Macedonian and the Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia are Peonian. I do not agree 100% with that statement but when you look at the language from ancient times till now Greek was spoken in Macedonia as well as the Macedonian dialect shows that it was 1 of 200 Greek dialects found in all of the city-states.
Does this mean I think the people of The Republic of Macedonia have no relation to ancient Macedonians? Not necessarily but them claiming Macedonia was not Greek is a result of communism and other issues that started after the area was finally freed from the Turks. These issues were because of the Turkish occupation actually. Nationalism really started at that time where before, as I mentioned earlier, they were basing a culture along with religion. Even if Macedonians were not Greek I can’t see how they have anything to do with The Republic of Macedonia if you use the same arguments as the Macedonians (Republic of) state. In fact it would be easier if the people of The Republic of Macedonia just said they were also Macedonian (part of Greece). They would have a better chance. DNA alone does not create a country as we have seen in the DNA studies as well as with examples of Turkey and the US. In fact language plays a big role as well as customs.
“Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions. “
Alexander the great addressing the dead Hellenes (the Athenean and Thebean Greeks) of the Battle of Chaeronea, as quoted in Historiae Alexandri Magni by Quintus Curtius Rufus.
“Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas [Greece] and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you.”
Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius III of Persia in response to a truce plea, as quoted in Anabasis Alexandri by Arrian; translated as Anabasis of Alexander by P. A. Brunt, for the "Loeb Edition" Book II 14, 4
Post from Diogenes to 12.08.2010 09:08:30
I think it helps a lot when you look at language and invasion through history as well as DNA.
A lot of people grouped themselves different in the past as well so all these things can fog up who was who. You get clues in all of those things (language, culture, invasions, DNA) but looking at nations and culture even today the DNA does not play a big role in who is who. Not that looking at the DNA isn’t important but we need to look at what makes up a nation. Let’s look at the different views of different people as they look at the Macedonians and others from the past and today.
Many things can be said about 1 thing because of not having a more ancient strand to go by. For example genetically R1a of the Greek Macedonians is also said to be due to Alexander’s campaign in India yet others say it’s due to Slavs. Another interesting way to look at it is If you look at the Asokan inscriptions. The Asokan inscriptions say that Greeks are an important people in India. The genetic contact might not be so noticeable due to the large population of India at that time compared to the smaller one of the Greeks. In today’s Greek Macedonia you see a lot of R1a1. This could just be due to the many invaders ancient Greece had especially on the city-states that were on the boarders of other peoples. Also the Indo-European speakers connected with the Mycenaean’s must have been R1a which ruled and remained rulers of Greece (at that time City-States) as well as the soldiers and free citizens of the city-states. So Indo-Europeans instead of Slavs could be the source of R1a1 or contact with India. Mesolithic Greeks are thought to belong to the haplogroup I and farmers from the Neolithic era brought with E, G and J. R1b could be Anatolians or Celtics, even Romans.
Also during the Byzantine times Macedonia was shifted more to the East than where it was originally. Plus Byzantium also had a mixed population at that time. Fast forward and look at when the Greeks and Turks swapped populations a big enough number ended up in Thessaloniki and other areas of the Greek part of Macedonia.
Rewind just a bit and see that during the Turkish occupation there were no borders so all the Balkans mixed during that period.
Post from iGENEA to 26.05.2010 16:05:50
Sorry for the confusion, of course i meant the ancient macedonian language.
I added "ancient" in the text above.
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 26.05.2010 14:05:58
Sir, I hope by saying "there is no Macedonian language today" you meant the language spoken nowadays in Macedonia is not the same as the one of ancient Macedonians. Because otherwise all Macedonians in this forum will get REALLY FURIOUS...But that is another issue, I am happy that young fellows in Bulgaria already started accepting Macedonian as a separate language, very curious one I should say :)If there is Croatian and Serbian, Dutch and Flemish, Belorussian and Russian, Spanish and Catalan (recognized as official language in Andorra) why not having Bulgarian and Macedonian?! After all, it is cool that you can go to another country, speak your mother tongue and being able to communicate with everybody :)
Post from iGENEA to 26.05.2010 13:05:33
Thracians and Makedonians are indoeuropean blakanic tribes. All Indoeuropeans that settled on the Balkans are more or less closely related, therefore its difficult to determine which tribes are most related to each other.
Of course the tribes that settled side by side are usually more related.
We did not yet publish any of our research because we do not set up own studies, we just use studies published by other scientists.
It is correct that there is no ancient thracian and ancient macedonian language today, but language and culture can change. I dont think that Thracians and Macedonians got physically extinct, even when other tribes conquer an area not everybody of the older population gets killed or expelled.
Therefore there are descendants of almost all ancient tribes living today, but we do not calculate numbers at the moment, the older statistics may already be outdated.
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 26.05.2010 10:05:12
Yep, unfortunately it is as you have said. That is why Macedonia did not gain its independence at the beginning of the XXth century. Because three countries struggled to rule its territory and did not care about its population. If Bulgaria had helped Macedonians in 1903 to establish at least their own autonomous region, Macedonia would have been the best ally of Bulgaria nowadays.And maybe there would have been a Thracian country as well, who knows...Any way, discussion is about Macedonians. Ow, and by the way, I would not say that Macedonians are of small number. The nation is large enough compared to the rest of the nations on the Balkans. Not to mention that there are between 800,000 and 1,000,000 ethnic Macedonians and Macedonian descendants in Bulgaria :-)My girlfriend is half Macedonian and half Thracian, for example:) Out of 7,2 milion, more than 800 thousand people makes quite a large percentage, doesn't it ;-) I have got no idea about their actual number in Greece since Greeks are not happy with their Slavic-speaking population and underestimate its number on purpose.
Post from Danny K. to 26.05.2010 04:05:47
Iliyan, I am a Macedonian and I am a member of a Macedonian Orthodox Church. I am old enough to know that the older generation did have some sympathies towards the Bulgarian people, although I also understand why those sympathies are toward the Serbian side today.
I wouldn't call it a hypothesis, it is just an observation that comes from being born and raised in America. We say America is the melting pot and growing up, I used to think that although the term "American" meant nothing, terms such as "Macedonian" or "Italian" or "Greek" meant something. Casually reading these things has led me to believe these terms mean nothing, although "Macedonian" refers to such a small number of people that maybe it does?
Who knows, it's all so confusing to me. On the one hand there is a case to be made for the Bulgarian side, on the other hand I have to respect the people who came before me who were adamant they were Macedonians. It's too bad everybody can't get along over there and respect each other, especially given all of our similarities. At the end of the day, I think it's just a power struggle over who can control the most territory ... spilling the blood of us peasants to keep foreign Kings and whatever church we belonged to in power. It's tragic.
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 25.05.2010 23:05:29
What is your nationality, Danny K? I do not intend to attack you in any way just because of the fact I am Bulgarian citizen, just being curious...Are you from Republic of Macedonia?It is very interesting hypothesis of yours. Any way, let's forget about history, because it just gets me even more irritated. Thracians from outside present-day Bulgaria have quite similar recent history compared to Macedonians, at least until W.W.II. It is a shame that we do not play in the same camp nowadays, though...Anyway, I really hope IGENEA will answer my question. I have always wondered about it...
