Anthropological Evidence and the Fallmerayer Thesis

by MACEDON

dedicated to greek nationalist Dienekes Pontikos (and others...)

Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer (1790 – 1861) was an Austrian scholar who proposed, in his Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 1830–1836, 2 pts.) that the modern Greeks were not descended from the ancient ones. According to Fallmerayer, they are the descendants of medieval Slavs who inundated Greece during the Middle Ages, with a further adstratum of Albanians of late medieval and Ottoman times. According to Fallmerayer's thesis:

Das Geschlecht der Hellenen ist in Europa ausgerottet ... Denn auch nicht ein Tropfen edlen und ungemischten Hellenenblutes fließt in den Adern der christlichen Bevölkerung des heutigen Griechenlands.

The Hellenic nation has been annihilated in Europe ... Because not even a drop of pure and unmixed Hellenic blood flows in the veins of the Christian population of today's Greece.

TRUE OR FALSE?..

Anthropology


where greeks lost antic beauty?..
link link

Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited only from the mother and is thus widely used to test the maternal composition of human populations. Mutations that accumulate on human mitochondria define unique clades of the mtDNA phylogeny, and these can be dated using a molecular clock. Thus, populations that are related matrilineally should possess the same types of mtDNA at similar frequencies.

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks.

Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gómez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martínez-Laso J.

Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es

HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached:
1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians,
2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum,
3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310.
Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

LINK PDF

MACEDONIANS ARE SLAVS?
JOK..

The correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples

Arnaiz-Villena A, Martinez-Laso J, Alonso-Garciá J.

Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, 28041, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es

The usko-Mediterraneans peoples are defined as ancient and present day populations that have lived in the Mediterranean/Middle-East/Caucasus area and have spoken a Basque related language. The present day existing populations show an HLA genetic relatedness which is more or less close according to geographical distance. The Greek sample is an outlying in all genetic analyses, because Greeks have a significant genetic input from sub-Saharan Ethiopians and Blacks. This probably occurred in Pharaonic times. Present day comparisons between genes and languages show a lack of correlation: Macedonian, Palestinians, Kurds, part of Berbers, Armenians, and Turks belong to the old Mediterranean substratum, but they do not speak a language included in the old Mediterranean Dene-Caucasian group. This is due to an "elite"-imposed culture and language. Other ethnic groups speak an "old Mediterranean language" or "usko-Mediterranean language" modified by Roman Latin (i.e., Spanish, Italians), or by other not fully explained processes (Jews). Therefore, the correlation between genes and languages may exist at a macrogeographical level, but not when more precise microgeographical studies are done, as shown in the present "usko-Mediterranean" peoples model.

LINK

HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans

Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.

National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia.

South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians.
This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.

LINK

e.t.c....

Greek Language

Classification of the European Language Families by Genetic Distance

Rosalind M. Harding, and Robert R. Sokal

PNAS 1988;85;9370-9372
doi:10.1073/pnas.85.23.9370

This information is current as of October 2006.

E-mail Alerts

Rights & Permissions

Reprints

This article has been cited by other articles:
www.pnas.org/otherarticles

Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top
right corner of the article or click here.

To reproduce this article in part (figures, tables) or in entirety, see:
www.pnas.org/misc/rightperm.shtml

To order reprints, see:
www.pnas.org/misc/reprints.shtml

Notes:

Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 85, pp. 9370-9372, December 1988
Population Biology

Classification of the European language families by genetic distance
(human variation/gene frequencies)

ROSALIND M. HARDING AND ROBERT R. SOKAL
Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245

Contributed by Robert R. Sokal, August 24, 1988

ABSTRACT
Genetic distances among speakers of the European language families were computed by using gene- frequency data for human blood group antigens, enzymes, and proteins of26 genetic systems.
Each system was represented by a different subset of 3369 localities across Europe. By subject- ing the matrix ofdistances to numerical taxonomic procedures, we obtained a grouping of the language families of Europe by their genetic distances as contrasted with their linguistic relationships.
The resulting classification largely reflects geographic propinquity rather than linguistic origins. This is evidence for the primary importance ofshort-range interdemic gene flow in shaping the modern gene pools of Europe.
.................

RESULTS


link

Fallmerayer have no right ..
modern Greeks are mix of MACEDONIANS (like people from R. of Macedonia) and sub-saharans and asians,and Turks,Vlachs,Albanians...

my dear..
dont be ashamed..
4.000 y. of Sub-Saharan (African) culture in EU..
it`s really big deal..
yassou file..

КОГА ИСЧЕЗНАЛЕ ВИСТИНСКИТЕ БУГАРИ?

Уште во првите години по уништувањето на бугарската држава, кога поголемиот дел од Бугарите исчезнале, на нивно место се населиле пред се, најблиските околни етникуми. Бугарското население исчезнало затоа што, уште за време на првото и второто навлегување на Светослав (968 и 969 година), загинале многу Бугари.

Според сведоштвата за таа војна, во неа загинале многу бугарски војници.

Подоцна, за време на навлегувањето на Византија, во 971 година, повторно загинале многу Бугари, посебно за време на одбраната на престолнината Преслав.

Кога се видело дека византискиот цар Јован Цимскиј почнал да ја добива војната, стравувајќи дека бугарската аристократија би можела да се одметне и да побара од императорот сепаратен мир, Светослав ја избил речиси целата бугарска аристократија и сите високи воини (околу 300 до 350 души).

Дел од бугарската војска биле пленети и продадени во ропство, а добар дел избегале кај своите сојузници - Унгарците и Печенезите.

Згора на сето тоа, во согласност со средновековната практика, населението од престолнината, поради стратешки причини, било раселено.

На нивно место биле населени Даки (Власи) и Словени од племето Севери, кое пред тоа живеело во источниот дел на Стара Планина.

Сепак, тоа не го имале предвид Калојан и епископот Василиј, кога тврделе дека во нивните вени тече римска крв.

Објаснувањето на ова стигнува до еден постар период.

Во помнењето на Власите (што значи и на бугарските првенци), се уште живеел споменот дека тие и навистина имаат одреден процент римска крв, што впрочем се гледа и од латинските зборови во денешниот романски јазик.

Оваа римска крв и лексика кај Власите дошла од први до четврти век од нашата ера, кога Скитија (земја околу Дунав), служела за заточение на илјадници престапници од Рим (политички и криминалци).

Скитија за Рим била тоа што за Руската империја бил Сибир.

Да се потсетиме дека еден од најголемите римски поети Овидиј бил заточен во оваа област.

Тој податок го искористиле Калојан и Василиј, за да ја придобијат довербата на римскиот папа и за да добијат - едниот, царска круна, а другиот титула на патријарх.

Од изложениве соопштенија на византиските и на западните хроничари, како и од бугарските документи, неспорно се потврдува дека, по 972 година, бугарскиот етникум бил заменет од нови дојденци: Власи, Печенези, Кумани, Татари, Трако - Словени, а имало и одделни групи од аспаруховите Бугари, кои сега биле наречени Гагаузи.

Имајќи ја предвид ваквата етничка слика, се поставува прашањето:

Како може овој народ денес да го носи името Бугари?

Ако се држиме до реалните факти и до процентуално многу поголемиот дел на споменатите етникуми, во однос на вистинските Бугари, овој народ никако не може да се нарекува бугарски народ, туку најправилно би било да се нарекува турко-влашки народ. Но, денешниот народ во Бугарија себеси се нарекува бугарски народ, според името на некогашното племе кое таму имало своја држава.

Значи, денешниот бугарски народ свесно го носи политичкото име на аспаруховите Бугари.

Да заклучиме дека името на еден народ, не секогаш соодветствува со неговата етничка припадност и во такви случаи се вели дека тој народ го носи своето второ (политичко) име.

Но, затоа таквиот народ секогаш има право да си го смени своето име, како што направија Печенезите и Куманите кои, иако се Турки, не се чисти Турци, па сепак се декларираат како Турци.

БУГАРИТЕ СЕ ТУРСКО-ВЛАШКА ПРИМЕСА!?

