Prehistoric farmers from northern Greece had lactose intolerance, brown eyes, dark skin

According to this:

Πολύ σημαντικό πρόσφατο εύρημα αποτελεί η ανάκτηση ολόκληρων γονιδιωμάτων από τρεις προϊστορικούς αγρότες, που έζησαν στη Βόρεια Ελλάδα 7.500 με 5.500 χρόνια πριν από σήμερα. Τα δεδομένα αυτά αναλύονται και αναμένεται να ρίξουν φως στις προγονικές σχέσεις των πρώτων Ευρωπαίων και να δώσουν πλήθος πληροφοριών, που συνδέονται με λειτουργικά και μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά. Ήδη, είναι γνωστό, ότι κάποιοι νεολιθικοί πρόγονοί μας δε μπορούσαν να πέψουν το γάλα, ήταν δηλαδή δυσανεκτικοί στη λακτόζη και είχαν καστανά μάτια και σκουρόχρωμη επιδερμίδα.

Related video:

Five people were buried in Amphipolis tomb

Bones found in Magnificent Amphipolis Tomb belong to Five People, Ministry Announced

The Greek Ministry of Culture has announced the long-awaited results of the analysis on the bones found inside the 4th century BC tomb uncovered in Amphipolis in northern Greece, and the news is quite unexpected – the bones belong to not one, but five individuals, pointing to the likelihood that it is a family tomb. 

... 

Person 1: Female, approximately 60 years
Persons 2 and 3: Two men, 35 to 45 years
Person 4: Newborn infant
Person 5: Cremated individual of unknown age and sex  

... 

The scientific team will continue to carry out in-depth studies of the bones, including DNA analysis, to obtain more detailed information about the individuals including their diet, their affinity and place of origin, whether they grew up in Amphipolis or had moved from elsewhere, when they were buried/cremated, and whether the individuals are related to each other.

Tomb II at Vergina belonged to Philip II and a possible Scythian wife

Remains of Alexander the Great's Father Confirmed Found

A team of Greek researchers has confirmed that bones found in a two-chambered royal tomb at Vergina, a town some 100 miles away from Amphipolis's mysterious burial mound, indeed belong to the Macedonian King Philip II, Alexander the Great's father. 

The anthropological investigation examined 350 bones and fragments found in two larnakes, or caskets, of the tomb. It uncovered pathologies, activity markers and trauma that helped identify the tomb's occupants.

Along with the cremated remains of Philip II, the burial, commonly known as Tomb II, also contained the bones of a woman warrior, possibly the daughter of the Skythian King Athea, Theodore Antikas, head of the Art-Anthropological research team of the Vergina excavation, told Discovery News.

Amphipolis caryatid

The constant stream of discoveries from the Amphipolis tomb are fascinating. It is not often that one sees archaeology reported almost in "real time".

It is clear that a tomb with a 500m perimeter from the last quarter of the 4th c. BC (i) was built for someone very important, and (ii) someone that is in the history books. 

Unfortunately, such a huge monument would be sure to have attracted attention even in antiquity and it's possible that it was robbed; the intact tomb of Philip II in Vergina (where more tombs in the royal necropolis have recently been discovered) is, by comparison, much more modest, which may have contributed to its lucky fate. Even if the tomb was robbed, the non-movable art from the site by itself would make it an amazing discovery from the ancient world.

Perhaps one day non-cremated remains from a Macedonian Argead royal will be tested for ancient DNA. In the Peloponnese, the institution of kingship waned in power and so the tombs of the descendants of the kings of Argos or Sparta might be indistinguishable from those of their Dorian compatriots. Finding the lineage of Hercules may seem like science fiction at the moment, but ancient DNA keeps revealing amazing new things about the past, so one can always hope!

Andreas Willi on Macedonia

Andreas Willi has written a rebuttal of sorts (pdf) to the letter of the Macedonia Evidence Initiative. It is an extremely interesting piece of doublethink, and as such, it is useful to address in some detail.