Post from Danny K. to 25.05.2010 19:05:28
Iliyan, of course we are all going to be closely related with each other when you have so many peoples sharing such a small amount of territory. One thing that helped me understand what was going on (and I could be wrong) was when I figured out that national labels really stood for what church you belonged to. This is how the Greek and Bulgarian labels came about to describe an assemblage of people who come from various backgrounds. Although nothing has been discussed regarding this subject, I have started to wonder if the same thing happened with the Macedonians, where Macedonian really stood for Orthodox Christians affiliated with the Archbishop of Ohrid? I am Macedonian myself, but then you start reading about history and the Bulgarians and the Vlachs and the Romans ... and it all starts getting very confusing!! Remember, the churches were really quasi-monarchies in that day. Taken in this context, it starts to make sense to me.
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 25.05.2010 12:05:51
Sorry for writing again...And: Have you published these results in any research journal (e.g. "Nature", "Science", "Elsevier" etc.) where I can find an article upon the topic? I really need one in order to show it to some conservative historians in my country who claim that the ancient Thracians and Macedonians have gone extinct :))))
Post from Iliyan Bulgaria to 25.05.2010 12:05:18
A question to IGENEA: According to your research results, Bulgarians are 49% Thracian and Macedonians are more than 30% (ancient)Macedonian. I am not surprised, I am ethnic Thracian from Bulgaria and my family memebers are descendants of refugees from present-day European Turkey(Eastern Thrace)and I know that the ancient Bulgars hardly migrated further south from Stara Planina (The Balkan Mts). But my question is: How great was the genetic difference between these two groups? Can Thracians be considered first cousins of the Macedonians and their closest "relatives"?
Post from Danny K. to 24.05.2010 21:05:20
Roman, that's an interesting way to interpret the numbers which I never thought of. You're right about the intermixing mathematically.
I also thought of the explanation for how your potential number of ancestors squares mathematically with the population existing at the time. I think the answer to that is that although there may have been approximately 300 million people alive at any given point in history, that is a static number that represents a virtual population.
In other words, people are dying and being born every single minute. Therefore, although the 300 million number really represents the number of people alive at any given minute, they are not the same 300 million people that were alive in the previous minute or the next minute. Furthermore, people aren't going to be conceived in neat 25 year generational intervals ... one set of ancestors may have given birth 10 years before, another 35 years before, etc. It seems to me that all of this complicated interplay of the numbers can mathematically explain why the rather obscene number of ancestors that can be calculated is correct.
Post from iGENEA to 21.05.2010 14:05:34
It depends on what you want to caculate.
The "maximum" or calculated number of ancestors in one certain ancestral generation (lets call it "n") is always 2 to the "n" power.
parents = one generation = 2 to the first power = 2
great-grandparents = three generations = 2 to the 3rd power = 8
If you want to calculate all ancestors within ALL generations up to a certain ancestral generation you really have to add + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 and so on. This is correct. Its also the maximum calculated number, the real number of different people is by far smaller.
BECAUSE: If you draw somebodys pedigree it will happen at a certain point in the past, that some people shows up twice, and even more often. Of course it has to be this way, because there is no endless quantity of people in the past and all homo sapiens are relatives to a certain degree.
Example: If Cousins marry, their children have only 6 great-grandparents, because 2 of their grandparents are siblings. In the pedrigree 2 of the greatgrandparents show up twice and stand for 4 calculated ancestors.
That also means they only have 12 great-great-grandparents, not 16, and so on.
Of course, not everybody has cousin-marriages within his or her pedigree. But, for example, if two people share an ancestor 21 generations ago, they are 20th cousins. If they marry, their children will not have the calculated full number of ancestors in this ancestral generations but 2 less than this number, 4 less in the next generation and so on.
This phenomenon is called Implex:
92 generations back the world-population was about 100-200 Million people. That means every single person living today has a maximum number of 100-200 Million ancestors in their 92th ancestral generation.
In fact, most people have far less because not all of these 100-200 million people and their descendants did mix up during the last 2.300 years.
Post from Danny K. to 20.05.2010 18:05:10
Roman, no problem. I was thinking about the mathematics last night and the numbers are far worse than I thought. You end up with 8 or 9 million ancestors after only about 23 generations, or about 575 years. The number going back 92 generations is almost incomprehensible (4.95176E+27).
Not being a math major, this part is a little fuzzy, but it seems that you also have to sum the ancestors from each individual generation as well to come up with an estimate. In other words, it's not just 2 to the 23rd power; but 2 to the 23rd power + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 ... roughly 16,800,000 ancestors. And, like you said, that doesn't even count for repeats.
Is this correct?
It really makes you realize how small and insignificant you are in the whole scheme of things.
Post from iGENEA to 20.05.2010 15:05:15
Hi Danny K.
sorry, i had to delet one sentence in your post.
Just want to correct the number:
92 Generations (25 yrs. per generation, 2300 years ago) back the number of ancestors is 2^92, which is:
Of course, many of these calculated ancestors show up more than once - therefore the real number of ancestors is bay far smaller, but we can not calculate that, only estimate.
The Roman Empire had an estimated population of 57 Million, 2000 years ago.
Post from Danny K. to 20.05.2010 06:05:20
For the record, my roots are in Resen, Prespa, Macedonia that's why I am curious as to what the distribution is. I'm guessing more mixed in the big cities and maybe even in Resen since it was along the Via Egnatia.
To go back to the time of Aleksandar makes you one of over eight million of their offspring. In other words, if you took the entire population of the Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, Ill., Ind., Wis. metropolitan area as of the 2000 census (9,157,540), that is basically your ancestry from the time of Alesksandar Golemiot, or whatever they call him. Do the math. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, etc. If you could time travel to the time of Aleksandar, they wouldn't know or care who you are.
It is interesting, however.
Post from Sillypeople to 17.05.2010 21:05:34
It is the Greeks as usual, trying to prove they are soemthign they are not...Get over it, Albanians have more in common with the ancient macedonais adn illyrians than you guys...hell, one day they will write a book about how Greek evolved from ancient Albanian so get over urself..DAN does not lie..ppl are not stupid so get over it...celebarate the African or Arab in you, casue u guys look just liek them no need for u to be ashamed
Post from Kiril to 17.05.2010 04:05:33
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, or should I say Danny K's. I don't think he is really what he says he is, I can see a set up coming.
Anyway, I hear that a series of follow up studies to the one below will cause a storm in the Greekness of Macedonia debate. The Greek Goverment in the past has invested substantial dollars the hush such studies, but the money and the will seems to be dieing of late.
Genetic insight into an ancient population from Anatolia: first data from the archaeological site of Sagalassos
Claudio Ottoni1,3, Nancy Vanderheyden1, François-Xavier Ricaut3,4, Ronny Decorte1,2, Marc Waelkens5
1Laboratory of Forensic Genetics and Molecular Archaeology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 2Center for Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 3Center for Archaeological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 4Laboratoire d´Anthropobiologie, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; 5Department of Archaeology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
The archaeological site of Sagalassos is located in South-West Turkey, near the present town of Aglasun (Burdur province), in the western part of the Taurus mountain range. The town laid out on terraces at altitudes between 1,450 and 1,600 m; human settlements are attested in that area since the 14th century B.C. Over the centuries, Sagalassos gradually developed into an important regional centre and experienced its most flourishing period under the Roman Imperial rule. The final decline was triggered by a earthquake in 518 A.D. and the plague of 541-542 A.D., which wiped out half of the population. In the 7th century AD the town was finally abandoned.
Human bone and tooth samples from 57 individuals (dated between the 11th and 13th century AD by AMS carbon dating of human bones) belonging to the same low social status population group have been so far genetically analyzed. Extraction of DNA and amplification of the two hypervariable segments (HVS-I and HVS-II) of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region were successful and reproducible in 28 out the 57 individuals. The sample as a whole is characterized by a typical West-Eurasian mtDNA variation, with the haplogroup H being the most represented (25%). Comparative analyses with more than 4,300 sequences from eurasian populations points to a high genetic affinity with Southeastern Mediterranean. More particularly an affinity is observed at the genealogical level with mtDNA lineages from the Balkan area, more in detail Macedonia, Northern Greece and Bosnia. This might represent a genetic signature of the settlements installed by the Seleucides (330-150 B.P.) from Macedonia in Northern Pisidia. No contribution of Central Asian mtDNA pool has been so far observed.