Името на еден народ, не соодветствува секогаш со неговата етничка припадност и во такви случаи се вели дека тој народ го носи своето второ (политичко) име.

Автономните кнежества на словените во западна Македонија и го дале новото име на оваа област.

Византиските императори и писатели од средината на 6 век, западна Македонија ја нарекуваат со новото име - Славинија (Склавинија).

Крстоносецот Вилардуен, третиот брат на Петар и Асан, го нарекол: "Јо-ван, кралот на Влахија" ("Бугарска воена уметност"... стр. 437).

Роберт Кларк за нападите на Калојан во 1207 година пишува: "Не помина многу време, а Јован Влавот и Куманите навлегоа во земјата на солунскиот маркиз (Бонифациј Монфератски, з.м.)" (исто, стр. 420).

Кларк ги дава и следниве податоци за владеењето на Калојан:"Значи, Влахија е земја која му припаѓа на императорот (византиски, з.м.)"(исто, стр. 479).

Најневеројатно е тоа што некои византиски писатели (како, на пример, Македонецот Јован Кантакузин кој, откако доброволно се откажал од византискиот престол, ја напишал својата "Историја" во втората половина на 14. век, т.е. во последните децении од т.н. Втора бугарска држава) продолжиле Бугарија да ја нарекуваат Мизија, а нејзиниот народ - Мизи, иако таму веќе не живеел еден народ, туку шест засебни племиња: Печенези, Кумани, Татари, Власи, Трако - Словени и незначителен број Бугари.

Така, на пример, кога Кантакузин ја спомнува смртта на бугарскиот цар Светослав, пишува: "Светослав, царот на Мизите, умрел од болест." (исто, стр. 433).

Во врска со походот на Михаил Шишман, во 1323 година, овој писател, запишал: "Во тоа време, царот на Мизите Михаил, навлегол со целата своја војска во земјата на Ромеите" (исто, стр. 434).

За последниот бугарски владетел, Кантакузин ги дава следните сведоштва: "Срацимир... води потекло од Мизи и од Кумани" (исто, стр. 443).

Уште поинтересно е дека самите бугарски владетели од 13. век, себеси се претставувале како "господари на Власите".

Така, на пример, архиерејот на тогашната Бугарска црква, епископот Василиј, во едно од своите писма до папата Инокентие Трети, откако настојува да му се задоволи желбата на Калојан да добие царска круна, пишува: "Тој (Калојан, з.м.) и целото негово царство, како наследници на римската крв, имаат добро чувство на преданост кон Римската црква." (ЛИБИ, т. 3., стр. 314).

Врз основа на што епископот Василиј тврдел дека населението во т.н. "Втора бугарска држава" носело во своите вени римска крв, а освен тоа, видовме и дека западните хроничари ги нарекувале Калојан и неговиот народ Власи?

БУГАРИТЕ БИЛЕ НАРЕКУВАНИ И ВЛАСИ!

А, кога ги опишува нападите на Асан во Тракија (1189 година) Хонијат им дава ново етничко име на народот од некогашна Бугарија. Тој пишува: "Значи, Власите откако се возгордеале од непрекинатите победи над Ромеите, тие се здобиле со големи богатства и секакви оружја од пљачкосувањето на Ромеите." (исто, стр. 404).

Друг византиски писател (Георги Скутариот), кој бил современик на Петар, Асан и Калојан, пишува за византискиот поход против нив во истата година.

Тој пишува: "Откако работите на запад (од Константинопол, з.м.) станале лоши и Власите, заедно со Куманите, почнале да ја пљачкосуваат ромејската земја, императорот презел поход против нив." (ГИБИ, т. 8. стр. 230).

Во врска со бегството на Иванко, кое се случило по убиството на Асан, Георги Скутариот соопштува: "И така Иванко кришум ја напуштил Мизија и отишол кај императорот." (исто, стр. 255).

Да кажеме дека бугарските историчари денес името на владетелот на т.н. "Втора бугарска држава" - Асан, го пишуваат како "Асен", што не одговара на вистината, затоа што во византиските извори тој е запишан како "Асан", а не како "Асен".

Но, не се само Византијците тие кои од 10 до 14 век го користеле политичкото име за сите народи од онаа страна на Стара Планина (Печенези, Кумани, Татари, Власи, Трако-Словени и неколку "островчиња" остатоци од Бугарите, главно во Провадиско, Варненско и Добричко), туку тоа го правеле и западните хроничари. Така, на пример, учесникот во Третата крстоносна војна презвитер Магнус кога раскажува за преговорите помеѓу бугарскиот цар Петар Втори и Фридрих Барбароса, пишува: "Власите се со нас!" (ЛИБИ, т. 3., стр. 215).

Друг учесник во оваа крстоносна војна - Ансберг во својата "Историја на походот на императорот Фридрих Први" соопштува дека во дунавската рамнина: "... владееја со своите Власи некој си Калопетар, кој бил Влав, и брат му Асан (Assanis, з.м.)." (ЛИБИ, т. 3. стр. 257).

Во врска со преговорите на Петар со Фридрих Барбароса (од кого барал царска круна), Ансберг потенцира: "Додека се вршеше сето тоа, Калопетар, господарот на Власите..." ветил четириесет илјадна војска, составена од "Власи и Кумани" (исто, стр. 279).

КАКО БУГАРИТЕ СТАНАЛЕ МИЗИ?

Од основањето на бугарската држава во 681 година, па се до нејзиното уништување во 972 година, таа го носи етничкото име на својот народ (Бугари и Бугарија). Но, од 972 година, на овој народ и на нивната земјата им е дадено ново, политичко, име кое исто така претрпува извесни промени.
Византискиот писател Лав Ѓакон е првиот што сведочи за промената на името Бугари во името Мизи, а на нивната земја Бугарија во - Мизија.
Во врска со превземениот поход на византискиот император Никофор Фока против Бугарите во 968 година, Лав Ѓакон за прв пат го употребил новото име за Бугарите.
Тој пишува: "Кога Никифор стигнал пред падините на Стара Планина... тој ја разгледал земјата и скалестите предели, бидејќи, за да се изразиме поетски, во земјата на Мизите, само зла извирале... и за да не ја предаде (својата војска, з.м.) на Мизите да ја исколат..." тој го прекинал походот. (ГИБИ, 5. том, стр. 247).
Во врска со навлегувањето на Русите во Бугарија во 968 и 969 година и разбивањето на бугарската војска, Лав Ѓакон пишува за смртта на бугарскиот цар Петар, па вели:
"Велат дека тогаш водачот на Мизите Петар... соочен со неочекуваната несреќа, добил апопклептичен удар и недолго потоа го напуштил овој свет" (Исто, стр. 248-249).
Од овие цитати гледаме дека уште пред уништувањето на бугарската држава, на Бугарите им било дадено ново, политичко, име, па нивниот последен реален цар кој 42 години владеел со Бугарите од "цар на Бугарите" наеднаш се престорил во "цар на Мизите".
Шест децении по Лав Ѓакон, Георги Кедрин, соопштувајќи за навлегувањето од север на Печенезите (кои биле сродни со Турко-Бугарите) во 1032 година, исто така го користи политичкото (а не етничкото) име на остатоците од Аспаруховите Бугари, кои останале во нивната земја.
Тој пишува: "... Печенезите го преминале Истар и ја опустошиле Мизија" (исто, стр. 299). За повторните напади на Печенезите, Кедрин повторно го користи политичкото име на оваа земја, па вели: "Печенезите повторно ги нападнаа Мизија, Тракија и Македонија" (исто, стр. 200).
Друг византиски писател - Скилица Кедрин (11 век) исто така пишува за Мизи и за Мизија, а не за Бугари и за Бугарија (ГИБИ, том 6., стр. 293-294).
Да заклучиме дека од последната година на постоењето на бугарската држава (972 г.), па се до 1235 (значи, речиси три века), за Византија и за византиските писатели нема Бугари и Бугарија од онаа страна на Стара Планина.
Наместо нив, постојат имињата Мизи и Мизија.
По населувањето на Печенезите во источната дунавска рамнина и по нивното покрстување од страна на Византија, административното име на оваа земја било Паристрон (Подунавие). Јован Зонара кој ги следел настаните околу населувањето на Печенезите предводени од Кеген (кои го убедувале византискиот император да му се спротивстави на Тирах - водачот на преостанатите 14 племиња Печенези, кој се наоѓал од другата страна на Дунав), соопштил: "Бидејќи престојувал во паристрионските области, тој (Кеген, з.м.) ја преминал реката (Дунав, з.м.) и ги поразил луѓето на Тирах." (ГИБИ, том 7., стр. 198).
Ова административно именување на Бугарија било употребено и во врска со востанието на тамошниот византиски управник Нестор, кој пред тоа му бил роб на императорот: "Еден роб на таткото на императорот (Константин Десетти з.м.), по име Нестор, по чин вестарх, кој бил назначен за дука на Паристрион, се кренал со оружје против императорот." (исто, стр. 202).
Најчудно е тоа што дури и откако Печенезите, Власите и Куманите ја создале таканаречената "Втора бугарска држава" византиските писатели, без да водат сметка за новиот етнички лик на населението од онаа страна на Стара Планина, продолжуваат да зборуваат за Мизи, додавајќи ги и Власите.
Така, на пример, Никита Хонијат кој имал висока должност кај византискиот император во својата "Хронографија", известувајќи за востанието на Петар и на Асан во 1185 година, пишува: "Бидејќи Мизите јавно започнале востание и на чело на тоа зло застанале... Петар и Асан..." императорот превзел поход кон Стара Планина.
И понатаму: "Императорот имал можност поради недостаток од противдејство, да ја преброди цела Мизија и да постави гарнизони во тамошните градови, од кои најмногу биле распоредени по Хемус"("Бугарската воена уметност за време на феудализмот", 1953, стр. 437).