In conclusion, it appears that recent historical events have contributed to shaping the mitochondrial gene pool of the Sagalassos population. Future efforts will be addressed to investigate more human and animal samples, and to improve classification of the human lineages through the analysis of SNPs in the coding region of mtDNA.
Long Live Macedonia.
Post from iGENEA to 14.05.2010 11:05:50
Thank you for the information, i know about the political discussion, which is a reason for us to be very careful with our statments regarding these ancient people and modern distribution pattern.
But we are going to review all of our data anyway, so there might be some new information about Macedonia too.
Post from Danny K. to 14.05.2010 04:05:58
Roman, since this discussion centers on the time of Alexandar the Great, I arrived at 92 generations by counting each generation as 25 years over the course of 2,325 years. I figure you get married, raise children, then they get married and raise children, etc. with the average of each cycle being 25 years long on average. I am doing a simple calculation to calculate the number of ancestors using 2 to the 92nd power to arrive at the number of ancestors. You are right that everybody has far more ancestors than that since humanity didn\'t start 2,325 years ago, but I do think the obscenely high nature of these numbers helps put everything into perspective.
I was fascinated with the Cheddar Man story several years ago where they found a teacher named Targett living within several miles of some 8,000 year bones. This really hammers home the principle to me that people who have a long history in any area are generally related to the people who inhabited the area many years ago.
I don\'t want to get too political here, but just so you know what the problem is. The Greek government has taken the official line that we do not exist. The problem is not us, the problem is that they do not want to reawaken the dormant (but still existant) Macedonian feeling within its population. In fact, at one point in the 1990\'s Mitsotakis (I think) offered to recognize us as the Republic of Macedonia provided we renounced our claims that there were Macedonian people living inside Greece. Because we refused to do this, this stupid name battle lives on.
Post from iGENEA to 13.05.2010 08:05:54
Hi Danny K.
we analyse only Y-DNA and mtDNA. These are only two lineages which you have to keep in mind.
As you wrote in your other post, going back 92 generations everybody has "many" ancestors. (It is far more than 8 Million ;-)
Actually the calculated ancestors reach the border of world population sometime in the middle ages, which means that many ancestors show up many times in someones pedigree.
We only analyse two of these lineages. We can not tell if someone is 50% macedonian and 20% slavic or sth. like that. This is not possible.
But the pure male and pure female lineage can only belong to one tribe or population at a certain ancestral generation, because these lineages always only consist of one person each ancestral generation.
That means such a lineage can only be macedonian or not, it cant be half this tribe and half another. But, in some cases we can not distinguish these tribes, then the result shows more than one tribe, of which only one is correct but we dont know which one.
For the decision which tribe(s) are the correct ones we use scientific studies and comparisons with databases. We look at the Haplogroup (the more detailed the haplogroup is, the easier is the determination) AND at the personal profile.
Every tribe consists of different haplogroups and profiles and some profiles, as i said, can not be distinguished.
At the moment we do not publish all the profiles for each tribe because it would give other companies the possibility to use the results of our research.
Post from Danny K. to 12.05.2010 03:05:47
Which markers are the ones supposedly related to the Ancient Macedonians and how do you know from your kit results how much you have of this marker and to what degree. Obviously this is fascinating for us for the same reason its fascinating that descendants to "Cheddar Man" were found literally within miles of the cave where the Cheddar Man bones were found.
Post from iGENEA to 29.03.2010 12:03:13
Dear Yea right...,
i did not claim any studies to be secret. The only thing i will not disclose is the whole procedure that was necessary to find and distinguish all the ancient tribes that can be distinguished by now.
Concerning this topic i have nothing more to ad to my explanations above.
i am sorry but i changed your post a little bit because i dont want to get other people to get angry about what you wrote.
But thank you for your support.
Can you tell me more about this new study? Maybe it is helpfull for our service. You can send me an Email or tell sth. about it in this Forum.
Post from Rum to 29.03.2010 10:03:05
Kirile milas ellinika?
Post from Kiril to 29.03.2010 06:03:24
It is obvious your answers are not being understood by our Hellenic friends and I have a suggestion that may make you job easier.
Learn Greek! Yes, learn Greek! This is your only hope I think, because you are wasting your time otherwise.
Or seriously, you can be forthright and say it like it is, this often works!
Anyway don't worry too much, the heat will be off you soon. There is another study currently looking into the Ancient Macedonian genetic legacy similar to Genographics' Phoenician study. This will be very interesting indeed and from what I understand it will almost certainly become the new focus of Hellenic genetic rage.
έχουν μια μεγάλη μέρα
Post from Yea right... to 28.03.2010 21:03:10
So... in a few words you have devised a bogus "antic Macedonian" profile, based on nothing but your wish to exploit the nationalist feelings of people who would run to you to prove their Macedonism... There is NOT ONE study which supports your views and you know it well... It is at least laughable to claim that the studies you used to claim an "antic Macedonian" profile are secret, while, at the same time, give hundreds of studies as reference to your credibility concerning almost all other aspects of your work... Pity... It seems you are nothing but a commercial band of entrepreneurs exploiting international disputes after all...
Post from iGENEA to 25.03.2010 07:03:57
it is vaild, but as we do not adapt the statistics any more it is possible that they get outdated, because recent scientific evidence could change these numbers.
Post from KocoGorgi to 25.03.2010 02:03:16
Dear Mr Scholz
is the below still official result of Igenea and valid?
Indigenous Peoples in Reb of Macedonia
Antic (ancient) Macedonians 30 %
Teuton 20 %
Hellenic People 15 %
Slav 15 %
Illyrian 10 %
Hunnians 5 %
Phoenician 5 %
Post from iGENEA to 03.03.2010 09:03:49
iGenea is not an institue but a private company. We sell DNA-Tests for genealogical purposes.
We do not publish several details because of the mentioned reasons. If this changes some time and if we ever decide to publish such information it will be available at the website.
there are some differences between all countries, but in general the Slavs also made their way to Greece. We do not draw up statistics any more, but the last data i remember showed that the amount of Slavs in Macedonia is only a little bit higher than in Greece.
Post from Kiril to 03.03.2010 02:03:06
The european haplogroup listing at the site below tends to back up what igenea listed with their Macedonia/Greece tribal data, that is before nationalist paranoia and co-ordinated propoganda destoyed any real discussion on the subject.
In particular, our Hellenic warriors tend to portray people from the Republic of Macedonia as slavs (600AD+) and so being have no right to "ANYTHING" Macedonian, in particular ancient Macedonian.
But this argument is not valid anymore as your study and the European one above can leave no doubt that the "slavness" of Greece and Macedonia is practically the same.
Would I be correct in my assumption on the "slavness" factor of Greece and Macedonia . Thank you for your time.
Post from Yea right... to 02.03.2010 22:03:24
Unfortunately, this explanation is not enough. A simple mentioning of one or two relevant studies would be enough, even if there were more. You cannot sell a service and be unable to show that your services actually comply to some minimum standards. The exact same question was raised many months ago and Mrs. Pazos produced 3 totally irrelevant lists of studies on three different occasions (like a study on a certain species of mice etc). I appreciate the fact that you did not use the same tactic, but still, if there is any genetic research regarding ancient Macedonian remains you draw from, it still would be all too easy to produce. On the other hand if there is none, then all this fuss created would be a sham, wouldn't it? Since you are the only such institute claiming you have a Macedonian profile, I am sure that the interest regarding your sources is all too high and certainly not confidential, unless you claim to have made individual field studies, which in turn should have been published in order to gain recognition.
Your not presenting such sources is actually more likely to drive other people or potential customers to inquire concerning the rest of your published profiles. I am sure you can easily prove me wrong. Please do.
Post from iGENEA to 02.03.2010 06:03:57
Dear Yea right...,
i know the bibliography is not complete, maybe i will find time to update it.
It is also fully understandable that (some) people want to know exact sources and the way we drew our conclusions.
Unfortunatly i can not give your more information at this time.
The reasons for that are:
1. It was a lot of work and took a lot of time to extract the relevant data for almost 50 ancient tribes from many sources we got to review about european Y-DNA and mtDNA.
It is not the way, that a study is published telling you everything about ancient Macedonians or some else tribe, most of the time we only get part of the information we need from one study.
Then everything has to be compared with every other data related to a special region or country etc..
If we would just publish all this information it would be available for everybody. Other companies could offer the same service as we do without having the same expenditures we had. Customers of other companies could even determine ther ancient tribes themselves with the help of that information.
Therefore this information can not be published by now.
As most sources are published studies everybody could do the research on his own, but we can not do the research for everyone for free.
2. The second reason is that, when i start to tell people about any sources we used more will ask about further sources, other ancient tribes and so on. It just wont end, but i do not have time to answer all these questions and it also would be unfair to answer one time and not to do it in another case.
If we ever decide to publish any further information it will be available on the website.
Post from Kiril to 01.03.2010 22:03:55
You are taking all this too seriously, I'm sure igenea never had the intent to enter into this "Macedonian" fued. The figures they published were not meant to prove one side or the other, they were only meant as a rough guide that would get peoples emotions and interest going in their product and this is their right. And by the way the Macedonian figures only came to light through Greek customer insistance, they were positive that the Republic of Macedonia figures would prove the Greek argument that they "FYROMIANS" are only SLAVS, SLAVOSCOPIANS, MONGOLSLAVS etc.
Now, if the figures they published are not to your liking, I would say to you "take it or leave it". Go and do your own research and publish your alternative, but do not carry on "I want proof, I want this, I want that", this is not a court of law. Igenea do not owe you anything, after all we do live in free and open countries, or at least I do!
Get on with you life and be proud of your Greekness, do not be part of the Greek propoganda machine that denies another peoples right to self determination. This is what you are all about, am I correct?
I know I am!
Post from Yea right... to 01.03.2010 13:03:32
I'm with you! So it will be very easy for IGENEA to bring forward some peer reviewed source or study, which will state the number and source of the specimens checked, the archaeological identification and the results! And then, you will easier roam the forums and bring it forward as an argument... So, let's see...
Post from Kiril to 01.03.2010 06:03:29
Another Hellenic warrior, another attempt to muddy the water even more!
You ask the same questions that dozens before you have asked and no doubt many others after you will ask. You people have managed to force igenea into a more diplomatic language when it comes to answering on this subject. Your Hellenic tenacity is complementary, even when its obvious that you have lost the argument, you keep yapping, nipping at heels and slowly wear down the opposition.
But really, what is wrong with you people? What can you not understand, what is so hard to believe about an antic Macedonian genetic marker being identified?
It is simple, I will explain in simple terms; There are these very clever people in white coats that work for a range of very prominent institutes, who have studied a bunch of old bones from a number of sites of what was ancient Macedonia.
Now, these old bags of bones range from 900BC to 900AD and those clever people in white coats have identified a unique genetic marker that is only common to these bones from the area of ancient Macedonia.
With that in mind, I ask you what would you call the unique genetic marker that was identified in these old bones from the territories of ancient Macedonia?
ANTIC MACEDONIAN, WHAT ELSE!
Post from Yea right... to 28.02.2010 22:02:28
Dear Mr. Scholz,
Where is anything about any ancient Macedonian remains analyzed? Your bibliography (as given in the said link and I do not mean the names of the studies but of course their content) has already been checked and there is absolutely no mentioning of any ancient Macedonian specimen... I am sure that it will be very easy for you to just call the department responsible for this and ask where they got their sources from, if these are not listed in this bibliography (which is the case here). You have boldly stated that there is an ancient Macedonian profile. It is understandable that people will ask you the exact sources that led to this statement. So, please.... do not lead us to some hundreds irrelevant studies (already checked). If I am wrong, it will be easy to pinpoint the exact papers, I will stand corrected and much much more informed.
You see, your claims are very serious and (as you clearly see) lead to many debates and nationalist fanaticism. I understand that this might be viewed upon as a very good way of advertisement but I hope that your institute is too serious to be involved in such schemes.
So, please, make a call and give us the requested information to understand how you came to your these controversial conclusions.
Post from iGENEA to 26.02.2010 15:02:58
Dear Yea right...
here you can find some basic information and studies:
At the moment we don not have a list all the sources used to define the profiles of the ancient tribes.
Post from Yea right... to 23.02.2010 22:02:13
Well... I know very well that IGENEA was once found total lacking, maybe now they have rediscovered their sources...
Can you please tell me what studies/specimens etc did IGENEA use in order to build up an "antic Macedonian" genetic profile? You surely must base your profiling on some sources...
Post from Rum to 18.01.2010 20:01:36
Thank you pg! I am very happy about that, we should rebuild our common history since nationalism destroyed it...
Kiril, please read my last post in General questions section. What you write here is highly irrelevant with the issue we discuss. You try to prove something that goes through the examination of the Pakistani DNA! Anyway, this E3b1 isn't the haplogroup by which some Macedonians claim that Greeks are of sub-saharian origin? :)
Post from Kiril to 18.01.2010 01:01:59
Like I said, you are trying to muddy the water here again on the Macedonia/Greece statistics. Questioning iGenea's methodology and using selective unrelated data (Phoenician/German) in a vain attempt to prove that figure wrong or unreliable at least and intern discredit every other country stats.
Anyway what is so unbelievable about Phoenician markers in Germany? There could be a myriad of reasons.
Vikings made it all the way to the Americas, would you be astonished if Viking markers were found in native American Indian populations???
iGenea is probably the leading genealogy institute in Europe and I cannot see them doing anything half hearted, discriminatory or conspiratorial, there would be too much for them to lose. And after all, the original ( Antic Macedonian ) figures only came to light when Greek customers wanted to find their Macedonian genealogical link, which sadly for them backfired (in a BIG way!). Just as they backfired in the Greek funded study below ( "Greek E3b1" contribution to Pathans of Pakistan ), please read the official study then read the critique ( "Greek E3b1" contribution to Pathans of Pakistan "actually Macedonian" ), which sums it up beautifully.
I will paste in the relevant conclusions of both the study (A) and critique (B), just in case you have trouble finding the links.
(A) The Pathans were the only population among the three that claim Greek ancestry in which clade E was present. This branch is observed in Europe, Middle East, North and East Africa with a suggested origin in East Africa. Sub-clade E3b is common in Europe and probably originated in Africa. Compelling evidence in support of the genetic relationship between the Pathan and Greek E3b1 Y chromosomes was provided by the median-joining network. One Pathan shared a Y-STR haplotype, that included a duplication of 10 and 13 repeat units for the DYS425 locus, with three Greek individuals and the other was separated from this cluster by a single mutation, which enabled us to estimate the TMRCA (mean SD) using the Network software as between 2000 400 and 5000 1200 YBP depending upon the observed or inferred mutation rates, respectively. This coincides with the period of Alexander's invasion during 327–323 BC. This haplotype was not observed in any other E3b1-derived Pakistani Y chromosome but was highly specific for the Balkans – the highest frequency being in Macedonia.