БУГАРСКИ ШПЕКУЛАЦИИ И НЕВИСТИНИ

Тешко дека во светот можат да се најдат понечесни шпекулации со името на еден народ од оние што бугарските историчари, политичари и идеолози ги прават во однос на македонскиот народ.

Тие многу грижливо го негираат фактот дека името "Бугари" дадено на северните Македонци во средновековието, претставува политичко (а не етничко) име. Но, тие тенденциозно ја кријат оваа вистина. Тие исто така многу добро знаат дека честопати разни народи носеле (а и денес носат) политички имиња во кои не е содржана етничката припадност на дотичниот народ. Уште во средината на минатиот век, англискиот мисионер во Турција А. Лонг изјавил: "Народите обично имаат по две имиња. Едното си го даваат самите на себе, а другото им се дава или им се наложува од соседните народи" (А. Лонг, "Славјаните и Бугарите", Цариград, 1870, стр. 20).

Името кое народите самите си го даваат е таканареченото етничко име, а второво е политичкото име кое се дава од соседните народи и кое претставува одраз на одредени историски настани кои довеле до неговото наложување. Да се потсетиме дека, пред да се појават од устието на Дунав, Бугарите биле нарекувани со општото име "Скити". Византиските автори со ова име честопати ги нарекувале Бугарите се до крајот на постоењето на нивната држава, во 972 година. Така било и со Византија. Името на оваа империја не е етничко име, кое се однесува на еден народ, туку тоа е политичко име, наследено од Римјаните. Државата Византија била основана од (родениот во Ниш) Тракиец Константин Велики, во 330 година, и таа го носела своето име според името на тракискиот цар Визас, кој во антиката направил Босфор да биде град којшто (според своето име) го нарекол Византион. Во оваа империја не живеел еден, туку повеќе народи, како на пример: Тракијци, Македонци, Илири, Елини, Ерменци, Грузијци, Сиријци, Египјани и други.

Поради тоа, оваа империја го носела политичкото име "Ромејска", а народите во неа биле нарекувани со заедничкото име "Ромеи". Од своја страна, етнонимот "Ромеи" значи Римјани, па во случајов испаѓа дека Византијците (иако не се Римјани), го носеле етничкото име Римјани. Дури и цели три векови Византијците зборувале на официјалниот латински јазик, но и тој факт, исто така не значи дека тие станале етнички Римјани. Одвај околу 615 - 640 година, императорот Ираклиј (610-641) го заменил латинскиот јазик со грчки, јазик кој и за време на Римската империја во југоисточна Европа и во Мала Азија бил пораспростанет од латинскиот јазик. Значи, еве како народите на една голема империја, без да имаат каква било етничка врска со Римјаните, во текот на едно цело илјадалетие, го носеле името Римјани (Ромеи) како свое етничко име.

Во денешно време ист е случајот со Французите. Нивното етничко име е наследено од етничкото име на германското племе Франки, кои, на крајот од 5. век, на територијата на месното население во Франција (Галите) основале своја држава. Оваа држава, на месните Гали, им го наложила своето име - Французи. Но, овој народ не го заборавил своето етничко потекло и име, ниту пак се обидува да докаже дека тие се Гали, а не Германци. Поради ова, никој денес не вели "Француски петел", туку - "Галски петел".

Иста е состојбата и со денешните Руси. Според своето етничко потекло тие се чисти Словени. Но, во 862 година, варјашката орда, предводена од Рурик и од неговите браќа, го основала т.н. "Новогородско царство". Токму ова варјашко племе им го оставило на североисточните Словени името Руси. Денес, меѓутоа, никој не тврди дека Русите се "Варјажи" (скандинавци), туку, како Русите, така и преостанатите народи, знаат дека тие се Словени.

Историскиот развиток на македонскиот народ исто така придонел, во Средновековието, извесно време да ни биде наметнато туѓото име "Бугари". Но, тоа име е политичко, а не етничко име и тоа не докажува дека ние имаме каква било врска со етничките Бугари (Турко-Бугарите).

Овде ќе се обидеме хронолошки да ги проследиме периодичните промени на името на западна Македонија и на дел од северна Македонија, кои се во тесна врска со промените на името на Бугарите и на Бугарија, за на тој начин да ги откриеме факторите кои ни помогнале во 19 век посигурно да го востановиме нашето сопствено етничко име - Македонци.

Ќе видиме дека и Бугарите низ својата историја носеле неколку туѓи политички имиња, во сообразност со промените во политичкиот живот на Полуостровот.

The Myth of Greek language 'Purity'

Classification of the European Language Families by Genetic Distance

Rosalind M. Harding, and Robert R. Sokal

PNAS 1988;85;9370-9372
doi:10.1073/pnas.85.23.9370

This information is current as of October 2006.

E-mail Alerts

Rights & Permissions

Reprints

This article has been cited by other articles:
www.pnas.org/otherarticles

Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top
right corner of the article or click here.

To reproduce this article in part (figures, tables) or in entirety, see:
www.pnas.org/misc/rightperm.shtml

To order reprints, see:
www.pnas.org/misc/reprints.shtml

Notes:

Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 85, pp. 9370-9372, December 1988
Population Biology

Classification of the European language families by genetic distance
(human variation/gene frequencies)

ROSALIND M. HARDING AND ROBERT R. SOKAL
Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245

Contributed by Robert R. Sokal, August 24, 1988

ABSTRACT
Genetic distances among speakers of the European language families were computed by using gene- frequency data for human blood group antigens, enzymes, and proteins of26 genetic systems.
Each system was represented by a different subset of 3369 localities across Europe. By subject- ing the matrix ofdistances to numerical taxonomic procedures, we obtained a grouping of the language families of Europe by their genetic distances as contrasted with their linguistic relationships.
The resulting classification largely reflects geographic propinquity rather than linguistic origins. This is evidence for the primary importance ofshort-range interdemic gene flow in shaping the modern gene pools of Europe.
Yet, some language families-i.e., Basque, Finnic (including Lappish), and Semitic (Maltese)-have distant genetic relation- ships with their geographic neighbors. These results indicate that European gene pools still reflect the remote origins ofsome ethnic units subsumed by these major linguistic groups.