(B) I decided to follow suit and enter the same data at YHRD. I entered the
above haplotype and came up with a list of the populations with matches to
this profile. What struck me immediately was the almost complete ABSENCE of
this haplotype in Greece itself!!!! The only exception was found in Thrace,
Greece, where 4 out of 41 samples showed this profile. Every other profile
was found outside of Greece itself, including 14/149 in Macedonia, 4/43 in
Krusevo, Macedonia (among the Aromun population there,) 8/453 in Stuttgart,
Germany, 5/35 in Sarajevo, 3/52 in Skopje, Macedonia, 2/30 in Tirana,
The following regions in Greece had NO presence for this profile in YHRD
(sample size in parenthesis):
Central Greece (14)
Crete, Greece (8)
Epirus, Greece (14)
Macedonia, Greece (28) !!!!!!
Peloponnes, Greece (18)
Thessaly, Greece (15)
198 samples above, plus 37 out of 41 samples in Thrace, for a total of 235
samples found in Greece had NO appearance of this haplotype whatsoever. The
E3b1 modal appeared in just 4 out of 235 samples within the borders of
Greece itself and those in a region that was originally part of Thracia.
How can anyone say credibly that this group is representative of a displaced
Greek population? At the very least it is Macedonian and considering the
known composition of Alexander's army, may have been Thracian instead.
The problem, obviously, is with the misidentification of Alexander as a
Greek rather than a Macedonian by these researchers. If they had stated
that the Pathan population of Pakistan had been descended from Macedonians
who accompanied Alexander, I believe that they would have hit the mark.
One other paragraph is worth noting:
"This haplotype was not observed in any other E3b1-derived Pakistani Y
chromosome but was highly specific for the Balkans -- the highest frequency
being in Macedonia."
I was speechless. The right conclusion but the wrong description.
Steven Bird, DMA
In conclusion, genetics does not lie, but our conclusions that may.
Post from pg to 17.01.2010 02:01:36
Very interesting thoughts. Most will disagree but I (a Macedonian, and brother) commend you.
Post from Chris to 15.01.2010 16:01:44
>>we could publish these results to make all the information available for every one of course. But that in fact is the problem about it. If all of that became public knowledge other companies as well could use it to provide the same or a similar service for their customers without making the effort of own research.
Fact remains that igenea's methodology is not punlished in scientific journals and can not be peer-reviewed by other scientists.
In any case, I kindly thank you for taking the time in answering my questions.
Post from iGENEA to 15.01.2010 10:01:05
we could publish these results to make all the information available for every one of course. But that in fact is the problem about it. If all of that became public knowledge other companies as well could use it to provide the same or a similar service for their customers without making the effort of own research.
The ancient tribes iGenea determines refer to the time from app. 900 BC to 900 AD. Some tribes are older (like Phoenicians), some are younger (like Vikings).
When we find descendants of Phoenicians in Germany or other countries that means their ancestors came here since the time we know this tribe. But we can not determine exactly when they came here.
Thats also true for other ancient tribes. Keep in mind that most tribes consist of different haplogroups - of course there where the same haplogroups in Serbia and Greece before Hellens formed as a people but this ethno-genesis also led to a separation from other tribes and this seperation caused special typical profiles which provide the possibility to distinguish between different peoples.
Post from Chris to 14.01.2010 16:01:53
>>In fact, it is a bit more complicated and thats why you dont get a rough estimation but a result that shows all possibilities.
Dear Mr. Schotz,
Why don\'t you publish your methology and calculations in a peer scientific journal. That way we cal all understand and judge your results. Even if they are temporarily.
When you claim that Germans are also descendants of \'Phoenicians\'. What do you mean by that? That the ancient Phoenicians themselves brought the \'phoenician\' genes in NW Europe, or that a wave from middle eastern farmers and others (before or after the phoenicians as a people existed) brought the genes there. Was it maybe the Romans who brought some of them there?
The same can be apllied with the estimation igenea makes of \'Hellenes\' in Serbia. My bet is that most of these genes were present in the Balkans before the \'hellenes\' formed as a people. And what are hellenes? Mycenean Greeks? Ancient Greece was a melting pod. I bet some genes the \'Minoans\' left in modern Greeks are classified \'Phoenicians\'.
Post from iGENEA to 14.01.2010 06:01:43
iGenea does not link special haplogroups with special ancient tribes. Of course that would not be correct, nearly every tribe consisted of different haplogroups.
In fact, it is a bit more complicated and thats why you dont get a rough estimation but a result that shows all possibilities if there are more than one. Some people can be linked to one special ancient tribes, others can't and 2 or 3 tribes are possible.
Post from Rum to 13.01.2010 17:01:08
Kiril, are you blind, cannot understand what I write or what?
I never denied to a PERSON to claim lets say gene heritage from Ancient Macedonians. What I simply say is that modern national states are astificial. For me the problem is that ROMian or FYROMian whatever propaganda tries to SEPARATE us. Genetically we are the same, and for me even Turks are the same with us and you (although they think they are from... Altai).
The same thing I say for Greek propaganda, that claims that you are slavs and only that. NATIONAL STATES by definition try to separate people: this is what I am against because national identity is an artificial identity that was form in 19 century for Greeks and in 20 century for Macedonians.
What I deny is to falsify history and say that Ancient Macedonian were always separated from Greeks and Rums, that Alexander the Great CONQUERED Greece (actually he did but it was more like unifying it) and later on ALWAYS there were DISTINCT GREEK and MACEDONIAN identities.
There was a distinction many centuries later when SOME (not all) of Ancient Macedonians were assimilated by slavs, ok, BUT it was not in the sense that we were enemies or something totally different as nowadays with nationalistic propaganda.
You say it by yourself: "Republic of Macedonia have as much right, if not more than most to call themselves and their nation Macedonia." That as much right (or even more) is something the nationalistic propaganda CANNOT ACCEPT. I DO!
It is crazy that some Greeks say that Kalash are Greeks due to Alexander the Great and some Macedonians say the same for the Hunza's for example, and we are talking to each other as if we are not only different but even ENEMIES! Though we are brothers in blood...
Ancient Macedonians even if they were not Greek made their choise, they choose Greece. Now you (since VMRO and exarchate) choose slavic culture, that's ok, but don't distort history! If you feel Macedonians and not Bulgars lets become one (that we are) not trying to distort history. We are friends with Serbs, with Bulgars also, we may have been the same nation today, it is crazy to be opponents: let the genes aside and read history, READ READ READ.
Btw I love modern Macedonians, one of my favourite band is Anastasia, they sing for our common culture and heritage. Don't believe what politicians tell you, I don't believe what they tell me.
Greece has also passed from all of this crap , even today propaganda prevails, BUT don't let it eat you...
Am I clear now? (about the 1000 Greeks and 10 Macedonians stuff: I was not trying to imply that you are more slavs than Macedonians genetically, I tried to show that statistics and percentages mean nothing actually).
Best regards from Solun my friend... I hope all this mess to be solved one day... perhaps national states will have to be abolished for that but who cares? I prefer history and culture than nationalistic propaganda...
Post from Chris to 13.01.2010 15:01:09
>>And now Chris and George think they are onto a winner, trying to link the invading slavs with Dardanians & Paneonians(dardanian + slav + paneonian = slavomacedonian). Really get over it!