The aim of analyses of current gene frequency patterns is to infer the microevolutionary processes that have generated these patterns.
Such inferences are facilitated when the investigator can employ other relevant variables in the analysis. In human populations such variables are geographic distance and language.
Genetic similarity may be due to (i) geographic proximity or (ii) relationships reflected by lan- guage phylogeny. Ifgenetic relations among languages reflect their linguistic origins, we expect strong congruence between genetic affinities and linguistic relationships.
(The common origin and phylogenetic divergence ofseveral ofthe language families of Europe is well established, see ref. 1.) Alternatively, if genetic affinities between language families are inversely proportional to spatial distance, they may be attributed to localized gene flow. This is Malecot's isolation- by-distance model (2), which assumes stochastic divergence of populations from a common origin. The fit of these alternative models will be tested by comparing the observed genetic distances between pairs of language-family regions with (i) their spatial distances and (ii) their linguistic distances.


We prefer, with Lalouel (3), to calculate genetic distances based on a minimum ofgenetic assumptions. Generally, most calculations of genetic distances among human populations are highly correlated (4), giving good reason to choose the simplest computational method. However, one particular feature of the data set on which this study is based requires special attention. To examine variability on a continental scale, it was necessary to combine data from a large number of independent studies and, as a result, each genetic system
is based on a different sampling scheme. Although there is
some overlap in the sampling localities for different genetic systems, the final data matrix is unbalanced by the absence of observations at a given locality for various genetic sys- tems. Thus, genetic distances had to be computed separately

The publication costs ofthis article were defrayed in part by page charge
payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement"
in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.
for each genetic system among the particular set of locality
samples representing that system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 12 living language families in Europe fall into five language phyla as follows (1):
Indo-European (Albanian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Romance, and Slavic);
Finno-Ugric [Finnic and Ugric (Hungarian)];
Altaic (Turkic);
Afro-Asiatic [Semitic (Maltese)]; and
Language Isolates (Basque).
A linguistic distance matrix of language-family relationships was constructed by setting the Baltic-Slavic distance to 1 (these are the only two Indo-European families for which close genetic affinities are generally accepted, see ref. 1), all other distances between language families within
a phylum to 2, and distances between language families
belonging to different phyla to 4. Thus, language distances mostly contrast intraphylum and interphylum distances.
A geographic distance matrix between all pairs oflanguage
families was computed from great-circle distances between subjectively chosen centers of language-family regions. Genetic distances were calculated by using frequency data for human blood antigens, enzymes, and proteins of 26 genetic systems, each for a different subset of 3369 localities across Europe.
Because of the different spatial sampling for each genetic system, we computed genetic distances sepa- rately for each system. All localities were also assigned a language-family affiliation.
The systems and the sources of the data are described elsewhere (5-7).
Sample sizes range from 50 to many thousands ofpersons. Previous work (5) has shown that the simplest of these distances, that due to Prevosti et al. (8), provided essentially the same information
as more elaborate formulations.
It was, therefore, adopted here.
To allowforpossible bias due to different ranges ofgene frequencies, we also standardized the distances.
For each system we first calculated genetic distances for all pairs oflocalities and subsequently averaged over all locality pairs representing a particular pairwise combination of language families.
This yielded, for a given system, an average genetic distance for each pair oflanguage families. However, for some systems, we lacked localities to represent one or more language families and could not compute distances for certain pairwise combinations of language families.
This resulted in genetic distance matrices for some systems with missing values for some pairwise comparisons. Since different genetic systems are based on different sets of localities, the particular pairwise combinations missing in the genetic distance matrices vary among systems.
The final genetic distance matrix (Table 1) was obtained by averaging over all systems.
Nine of the language families are well represented by genetic systems, but genetic distances for Semitic, Baltic, and Albanian are based on only seven, three, and two systems, respectively.
These few systems may furnish unreliable estimates of distances between language families. For this reason, we analyze both the reduced set of 9 language families and the total set of 12. Our conclusions are based

largely on the 9 families, with added consideration of the larger data set when appropriate.
The average genetic distance matrix between pairs of language families was subjected to standard numerical tax- onomic clustering and ordination procedures (9).
Hierarchic classifications of the language families were achieved by UPGMA (unweighted pair-group) clustering of the average distance matrices (9).
Ordinations ofthese distance matrices were obtained by nonmetric multidimensional scaling in three dimensions.
All computations were carried out by the NTSYS program (10).
Congruence between genetic, linguistic, and geographic distances was tested for significance as described (5).
Using methods ofquadratic assignment (11), we calculated pairwise Mantel matrix correlations (12, 13) and investigated three- way relations between the distance matrices by computing partial correlations (14).
These correlations were tested for significance by Monte Carlo permutation methods. These computations were carried out by using the R package for multivariate data analysis (15).

RESULTS

Fig. 1 shows the hierarchic clustering ofgenetic distances for 9 language families.
A Germanic-Celtic cluster isjoined later by Romance, and a Slavic-Ugric cluster isjoined by Turkic.
Finnic, Basque, and Greek are outliers to these clusters.
Including Albanian, Baltic, and Semitic in the analysis changes the phenogram by affiliating Greek with Albanian, Baltic with Turkic, and clustering Germanic-Celtic with Slavic-Ugric before adding Romance. Semitic, Basque, and Finnic are outliers to the clusters of 12 language families.
An ordination ofthe genetic distance matrix (Fig. 2) depicts the relative genetic distances between the nine language families.
Finnic and Basque are outliers at opposite ends of the ordinated space.
The Celtic-Germanic and Slavic-Ugric language-family pairs are evident along the first axis which runs roughly East-West.
The second axis approximates a North-South gradient.
In the minimum spanning tree, Turkic links Ugric and Greek with Romance.
The position of Romance is central on the first and second axes, but isolated by the third, explaining its variable affiliation during cluster-
ing.
Genetic distance (Gen) correlates significantly with geog- raphy (Geo) but not with language (Lan). The pairwise correlations of distance matrices based on nine language families are as follows: Gen x Geo = 0.468 (P <>
x Lan = 0.182 (P>0.05), and Geo x Lan = 0.177 (P>0.05).
The partial correlations are (Gen x Geo)-Lan = 0.451 (P <
0.01) and (Gen x Lan)-Geo = 0.114 (P > 0.05). Geography
determines 20.3% of the variance of the genetic distances, language determines only 1.0%o, and factors common to geography and language determine 1.6%.
One might have expected a high and significant Gen x Lan correlation, because speakers ofa particular language (family) tend to be found settled near each other.
In other words, when geographic distances between samples are small we expect linguistic distances to be small, and vice versa.
Ifgeography is likewise correlated with genetics, then genetic and linguistic distances should also be positively correlated.
But the Geo x Lan correlation in this study is low because centers of
language phyla are positioned in Europe both relatively close and far apart spatially causing the relationship between geography and language to break down.
Therefore, the common effect ofgeography does not produce a high correlation between genetics and language.
This finding contrasts with the significant correlation between genetic and language distances reported by Sokal (5).
In that study correlations among genetics, linguistics, and geography were calculated for pairwise locality distances. Since a finer scale ofdistances was used, both the correlation ofgeography and of language and the common effect of geography were greater.

DISCUSSION

This study shows that genetic distances between the European language families do not reflect their accepted linguistic relationships.
If we group the language families by their linguistic origins, there should be a cluster of the Indo- European language families, Baltic and Slavic being most closely related, a separate branch for the Finnic and Ugric speakers, and separate coordinate branches for the Turkic, Semitic, and Basque language families.
The genetic distances of some interphylum language-family pairs, such as those between Slavic and Ugric speakers, or between Turkic and Ugric speakers, however, are closer than some distances within a phylum, as between Greek and Celtic speakers or between Finnic and Ugric speakers.
The low matrix correlation between genetics and language confirms the lack of agreement between presumed language phylogeny and the observed genetic distances.
If genetic distances reflect geographic proximity, we should be able to predict genetic affinity from a clustering of the great-circle distances between language families.
This yields Germanic-Celtic and Romance-Basque as mutually closest pairs, with the two pairs together forming a major cluster.
Likewise, Slavic-Ugric and Greek-Turkic both cluster as pairs.
Finally, Finnic is an outlier.
Clustering all 12 language families by great-circle distance enlarges the Greek Turkic cluster into one that also includes Albanian and Semitic and places Baltic-Finnic as an outlying pair. Considerable concordance between geographic proximity and observed genetic relations is evident and confirmed by the significant correlation between geographic and genetic dis- tances.
The role of geography can also be seen in the ordinations.
Disregarding the outliers, Fig. 2 demonstrates an East-West separation of geographically adjacent language family pairs, Germanic-Celtic from Turkic-Greek with Slavic-Ugric intermediate.
The small Greek-Albanian genetic distance is also consistent with geographic proximity, although we attach less confidence to this value.
The observations made here are supported by a largely geographic clustering of European map quadrats characterized by gene frequencies (16).
A geographic gene flow model does not, however, explain why the Basque and Finnic language families are outliers both in the ordinations and phenograms, nor why Semitic is an outlier in the extended dataset.
These results reflect the distant origins of speakers of these language groups.
The Finnic language family is given its unique genetic profile by inclusion of the Lapps.
These populations, ethnically different from other Finnic speakers, apparently migrated to northern Scandinavia from northern Eurasia (17).
The Basques have long been an isolated enclave, presumably descended from the pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Europe (18, 19).
The Semitic speakers have North African origins.
These results suggest that some modification of the strictly geographic gene flow model by language origin may provide greater concordance with the genetic relationships between language families.
We conclude that affinities between modern European
gene pools have been formed primarily by relatively short- range gene flow between geographically adjacent populations.
Yet, between the speakers of some language families and their geographic neighbors, there are genetic differences that apparently reflect their remote historical and linguistic origins.

We thank Barbara Thomson for computational assistance. Prof. L. L. Cavalli-Sforza and Dr. Neal Oden provided helpful comments.
This research was supported by Grant GM28262 from the National Institutes of Health.
This article is contribution 681 in Ecology and Evolution from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.


1. Ruhlen, M. (1987) A Guide to the World's Languages (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA), Vol. 1.
2. Maldcot, G. (1948) Les Mathematiques de l'Hewredite6 (Masson et Cie, Paris) [Maldcot, G., trans. (1969) The Mathematics of
Heredity (Freeman, San Francisco)].
3. Lalouel, J.-M. (1980) in Current Developments in Anthropological Genetics, eds. Mielke, J. H. & Crawford, M. H. (Plenum, New York), Vol. 1, pp. 209-250.
4. Jorde, L. B. (1985) Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 14, 343-373.
5. Sokal, R. R. (1988) Proc. NatI. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 1722-1726.
6. Sokal, R. R., Oden, N. L. & Thomson, B. A. (1988) Am. J.
7. Sokal, R. R., Oden, N. L., Legendre, P., Fortin, M. J., Kim,
8. Prevosti, A., Ocana, J. & Alonso, G. (1975) Theor. Appl. Genet. 45, 231-241.
9. Sneath, P. H. A. & Sokal, R. R. (1973) Numerical Taxonomy (Freeman, San Francisco).
10. Rohlf, F. J. (1985) Numerical Taxonomy System ofMultivariate Statistical Programs, Technical Report (State Univ. of New York, Stony Brook).Hubert, L. (1987) Assignment
Methods in Combinatorial Data
12.
13.

Analysis (Dekker, New York).
Mantel, N. (1967) Cancer Res. 27, 209-220.
Sokal, R. R. (1979) Syst. Zool. 28, 227-231.
14. Smouse, P. E., Long, J. C. & Sokal, R. R. (1986) Syst. Zool. 35, 627-632.
15. Legendre, P. (1985) The R Package for Multivariate Data Analysis, Technical Report (Universitd de Montreal, Mon- treal).
16. Derish, P. A. & Sokal, R. R. (1988) Hum. Biol., 60, 801-824.
17. Bunak, V. V. (1976) in Rassengeschichte der Menschheit, ed.
18.
19.

Schwidetzky, I. (Oldenbourg, Munich), Vol. 4, pp. 7-101.
Allieres, J. (1986) Les Basques (Univ. of France Press, Paris).
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1987) The Basque Population and An-
cient Migrations in Europe, Second World Basque Congress, in
press

Differences between Macedonians and Greeks 05

Differences between ancient and modern Macedonians and the ancient and modern Greeks

WHO ARE GREEKS?




GREEKS OR OTHERS?

Differences between Macedonians and Greeks 04

Differences between ancient and modern Macedonians and the ancient and modern Greeks

WHO ARE GREEKS?



GREEKS OR OTHERS?

Differences between Macedonians and Greeks 03

Differences between ancient and modern Macedonians and the ancient and modern Greeks

WHO ARE GREEKS?



GREEKS OR OTHERS?..

Differences between Macedonians and Greeks 02

Differences between ancient and modern Macedonians and the ancient and modern Greeks
The Myth of Greek Ethnic 'Purity'

ALEXANDER..
WHITE MACEDONIAN KING..
but WHO ARE "GREEKS" ?
HLA GENES REPORT:
Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses.
TRUE OR FALSE?


FROM HISTORY...
following Greek legend, that Inachus, the founder of Argos (1856 BC), and Cecrops, the founder of Athens (1556 BC), were Egyptians. Other histories claim that Inachus was a Phoenician. Cadmus, the founder of Thebes (1493 BC), was a Phoenician. These men may be historical or legendary; we cannot know. We do know that in the 15th century BC, the Egyptian empire encompassed a great area, which included Palestine (Phoenicia) and the Aegean Sea (Crete). Suffice it to say that Egypt and Phoenicia had the greatest influence on early Minoan (Crete), Mycenaean (Argos), Spartan, Athenian and Theban civilization. The Pelasgi, or Pelasgians, were the primitive inhabitants of Greece, according to Herodotus. Now Pelasgus I was an early king (1684 BC), and it was from this ruler that the Pelasgians took their name. Pelasgus was a grandson or great-grandson of Inachus, the Egyptian or Phoenician that founded Argos. Herodotus says of the Phoenicians that they “lived of old, so they say, about the Red Sea (Erythraean Sea), but they then came out of there and settled in that part of Syria that is next the Sea (Mediterranean Sea). That piece of Syria, and all as far as Egypt, is called Palestine” (The History, 7.89). Scholars believe that Herodotus’ Erythraean Sea is our Indian Ocean (The History, 1.1), but whether it is the Indian Ocean or the Red Sea, its proximity to Egypt in either case is well known.
TRUE OR FALSE?
THE NEGRO PRESENCE IN CLASSICAL GREECE



TRUE

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Suharan origin of the Greeks

Abstract:
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Re¬public of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, par¬ticularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-join¬ing dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached:
1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Ar¬menians and Iranians,
2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum,
3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiop¬ian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses.
The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displace¬ment of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

The highly polymorphic HLA system has been validated as useful for distinguishing and/or relating populations (and individuals) in many research studies since the first International HLA Anthropology Workshop (Evian, 1973) and in all the subsequent seven International Workshops. HLA gene frequencies correlate with geographically re¬lated populations.
The existence or absence of gene flow among neighbouring ethnic groups may be assessed with the study of HLA frequencies and the corresponding genetic distances (1,2).
Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived be¬tween northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans and were considered by the classical Greeks as ‘‘non-Greek barbarians’’ that could not participate in the Greek Olympic Games (3).
Hero dotus wrote that "Macedonians" were "Dorians" and were never admitted to the Greek community (4).
They did not speak Greek but another language presently unknown and of which only proper names remain; nowadays, they speak a Slavic language (5).
Mace¬donians fought against the Greeks between 357-336 B.C. under King Philip II. They defeated the Greeks at the Battle of Chaironea (338 B.C.). The Macedonian empire extended from the Balkan Penin¬sula to the Himalayas and to North Africa during the reign of Phil¬ip's son, Alexander the Great (6).
Thereafter, Macedonia was conqu¬ered by the Romans and has been disputed in more recent times by Serbs and/or Bulgars. Ottoman Turks controlled Macedonia be¬tween 1380-1912 A.D., and it was integrated into Yugoslavia in 1946. In 1991, after the partition of Yugoslavia, a referendum gave Macedonia its independence.
The present ethnic groups within the country are:
1) Macedonians: 1,279,000;
2) Albanians: 377,000;
3) Turks: 87,000;
4) Serbs: 44,000; and
5) others: 40,000.
The northern¬most region of Greece is also known as Macedonia and this is why Greece has opposed the independence of the country while it bears the same name (7).
Furthermore, we have found that the Greeks did not cluster to¬gether with other Mediterranean populations, including both west¬ern (Iberians, Algerians, Berbers) and eastern (Cretans, Jews, Leb¬anese, Egyptian, Turks-Anatolians) Mediterraneans (8-10).
The aim of the present work is to determine the relative contri¬butions of Macedonians and Greeks to the present-day genetic pool of Mediterranean peoples.
For these purpose, both HLA class I and class IIDNA typings have been studied in Macedonians for the first time.
The genetic relationship of Macedonians and Greeks to other Mediterraneans, including North Africans (Berbers from Agadir and El Jadida areas and Algerians from Algiers), Iberians (Spani¬ards, Basques and Portuguese) and Greeks (from Attica, Aegean and Cyprus) were calculated.
In addition, sub-Saharan and other Africans were compared with all available Mediterranean groups in order to solve the question of the unique Greek HLA profile.