Trying to link? If you read some history you \'d know that people in FYROM are walking on Dardanian and Paeonian lands.There is nothing wrong with making the assumption that they are related to them. In fact, \'trying to link\' applies more to Macedonian Slavs wanting to link themselves with the Ancient Macedonians who lived further south.
I don\'t know how much Paeonian, Dardanian, Macedonian or Slavic blood there is in Macedonian Slavs, and wouldn\'t care less for that matter. But I am not convinced by the methods used by igenea. Just like the majority of scientists who claim that the labeling of haplogroups is a joke.
I think igenea did it for fun. You do a test and you get rough estimation of what ancient tribes you might be related to. Sounds fun. Only some people take it too seriously.
Post from eastara to 13.01.2010 04:01:13
Why going to Pakistan and everywhere and not starting a comprehensive study of the Balkan nations combined with old bones DNA testing?
Every Balkan nation is at least partially descendant of inhabitants who lived locally since the Neolithics. By the way Macedonians are the most reluctant to do some DNA testing privately if they don't trust the "corrupt" scientists - see the FamilyTree DNA projects.
Everything else is speculations.
Post from Kiril to 13.01.2010 01:01:45
To Chris, Rum and George and all the other Hellenic warriors out there that are in denial, please get over it! With every new genetic study, a little more light is shed on ancient Macedonians and it becomes obvious that the current inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia have as much right, if not more than most to call themselves and their nation Macedonia.
You can put your spin on the igenea results and try to muddy the water, but eventually no matter how you look at it, it still means the same thing. There is a majority of inhabitants in ROM who have a genetic link to the Antic Macedonians and this fact totally refutes the nationalist Greek claim that today's so called "SLAVOMACEDONIAN" inhabitants of ROM have no right to anything Macedonian, especially Ancient Macedonian of which Greece claims as her exclusive property.
But please, keep sending your hypotheses to Roman, they are quite amusing although sad at the same time. Sorry Rum but, your theory about the 1000 Greeks mating with 90 Macedonians is a classic, I mean, what are you talking about man??? And now Chris and George think they are onto a winner, trying to link the invading slavs with Dardanians & Paneonians(dardanian + slav + paneonian = slavomacedonian). Really get over it!
If you want to read something interesting, see the Greek initiated and funded 2006 study below. Then read the critique by Steven Bird and you will see that even though the study was publicly a non event for its Greek owners, it again is another little piece of the genetic puzzle of what is Macedonian.
Post from Chris to 06.01.2010 20:01:19
Dear Mr. Scholtz,
Thanks for your answer.
As Rum suggested in his posts. We can somehow distinguish and put a label on people living practically every region if we try hard enough. Peloponesians, Ionians, Cretans, Macedonians etc.
We can label the Paeonians with a certain genetic signature and estimate how Paeonian the Macedonians and Thessalians were. Or how Paeonian modern populations are for that matter.
Point of the matter is that igenea has put itself in a difficult position by labelling ancient tribes which were no doubt heterogenous and identified themselves on the basis of culture rather than (small) differences between haplogroups.
Post from iGENEA to 06.01.2010 14:01:34
i get your point; not everything that can be distinguished is completly different, thats one more reason why these fights about the heritage of ancient peoples are not very reasonable.
for the determination of the profile of an ancient tribe iGenea takes all regions into account that could have a connection to the certain tribe.
In most cases it was not possible to determine a special profile by just searching for this special tribe somewhere but by always comparing the whole data, which means all tribes that lived on the Balkans or in Europe.
Post from Chris to 06.01.2010 01:01:49
>>Genetically we can distinguish some makedonian lineages from hellenic lineages. So there probably has been a separation to a certain degree - but as they are neighbours and according to the mentioned opinion of historians they are, of course, related.
Dear Mr. Scholz,
In distinguishing the \'Macedonian\' lineages with the \'Hellenic\' lineages, what region of Macedonia did igenea take into account? The entire modern region of Macedonia (which is in Greece, Republic of Macedonia(FYROM) and Bulgaria) or Ancient Macedonia which is a much smaller region situated only in Northern Greece?
Bear in mind that the geographic connotation of Macedonia changed many times in history. At the time of the Ancient Macedonians before their conquests, Bulgarian Macedonian was part of Thrace. And the F.Y.R.o. Macedonia was named Paeonia and Dardania and was inhabited by Thraco-Illyrian tribes.
So by analysing ancient Macedonian ancestry, one has to take into account their natural habitat i.e. northern Greece, not the geographical region of Macedonia.
Post from Rum to 05.01.2010 22:01:20
Dear Mr. Scholz,
I am aware of all these... of course "Genetically we can distinguish some makedonian lineages from hellenic lineages" this means nothing more than you can genetically distinguish let's say bavarian from Germans, or Peloponissians from Greeks(i.e. in a statistical analysis you can distinquish the part from the whole).
What I try to imply here is that the distinctions you made are based on the artificial ethnogenesis that followed: Let's say we have 100 macedonians who feel greek and 90 of them mix with the rest of the greeks how are 1000 and the 10 of them mix with 20 slavs. Were you find more macedonian porportion of DNA?! Just that simple...
Anyway, I have no problem accepting that modern slavomacedonians have a larger proportion of ancient macedonian blood than greeks, this has really nothing to do with history... For me even they are slavs or macedonians, they are Rum Orthodox as I and every modern Greek is. We used to be the same milliet (i.e. nation). The only thing that led as apart was their bulgaric language (and of course some modern i.e. 19th and 20th century geopolitical interests of the Great Powers).
Post from iGENEA to 05.01.2010 17:01:49
such accusations (whoever made em) have no foundation, and can not be taken serious - in contrast to reasonable ciritque, based on scientific hypotheses or evidence.
When the figures where published they where based on data and knowledge that was available at that time and therefore correct.
I know the withdrawl caused some irritation but it is just the way as i explained.
The figures did not serve any purpose for the customers who basically are interessted in genetic genealogy. In relationship to that, the expenditure to keep such data up to date is just to high, it takes to much time.
But we also did not want to get the data outdated (which can happen when new results of scientific researches occur), because it is not usefull, when outdated figures are available and get cited all over the web.
many historians are of the opinion, that Macedonians where greek but had more contact to Illyrians and Thracians than the southern greek people/tribes. (Slavs arrived there later but of course have mixed with all tribes on the Balkans to a certain extent).
Genetically we can distinguish some makedonian lineages from hellenic lineages. So there probably has been a separation to a certain degree - but as they are neighbours and according to the mentioned opinion of historians they are, of course, related.
Post from Rum to 04.01.2010 10:01:37
Mr. Scholz will be laughing with all these naive comments...
Modern nations are fake alltogether, anyone knows that.
\"Antic Macedonians\" means people leaving in Macedonia from 900BC to 900AD. So Antic Macedonians are a mixture of Greeks and Slavs (am I correct Mr. Scholz?).
What happens is that all of us (modern Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Slavomacedonians) formed a common \"nation\" (called milliet) the Rum Orthodox milliet during the Ottoman era) which was later on split into separate artificial nations and that\'s where the problem begins. Ok Basil, 30% Antic Macedonians, what about the 15% of Hellenic people?! Are you schizophrenic and the 2/3 of you tries to fight against the 1/3 of you?!