Material and methods

Population samples

Samples from one hundred and seventy-two unrelated Macedonians in Skopje (Institute of Blood Transfusion, Tissue Typing Labora¬tory), the Republic of Macedonia capital, were used for HLA geno-typing and phylogenetic calculations. All were Macedonian lan¬guage speakers and their ancestors did not belong to a country minority group (detailed above). The origin of all other populations used for comparisons is given in Table 1.

Populations used for the present work

Table 1
HLA genotyping, DNA sequencing and statistics

Generic HLA class I (A and B) and high-resolution HLA class II (DRB1 and DQB1) genotyping was performed using a reverse dot-blot technique with the Automated Innolipa system (Innogenetics N.V., Zwijndrecht, Belgium).
HLA-A, -B, -DRB1, and -DQB1 allele DNA sequencing was only done when indirect DNA typing (reverse dot-blot) yielded ambiguous results (11).
Statistical analysis was performed with Arlequin v1.1 software kindly provided by Ex-coffier and Slatkin (12).
In summary, this program calculated HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies, Hardy-Weinberg equilib¬rium and the linkage disequilibrium between two alleles at two dif¬ferent loci.
Linkage disequilibrium (Dø; also named LD, see ref. 13) and its level of significance (P) for 2x2 comparisons were deter¬mined using the formulae of Mattiuz and co-workers (14) and the 11th International Histocompatibility Workshop methodology (13).
In addition, the most frequent complete haplotypes were deduced following a methodology used in the 11th International Histocom¬patibility Workshop:
1) the 2, 3, and 4 HLA loci haplotype frequen¬cies (2,15,16);
2) the haplotypes previously described in other popu¬lations (2, 16); and
3) haplotypes which were assigned if they ap¬peared in two or more individuals and the alternative haplotype was well defined.
In order to compare allelic and haplotype HLA frequencies with other populations, the reference tables used were those of the 11th and 12th International HLA Workshops (2, 16; see also Table 1).
Phylogenetic trees (dendrograms) were constructed with the allelic frequencies by applying the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) method (17) with the genetic distances between populations (DA, 18) and using DISPAN software containing the programs GNKDST and TREEVIEW (19, 20).
A three-dimensional correspondence analysis and its bidimensional representation was carried out using the VISTA v5.02 computer program (21, http:/forrest.psych.unc. edu).
Correspondence analysis comprises a geometric technique that may be used for displaying a global view of the relationships among populations according to HLA (or other) allele frequencies.
This methodology is based on the allelic frequency variance among populations (similarly to the classical principal components method¬ology) and on the display of a statistical projection of the differ¬ences.

Table 2

Genetic distances between populations (DA) between Macedonians and other populations (xlO2) obtained by using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies (see Table 1 for populations identification)

Table 3
Results

Characteristic HLA allele frequencies of the Macedonian population compared to other Mediterraneans

The expected and observed allele frequencies for HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 loci do not significantly differ and the population sample is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Table 2 shows the HLA allele frequencies found in the Macedonian population. Fourteen different HLA-A and twenty-eight different HLA-B alleles were observed in the Macedonian population. Six HLA-A alleles and seven HLA-B alleles had frequencies higher than 5% (A*01, A*02, A*03, A* 11, A*24, A*26, B*07, B*08, B*18, B*35, B*38, B*44 and B*51) and these are characteristic of Mediterranean populations (8-10, 22).

With regard to the HLA class II alleles, thirty-one different DRB1 alleles were found and only six had frequencies higher than 5%; DQ allele frequencies reflect the DRB1 locus allele distribution due to the strong linkage disequilibrium between these two loci.
Two types of analyses were carried out to compare Macedonian HLA frequencies with other Mediterranean population frequencies: 1) with DRB1 data, which is probably a more informative and discrimi¬nating methodology; and 2) with generic (low-resolution) DR-DQ data. These two types of analysis were both performed because some of the populations used for comparison lacked HLA-A and -B data [Berbers (from Souss, Agadir area, Morocco), Jews (Ashkenazi), Jews (Morocco), Jews (non-Ashkenazi), Lebanese (NS and KZ), see Table 1], or high resolution HLA-DQ data [(Greeks (Attica), Greeks (Cyprus), Greeks (Attica-Aegean), see Table 1]], or only generic HLA-DR and DQ data were available [Portuguese, Turks, Iranians, Armenians and Egyptians, see Table 1]. These partially HLA-typed populations should have been ignored, but they could be analyzed conjointly tak¬ing into account only either DRB1 or generic DR and DQ frequencies (Tables 3, 6, Figs 1-3). Analyses using DRB1and DQB1 conjointly were made but are not shown because only a few populations could be used and the results are concordant with the DRB1 analysis. Finally, it should be pointed out that class I generic typing tends to homogenize the comparisons based on DRB1 high-resolution typing (see ref. 22); one class I allele obtained by generic DNA typing may contain several class I alleles, while this is not the case for most DRB1 alleles.
Fig. 1 depicts an HLA class II (DRB1) neighbor-joining tree. Populations are grouped into three main branches with high boots¬trap values: the first one groups both eastern (including Macedoni¬ans, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese) and western Mediterraneans (Euro¬peans and North Africans; Sardinians are also included in the first group). The second branch is formed by African Negroid popula tions and the third one includes Greek and sub-Saharan popula¬tions. This distribution is also confirmed in the correspondence analysis (Fig. 2): the three groups are clearly delimited and a west to east Mediterranean gradient is shown. The Macedonian population shows the closest genetic distance with Cretans (Table 3) and no discontinuity is observed with eastern and western Mediterraneans reflecting the genetic similarity among these populations. It is evi¬denced that Cretans-Greeks distance is high. These results are con¬firmed using DR and DQ generic typings (see Fig. 3 and data not shown) which were used in order to include other Mediterranean populations (Iranians, Armenians, Egyptians and Turks, see Table 1). A DR-DQ neighbour-joining tree (data not shown) maintains the West to East Mediterranean gradient and also the group formed by Greeks and sub-Saharan populations. Turks (old Anatolians), Kurds, Iranians and Armenians have been shown specifically to cluster with the eastern Mediterranean groups (Arnaiz-Villena et al., submitted). On the other hand, genetic distances obtained by using DR-DQ generic typing allele frequencies (data not shown) show that Iranians (LlOxlCr2) and Cretans (1.54X1CT2) are the two populations closest to the Macedonians followed by the other Mediterranean populations. A discontinuity is found between Berbers (Souss) and Greeks (Attica) (9.59X1CT2 vs. 12.42X1CT2) showing that the latter have a distant relationship with Mediterran ean populations as previously described (10, 22) and cluster together with the sub-Saharan populations.


Fig. 2. Correspondence analysis showing a global view of the re¬lationship between Mediterraneans and sub-Saharan and Black African populations according to HLA allele frequencies in three dimensions (bidimensional representation). HLA-DRB1 allele fre¬quencies data.


Fig. 3. Correspondence analysis showing a global view of the re¬lationship among West Mediterraneans (green),
East Mediterran¬eans (orange),
Greeks and sub-Saharan populations (red) and
Blacks (grey)
according to HLA allele frequencies in three dimen¬sions (bidimensional representation).
HLA-DR and DQ (low-resolution) allele frequencies data.

Common HLA-DRB1 alleles between Greeks and sub-Saharan Africans



Fig. 1. Neighbor-Joining dendrogram showing relatedness be¬tween Macedonians and other populations. Genetic distances between populations (DA) were calculated by using HLA-DRB1 (high-resolution). Data from other populations were from references detailed in Table 1. Boots¬trap values from 1000 replicates are shown.

Most frequent HLA-A, -B, -DRB1, and -DQB1 extended haplotypes in the Mace¬donian population and their possible origin




HF: Haplotype frequency. aAlso found in Basques (2.4%), Spaniards (3.4%), Britons (2.9%), Danes (3.4%), Cretans (1.1%), Germans (4.8%), Austrians (5.3%) and Yugoslavs (7.7%) (2, 9, 10, 15, 16). bThis haplotype has been found in Albanians (3.9%), Italians (2.1%), Yugoslavs (3.5%), Turks (1.1%), Spaniards (1.1%) and Greeks (4.0%) (2, 16 and our own unpublished results). candd Pres¬ent only in Macedonians. ePartially (B52-DRB1*1502-DQB1*0601) found in Moroccans (1.5%), Cretans (2.5%), Spaniards (1.1%) and Italians (0.8%) (2, 16, 22). fHaplotype found in Armenians (2.1%) and Italians (0.7%) (2, 16). gOnly found in Italians (0.8%) (2, 16). hHaplotype found only in Iberians, Portuguese (1.5%) and Spaniards (0.3%) (15). iPresent in Turks (0.9%) and in Jews (our own unpublished results and 33). Other low frequency haplotypes present in Macedonians are also shared with central Europeans (A*03-B*07-DRB1*1501-DQB1*0602, HF: 0.8; A*02-B*13-DRB1*0701-DQB1*02, HF: 0.8; A*02-B*44-DRB1*0701-DQB1*02, HF: 0.6), western Europeans (A*02-B*07-DRB1*1501-DQB1*0602, HF: 0.6), north Africans (A*02-B*07-DRB1*1001-DQB1*0501, HF: 0.6) and Mediterranean-Europeans (A*23-B*44-DRB1*0701-DQB1*02, HF: 0.6) (2, 8-10, 16 and our own unpublished results)
Table 4
AF: Allele frequency. Some of these HLA-DRB1 alleles are also present in other populations: aNot found in other populations. bPresent in Hungarians (0.4%). cFound in Amerindians and some Pacific peoples. dNot found in other populations. eFound in Hungarians (1.2%). fPresent in Hva Island (Croatia, 0.3%) and Amerindian Yukpa (2.3%). gFound in Lebanese 0.1%. hFound in Hva Island (Croatia, 0.9%) and Hungarians (2.6%). iAlso found in Lebanese (2.3%) and Hungarians (2.6%). jNot found in other populations. kAlso present in Hvar Island (Croatia, 1.0%) (2, 23)
Table 5
HLA-A, -B, -DRB1, and -DQB1 linkage disequilibria in Macedonians

Extended HLA haplotypes were determined in Macedonians and compared with those previously reported in other populations (Table 4). HLA-A-B and DRB1*-DQB1* two-loci linkage disequilib¬rium data (not shown) show that the most frequent combinations are characteristic of European and Mediterranean (western and eastern) populations (B*18-DRB1*1104, Haplotype Frequency (HF): 9.0; A*02-B*18, HF: 8.1; A*01-B*08, HF: 5.5; B*08-DRB1*0301, HF: 5.2; A*24-B*35, HF: 4.9 and B*07-DRB1*1501, HF: 4.1). The HLA-A-B-DR-DQ extended haplotypes found in the Macedonian population (Table 4) reflect common characteristics with the other "older" Medi¬terranean background (see footnote to Table 4). These haplotype results are concordant with those obtained by the allele frequency analyses (genetic distances, neighbor-joining trees and correspon¬dence, see above).

Common alleles of Greeks with sub-Saharan Africans

In order to study the possible origin of the Greeks who remain outliers among Mediterraneans (10, 22), specific DRB1 alleles pres¬ent in Greeks and not present in the other Mediterranean popula¬tions were searched in other geographically not very distant popu lations. Our own data, the 11th and 12th International Histocom-patibility Workshops reference panels (2, 16, 23) and other previously described data were used (see Table 1). Table 5 shows the presence of these Greek alleles mainly in sub-Saharan popula¬tions from Ethiopia (Amhara, Oromo), Sudan (Nuba) and West Africa (Rimaibe, Fulani, Mossi). Some of these alleles are sporadi¬cally present in other populations without any relationships among them (see footnote to Table 5). It may be deduced from these data that sub-Saharans and Greeks share quasi-specific HLA-DRB1 alleles. The neighbor-joining tree (Fig. 1) and the cor¬respondence analyses (Figs 2 and 3) confirm this Greek/sub-Sahar-an relatedness. The HLA-DRB1 genetic distances between Greeks and other Mediterraneans are shown in Table 6 and also support a sub-Saharan/Greek relatedness; genetic distances with HLA-DR and -DQ generic typings (not shown) give essentially the same re¬sults. No relationship of Greeks is seen with the Senegalese and South African Blacks (Bantu and people coming from the Guinea Gulf after the Bantu expansion, respectively (24)), nor with the present day Bushmen (24).
Two different types of problem regarding the obtained data are discarded: 1) mistakes in the HLA typings and 2) mistakes in the assignation of these specific alleles (DRB1*0417, *1112, etc, see Table 5). These problems are not likely to exist in the present work because; 1) HLA typings have been made by genetic technologies in three different Greek populations (2, 23) and 2) similar results are obtained when generic typing is used (DR-DQ analysis in Fig. 3; see also ref. 22).

Genetic distances (DA) between the different groups of Greeks and other populations (xlO2)
obtained by using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies
(see Table 1 for identification of populations)

Table 6

Discussion

Macedonians

Our results show that Macedonians are related to other Mediterran¬eans and do not show a close relationship with Greeks; however they do with Cretans (Tables 3, 4, Figs 1-3). This supports the theory that Macedonians are one of the most ancient peoples existing in the Balkan peninsula, probably long before arrival of the Mycaenian Greeks (10) about 2000 B.C. Other possible explanation is that they might have shared a genetic background with the Greeks before an hypothetical admixture between Greeks and sub-Saharans might have occurred. The cultural, historical and genetic identity of Macedonians is established according to our results. However, 19th century historians focused all the culture in Greece ignoring all the other Mediterranean cultures present in the area long before the classical Greek one (25).

Greeks are genetically related to sub-Saharans

Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed (Tables 5, 6 and Figs 1-3) was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan eth¬nic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa (Burki-na-Fasso). Although some Greek DRB1 alleles are not completely specific of the Greek/sub-Saharan sharing, the list of alleles (Table 5) is self-explanatory. The conclusion is that part of the Greek gen¬etic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred at an uncertain but ancient time.
The origin of the West African Black ethnic groups (Fulani, Mossi and Rimaibe sampled in Burkina-Fasso) is probably Ethiopian (26, 27) (Fig. 4). The Fulani are semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers and one of the few people in the area to use cows' milk and its by¬products to feed themselves and to trade; their facial parameters show a Caucasian admixture. The Rimaibe Blacks have been slaves belonging to the Fulani and have frequently mixed with them (27). The Nuba people are now widespread all over Sudan, but are de¬scendants of the ancient Nubians that ruled Egypt between 8th-7th centuries B.C. (28) and later established their kingdom at Meroe, North Khartoum. Two kinds of Nubians were described in ancient times: Reds and Blacks, probably reflecting the degree of Caucasian admixture. Both the Oromo and Amharic peoples live in the Ethiop¬ian mountains (27). They obviously have in common a genetic back¬ground with the west-African groups mentioned above. Linguistic, social, traditional and historical evidence supports an east-to-west migration of peoples through the Sahel (southern Sahara strip), al¬though this is still debated (26, 27).
Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admix¬ture must have occurred in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least (Figs 1 and 2). The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners establishment (10). Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt (4, 25).