During the Byzantine era anyone who was an Orthodox was considered to be Rum Orthodox i.e. Greek. Many Greeks start speaking slav languages, many slavs start speaking Greek, myself I am from Minor Asia from a turkish speaking family but Orthodox i.e. Greek according to modern ethnogenesis. The problem with you slavomacedonians is that you try to falsify history and start talking about Alexander the Great as if he was not Greek trying to go back in history as if we are in 300BC! Even if that\'s true (that is not) there was no distinction between Greeks and Macedonians afterwards (even before IMO) and now you say that modern Greeks have nothing to do with... Alexander the great! That is crazy considering that the ethnogenesis of slavomacedonians was based on slavic language (like the Bulgarian ethnogenesis powered from Russia which actually was the same procedure for Bulgaria and slavomacedonians see VMRO) and now you go back in history and try to falsify everything.
Wake up Basil and the rest. We are brother not only in culture but in a certain extend in blood also, you just speak another language, that\'s all!!!
And all this mess in based on modern states... In case there was still the Ottoman Empire, or in case we (or the Great Powers) decided to form a (let\'s say) Rum Orthodox big national state, nowadays we would be of the same nation and no such a stupid quarrel would take place.
Moreover, even iGenea would not distinguish between Antic Macedonians and Hellenic People (am I correct in that also Mr. Scholz)?
Best regards from our common city, Solun / Thessaloniki / Selanic etc.
Post from Kiril to 04.01.2010 03:01:55
Many Greek commentators have consistantly denounced Igeneas\' results from day one, in particular the Macedonian and Greek population percentages. They have branded Igeneas\' results as fraudulent, genetic trickery along with many other unflattering accusations, but all leading to the conclusion that Igenea deliberately concocted these figures to draw more customer dollars.
With this in mind I have 3 questions;
1. Do any of the above accusations of fraud have any foundation?
2. Does Igenea stand by the figures at the time of publication?
3. Some Greek commentators have branded the withdrawl of the population percentages by Igenea as backdown and proof that these figures are in effect baseless genetic commercialism. Is this in any way correct?
Thank you for you time and please if you could give past and future customers detailed answers to the above.
Post from Bobi to 30.12.2009 20:12:47
for all greeks see this and show yours result from iginea,30% antic have in ours blood
Indigenous Peoples in Macedonia
Antic (ancient) Macedonians 30 %
Teuton 20 %
Hellenic People 15 %
Slav 15 %
Illyrian 10 %
Hunnians 5 %
Phoenician 5 %
Post from iGENEA to 21.12.2009 06:12:38
the statistic you cite was up to date at the time it was calculated, so, if you want you can call it an official result of the past.
The statistics have been removed because iGenea decided not to adapt them to recent studies any longer - which was done from time to time before - and does not want to present results that perhaps get more and more outdated.
I know this data was and is interessting for many people, but there is no use for customers, that was the reason for the decision.
Post from bojan to 20.12.2009 23:12:20
I think it is very naive that you believe what did this Stefan guy suggest about bribery..
If I was on iGenea place I would remove statistics too... cause those statistics were putting lot of oil on Balkan fires.... obtained percentages can be very inaccurate because they are based on lot of assumptions... think that for people of iGenea it was like a game to try to figure out proto-tribes impact in population, but people from Balkan just took it way too serious cause they have lot of disputes about teritory and history...
I personally believe that ancient Greeks have nothing to do with antic Macedonians... what happened with ancient Macedonians is just not known...whether they disappeared, or mixed in Greek during Byzanium rule, or they stayed living in Macedonia and were absorbed by Slavs, or perhaps they initially were Slavic or pre-Slavic tribe...it is hard to say...history has no such data, and genetic can still not provide conclusive proofs in one or other direction... most likely they were romanized during Roman empire and are people you know as Vlachs in region... proper genetic research per ethnic group (not per country) could shed some light on this topic... don't think iGenea can do this at that moment...if they were 100% sure in data they had, they would not remove it from site...but subject is such that one cannot be 100% sure...one wrong big assumption and everything is completely wrong... so percentages they gave were more like an educated guess than some kind of proof...
Post from Basil to 20.12.2009 19:12:35
And again, please answer my previous question:
Until the further update of the "old data", is this still the iGENEA official result of that comparison of different sources?
Indigenous Peoples in Macedonia
Antic (ancient) Macedonians 30 %
Teuton 20 %
Slav 15 %
Hellenic People 15 %
Illyrian 10 %
Hunnians 5 %
Phoenician 5 %
If not, why?
Post from Basil to 20.12.2009 19:12:10
Did iGENEA toke a bribe "from a black greek gay man" in order to remove the statistic?
The guy who signed the post above claim he witnessed the bribery!
Post from bojan to 20.12.2009 18:12:17
I think it is wise to remove percentage of primitive-tribes in every nation, because that percentages must have been made based on currently collected data and on lot of assumptions about long past. And people on Balkans especially are too serious about these issues and too sensitive on results.
though I am quite curious in keeping track of current results in such result. So perhaps if such data is published on web site in future, it should have disclaimer in big letters, that the results could be wrong because of small and inconclusive data sample of ancient tribes...
Post from iGENEA to 20.12.2009 17:12:25
Dear Mr. Culumov,
I am sorry but i don\'t understand what you mean.
Post from Stefan Culumov to 20.12.2009 16:12:57
Dear Mr. Scholz
Don't take this the wrong way but your company has a great knowledge in science but i think in business also (little something You took from a black greek gay man ;) and let me help you it was in a black briefcase )
Post from iGENEA to 20.12.2009 16:12:34
that was not the result of one research but of a comparison of different sources.
Until further notice the statistics will not be replaced.
Post from Basil to 19.12.2009 12:12:23
Will the contested statistic be replaced ?
Post from Basil to 19.12.2009 12:12:18
\"it means that \"average\" Macedonian of today is from Makedonian descent to a percentage of about 30%\"
Until the \"old data\" will be updated again, is this still the iGENEA official result of that research?
Post from iGENEA to 10.12.2009 10:12:02
we know some antic Macedonian profiles and the last time a statistic was calculated about 30% of the modern Macedonians had these profiles (maternal and paternal lineages mixed).
But this number could change if we would do this calculation again considering all recent genetic studies.
But that does not mean, that some Macedonians are totally of antic Macedonian descent and others are not, it means that the "average" Macedonian of today is from Makedonian descent to a percentage of about 30% (regarding the old data).
Post from Basil to 09.12.2009 14:12:12
Dear Mr. Scholz
Macedonians from Republic of Macedonia can say that they're direct descendants of Ancient Macedonians "to a certain extent" (?)
Can you be more specific, are the Macedonians Macedonians or not?
Does this "certain extent" defines them definitly as of Ancient Macedonian ancestry?
I'm talking here about the direct genetic lineage. - As the recent discovery of the ancestry of two Germans from the 3000 old skeleton found in the cave near the place they were residents.
Does the gentic research prove the Macedonians as the rightful descendants of the Antic Macedonians without any doubt?
Post from iGENEA to 09.12.2009 12:12:16
yes, but only to a certain extent, they are also descendant of germanic, illyrian, hellenic, slavic and other tribes.
Post from Basil to 09.12.2009 11:12:57
Does the Macedonians from Republic of Macedonia can say that they're direct descendants of Ancient Macedonians?
Post from iGENEA to 06.12.2009 11:12:45
Dear Vesa Saneva,
You are totally right.
Maybe in some countries where only few data was available when the statistics where calculated the variations could be a little bit bigger than in countries with lots of data but thats only speculation.
Dear Filip & Aleksandra,
We can tell you the haplogroup, the antic tribe and the country or region of origin, that is correct.
But in some cases more than one antic tribe and more than one country of origin is possible.
We can tell you these aspects for both lines for a male person, but only the maternal line for a female person because women have no Y-Chromosome.
At the moment we have no statistics of which haplogroups the antic tribes consist, that appear in Macedonia and how the distribution in paternal and maternal lines is.