Fig. 4.
Map showing the location of the populations tested in the present work..




The complete scientific report on the Macedonian Genes done by the Spanish University of Complutense, now is back online for free (at the original website you must pay in order to view the complete report).
The address is http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

Who Were (and Are) the Macedonians

by Eugene Borza

This paper seeks to illuminate the problems associated with determining the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians (were they Greek?), and to discuss the "reverberations" (to use the organisers' term) of that issue in modem times. While the 1971 OED may regard the use of the word "ethnicity" as obsolete, no adequate substitute for the word exists. Indeed, part of the discussion in my paper will, following the lead of Loring Danforth in his recent The Macedonian Conflict.- Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World (Princeton 1995), attempt to illustrate some principles by which the "ethnicity" of the ancient Macedonians -- and, perhaps, other ancient peoples -- can be discussed in a coherent manner.

Among the questions asked as appropriate to a methodological model of determining ethnicity are:

I. What were a people's origins and what language did they speak? From the surviving literary sources (Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive. On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks.

II. Self-identity: what did the Macedonians say or think about themselves? Virtually nothing has survived from the Macedonians themselves (they are among the silent peoples of antiquity), and very little remains in the Classical and Hellenistic non-Macedonian sources about Macedonian attitudes.

III. What did others say about the Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.

IV. What is the nature of cultural expressions as revealed by archaeology? As above we are blessed with an increasing amount of physical evidence revealing information about Macedonian tastes in art and decoration, religion, political and economic institutions, architecture and settlement patterns. Clearly the Macedonians were in many respects Hellenized, especially on the upper levels of their society, as demonstrated by the excavations of Greek archaeologists over the past two decades. Yet there is much that is different, e. g., their political institutions, burial practices, and religious monuments.

I will argue that, whoever the Macedonians were, they emerged as a people distinct from the Greeks who lived to the south and east. In time their royal court -- which probably did not have Greek origins (the tradition in Herodotus that the Macedonian kings were descended from Argos is probably a piece of Macedonian royal propaganda) -- became Hellenized in many respects, and I shall review the influence of mainstream Greek culture on architecture, art, and literary preferences.

Finally, a look at contemporary Balkan politics. The Greek government firmly maintains that the ancient Macedonians were ethnic Greeks, and that any claim by the new Republic of Macedonia (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) to the name "Macedonia" and the symbols of ancient Macedonia is tantamount to an expropriation of Greek history. Moreover, it is claimed that there is no such thing as a distinct Slavic Macedonian identity and language separate from Bulgaria and Serbia.

I shall review the evidence for the existence of a modern Macedonian ethnicity with reference to my recent work in a Macedonian ethnic community in Steelton, Pennsylvania. Both the gravestones in a local cemetery and US census reports from the early twentieth century provide evidence that émigrés from Macedonia who lived and died in Steelton in the early twentieth century considered themselves to be distinct from their Serbian and Bulgarian neighbours.

I shall conclude with a summary showing how the present conflict between Greeks and Macedonians in the Balkans is characterised by both sides reaching back to antiquity to provide an often false historical basis to justify their respective modern positions: the theme of "reverberations" as mentioned by the organisers of the panel.

This file is located at: http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/APA/abstracts/borza.html

Ulrich Wilcken

Perusing through Ulrich Wilcken's book "Alexander the Great" we find on p. 22 the following passage:

"The beginnings of Macedonian history are shrouded in complete darkness. There is keen controversy on the ethnological problem, whether Macedonians were Greek or not."

P. 22, line 4: "Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words, and the archaeological exploration of Macedonia has hardly begun."

Page 167 line 5, we find: (Describing the all familiar episode with Cleitus)

"He shouted in Macedonian for his hypaspists, and ordered the trumpeter to sound the alarm". (The most revealing point in Alexander's psyche; the time when he felt that conspiracy against his life is in the making, when he felt his life is in danger, forgetting his "Hellenic" mask, he shouts in his native Macedonian language. Yes, indeed, a very revealing point. Stripped from any artificiality, and pretentiousness, he reverts to the most instinctive/primitive response and shouts to his guards in Macedonian language.)

Line 6. "And yet when we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were Greek race and akin to the Dorians."

Let us take a closer look:

(a) Religion transcends borders and ethnicity. I find this argument weak but have included it in fairness. As for politics, Greeks did not live in a kingdom, nor did Macedonians live in city-states.

p. 187, line 15, we read the following passage referring to his advances to the Hyphasis:

"Alexander built twelve great tower-like altars on the nearer side of the river. We have been informed by those who refer everything to Babylonia, that this was for the twelve signs of the zodiac. In reality it was the twelve gods of Macedonia to whom these altars were raised."

p. 170, line 31 we find: (Referring to the conspiracy involving the royal pages, the sons of Macedonian nobles. These royal pages who "waited on the king's person", were brought, and tried, in front of the Macedonian army, and consequently executed by stoning. By the way, these royal pages were tutored by Callisthenes.)

"As Callisthenes was a Greek, there was no question of trying him by the Macedonian army."

[He, Callisthenes, a Greek, cannot be tried by the Macedonian army. Is this not a political differentiation based on ethnic classification or national separation?]

for on p.171, line 33, we see the following reference:

"On the march and in battle he was just the same as ever, he (Alexander) was the king of the Macedonian nation, who shared with them the unspeakable fatigues, and the hunger and thirst of this guerrilla warfare."

(c) "Morals"?

This must be the weakest link of the three. As it was indicated above, people who inhabit same geographical area, share common borders and fight common enemies, and most of all, trade with each other, sooner or later, they are not only going to borrow from one another, imitate each other's styles (to a certain extent), but even steal ideas from each other. That is, surely, inevitable. Nevertheless, the morals of the ancient Macedonians were quite different from those of the ancient Greeks. They were not branded "barbarians" for nothing.

Line 20, p. 22. Referring to the episode of Alexander I who desired to take part in the Olympic Games, to which only Hellenes had access to:

"He was at first refused as a barbarian, and it was only when by a bold fiction he traced back the pedigree of his house, the Argead, to the Herald Temenids of Argos, that he was admitted as a competitor."

Line 28, p. 22 and cont. on p. 23.

"Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect."



This is same Wilcken who previously stated that:
"When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians our convictions are strengthened..."

Now, after further consideration of the existing conditions in the fifth and fourth century BC, he, Wilken, states:
"The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect."

[so much for consistency...]

Line 37, p.23 "A strong Illyrian and Thracian can thus be recognised in Macedonian speech and manners. These however are only trifles compared with the Greek character of the Macedonian nationality; for example, the names of the true full-blooded Macedonians, especially of the princes and nobles, are purely Greek in their formation and sounds".

[But how do we know how the Macedonians themselves referred to each other. This assumption is based on Greek sources for the names...but I'm being fair.]

Line 4 on p. 26 we find the following statement:

"The Macedonians were thoroughly healthy people, trained not by Greek athletics, but, like the Romans, by military service."

Line 9, p. 26 reads:

"The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians have grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the understanding of later history."

[Note: If in fact the ancient Macedonians were regarded as Greeks, like the Thebans, Athenians, Spartans and the other city-states of Greece, why do not find any Greek city-state elevated as a nation. Is the usage of "Macedonian nation" by Wilcken and others accidental? He uses the terms "Macedonians and Greeks" repeatedly throughout his book. Obviously, he finds a strong need to differentiate between these two peoples.

This differentiation is obvious in the following passages: p.69, line 26, p.128, line 28, p.129, line 21, p.150, line 12, p.168, line 32, p.169, line 2, p.193 line 11, p.177, line 3, etc.]

Line 8, p. 44, we follow:

"Philip was the Hegemon, the federal general, selected for life by the congress. His kingdom of Macedon naturally did not belong to the Hellenic League..."