But i got data about haplogroups in Macedonia in general:
Y-DNA Haplogroups (paternal lineages)
I2a 32 %
E1b1b 25 %
J2 20 %
R1a 15 %
R1b 8 %
mtDNA Haplogroups (maternal lineages):
Post from Filip & Aleksandra to 06.12.2009 05:12:41
Can you tell me about these two lines - which Haplogroup of Macedonians in Republic of Macedonia and which antic tribes they belong to and the country or region of origin? About the antic tribe (from which they have origin) of the paternal and maternal lines of the macedonian people?
Post from Vesa Saneva to 06.12.2009 05:12:20
But that removed statistic was true, rufgt? Just it should be updated and the variation will not be big? And Because this would be a lot of work to do and because these statistics do not serve any purpose for genetic genealogy iGenea decided not to continue updating the statistics and therefore to remove them from the website, right? Macedonian nation in Republic of Macedonia are with Antic Macedonian origin, more than other origin and more than the the Antic Macedonian origin of the people of Greece where is near 5% and near 18% in its north where macedonian minority live, by that statistic, right, Macedonia with its name fit their ethnic composition same as Greece with its name fit their ethnic composition?
Post from iGENEA to 23.11.2009 19:11:26
There was no such pressure. It is just as i said, statistics can change everytime new data is available. That means iGenea would have to review this data and update the statistics regularly.
Because this would be a lot of work to do and because these statistics do not serve any purpose for genetic genealogy iGenea decided not to continue updating the statistics and therefore to remove them from the website.
Post from Igor to 23.11.2009 18:11:02
Do IGENEA had some politics or business pressure to not show the modern nations genetic genealogy?
I know that you are simply business, but your scientific ethic need to be above the simple earnings.
Post from iGENEA to 10.11.2009 17:11:23
These statistics are based on recent scientific researches and would have to be adapted continuously to stay up to date. iGenea decided not to update the statistics and to remove them from the website also because they are not relevant for genetic genealogy.
Post from Basil to 10.11.2009 10:11:19
Where I can find this data, citation from iGENEA:
Indigenous Peoples in Macedonia
Antic (ancient) Macedonians 30 %
Teuton 20 %
Hellenic People 15 %
Slav 15 %
Illyrian 10 %
Hunnians 5 %
Phoenician 5 %
The previous link was:
But it doesn't open the page anymore!
Post from iGENEA to 09.11.2009 07:11:39
Dear Kulin Ban,
1. I dont have exact data but i think thats true to a big extent.
2. Bryan Sykes proposed the thesis, that the european population descends from people that already lived in Europa 5.000 years ago.
But a study published in January this year suggested the exact opposite, a "recent" immigration since 4.000-3.000 BC.
I am not yet convinced that this study is correct and Mr. Sykes failed, so i do not support one side at this time.
3. There may have been some J already before, but most of them descend from the immigration from the Near East you mentioned.
4. There definitely has been N before these movements, especially among Finnic and Baltic peoples. but for many central european N that probably is true.
5. Only to some extent. G already was in central Europa 4.600 years ago and therefore should have been on the Balkans at time also. But we do not know to what percentage.
6. No. I an J separated long time before Semitic peoples did exist and I cam to Europa thousands of years ago.
The study i mentioned above even makes the theory that I has been common all over Europe before R1b arrived more possible.
The problem with mythology is that we do not know which part of it can be traced back to a real historical event and when this event did take place.
If we look at the distribution map for I2a2 we can clearly identify a spot in Dalmatia and the surrounding regions. Because fo that is possible that somebody with that or a previous haplogroup did arrive there some time.
But: I2a2 is somwhat between 5.200 and 12.400 years old. Therefore I2 must be at least 15.000 years old.
Post from Kulin Ban to 08.11.2009 20:11:18
Dear Mr Scholz, to put it simply, can't we say:
1. Haplogroup H is found in Europe because of Gypsy arrival n the 13th century to Europe.
2. R1b is found in Europe from ancient 2000bc migrations of Indo-Europeans.
3. J is found in Europe Spain,France,Italy,Balkans) because of early
Phoenician,Jewish diaspora expansion and later Arab conconquests. Same goes for E3b...
4. N is found in Europe because of Asianic hordes coming to Europe
from the Huns until the Mongols.
5. G can be found in the Balkans because the Ottomans used the Kavkazians as paid
soldiers in the Janicari corps.
6. I can be found in Europe because of early split of Semitic peoples, J stayed in
the Middle east and I came into Europe with Phonecians or other unknown Middle-Eastern race.
It is stated that in Greek mithology Cadmus and Harmonia king and queen of Phonecia settled
in todays Cavtat Dalmatia and had a son Illyris or Illyrus, both Cadmus and Illyrus are Semitic
in origin. Root Cadmus=Qdm in Arabic is =Ancient, immemorial,precede,advance and many more..
Illyris/us= El-Ras or El-Raees= Head,anything above, chief, leader, Also Al-Raus means unshakable mountains.
By observing at the above we can conclude that the haplogroups don't exceed above 5000bc, what do you think Mr Scholz?
Also Europa is a semitic term for Gharb, Ghurub meaning West....and Europa was a white woman originally from Phoenicia kidnapped to Europe and raped (mythology).
Post from iGENEA to 08.11.2009 12:11:03
These statistics are based on
recent scientific researches and therefore would have to be adapted continuously.
But as they are not relevant for genetic genealogy iGenea decided to remove this data from the website.
Many nations keep names that do not totally fit their ethnic composition.
Post from trhdf to 08.11.2009 11:11:30
LOL? Macedonian nation? You are mistaken my friend. If there is a Macedonian nation then there is an Athenian nation, Spartan nation, Thracian nation, Thessalonian nation, Epirotan nation. Cretan nation, etc
Post from Sasho to 07.11.2009 16:11:46
Can you tell me about modern macedonian nation, what they are and how much they have ancinet macedonian genes and hellenic, ilyrian, slavic, gothic,turkish or other genes? I saw the discover before about that, I think that that was in the topic "greece or macedonia@ but I cant find it now and I dont remember the percents what Inma post so tell me Roman and if you like post and about all balcan people`s.
Post from iGENEA to 03.11.2009 13:11:00
I am sorry but i do not know what link you are talking off. Was it a post in the forum?
Post from Basil to 02.11.2009 18:11:37
Where and why the link to Ancient Macedonians disapeared?
Post from iGENEA to 25.10.2009 14:10:09
we only analyze two ancestral lines of a person:
1. The paternal line, which is father, fathers father and so on, can be traced back by analysing the Y-Chromosome. Therefore women can not order this test.
2. The maternal line, which is mother, mothers mother and so on, can be traced back by analysing the mitochondrial DNA. Women and men can order this test.
We can tell about these two lines which Haplogroup and which antic people they belong to and the country or region of origin.
The antic peoples refer to the time from 900 BC to 900 AD and are for example Celts, Illyrians, Slavs and many others. The country or region of origin refers to a later period and shows the area in which your profile is typical.
Therefore we can not discover if a person is French or Macedonian in todays sense of ethnic belonging but we can discover the antic tribe of the paternal and maternal lines of a person. Some people however got a profile that can not exactly be assigned to one of these antic tribes and because of that their result shows several tribes that are possible.
Post from t to 25.10.2009 08:10:14
if u are going to order a kit say that N73247 recommended to you and you will get a discount!
Post from Basil to 25.10.2009 06:10:53
A question to iGENEA:
Is this genetic research you make fully reliable in sense of determing the someones 'Ethnic' belongness to suposed Ethnic group?
Lets say - can you discover that she/he is Macedonian or French for example?