Willi (henceforth W.) writes:

The internet documentation which is referred to in the letter may be right when it sees nothing but “a personal grudge” behind Demosthenes’ calling Philip II a “barbarian,” but to cite Herodotus 5.22 as conclusive evidence that Alexander the Great was “thoroughly and indisputably Greek” is seriously misleading, since Herodotus’ statement “I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek” is triggered precisely by the existence of a dispute over the matter, long before the age of Demosthenes.

Indeed, there was a dispute over the matter, but the key point is that the dispute was resolved in favor of the Macedonian claims of Hellenicity. So, if the Hellanodikai of ancient Olympia accepted the Macedonian king as a Hellene, what reason does W. have to doubt them? Indeed, this acceptance occurred a century and a half at least before the ascent of Macedonians as a great power, so there is no reason to think that the judges' acceptance was the result of pressure.

Thus, we know that Alexander affirmed his Hellenicity --by choosing to compete at the Olympic games-- and this affirmation (and that of his successors who also competed) were affirmed by the other Greeks. We have both a proclamation and an acceptance of his Hellenicity.

W. writes:

As for (b), the question “Why was Greek the lingua franca all over Alexander’s empire if he was a ‘Macedonian’?” cannot be adequately answered with the words “[Because] Alexander the Great was Greek,” given that we have numerous examples of ancient empires in which the lingua franca was not the language of the ruler.

The unnamed examples of "ancient empires" notwithstanding, it is the case that Empires usually spread their own language. The Romans much esteemed Greek as a language of learning, but they spread Latin, not Greek to most of their Empire. Centuries later, the Europeans, who much esteemed Latin, spread Spanish or English to their empires.

Languages are spread by people, and Empires spread the languages of their peoples. What wondrous miracle would result in myriads of Macedonians settling throughout Asia not to leaving a single trace of their non-Hellenic presence? Did the Macedonians decide to abandon their language at precisely the time of their own triumph? A simpler explanation is that they did not.

But, here comes the doublethink, as W. writes of the ancient Paionians:

What is at the core of the letter is a mistaken and unhealthy notion of historical identity. “While it is true that the Paionians were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 358 B.C. they were not Macedonians and did not live in Macedonia”—but is that really so? How many Paionians did we ask about it, and at what point in history?

Thus, W. questions the letter's statement that the Paionians were not Macedonians. None of the ancient sources ever confuse the two people, or assert that the Paionians were Macedonians. But, let us grant, for the sake of argument, that at some point in their history, the Paionians felt like Macedonians.

But, if feelings sufficed, then how can W. deny the feelings of the Macedonian kings to be Hellenes? If Paionians may be Macedonians since they may have considered themselves to be such, how can W. simultaneously cast doubt to the claims of the Macedonian kings to be Hellenes, when they certainly did consider themselves to be such.

W. continues:

The comparison with Egypt is awkward, for at least after the incorporation of “Paionia” under Antigonos Gonatas (249 BCE) a territorially continuous political unity had come into being which survived as such in the Roman provincial administration. That the case of Egypt is rather different in this respect need hardly be stressed.

Suppose that Paionians did start feeling like Macedonians during Roman times. Certainly, in Strabo's time, who lived after the Roman conquest, the Paionians continue to be reckoned as a different people, while Macedonia is reckoned as part of Hellas. But, let's suppose that indeed a "Macedonian identity" formed.

But, then, in Byzantine times, the Macedonian theme, consisted of a completely different region, in Thrace. So, whatever, "Macedonian" identity may have formed, it was no lasting thing, having disappeared by medieval times, and transferred to Thrace. Thus, the argument that FYROM Slavs can be seen as inheritors of a distinctive "Macedonian" identity from antiquity collapses. Their only relationship to Macedonia is that they happen to live in what was the Ottoman province of Macedonia.

W. writes:

Moreover, to use an ancient but immediately relevant analogy, are we really to think that Thucydides got it all wrong when he wrote that, decades before the conquest of Paionia, the term “Macedonia” also applied to lands not inhabited by “ethnic” Macedonians (Thuc. 2.99)?

But, Thucydides statement actually opposes W's argument:

Assembling in Doberus, they prepared for descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia, where the dominions of Perdiccas lay; [2] for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood and allies and, dependents of their kindred, still have their own separate governments. [3] The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos. This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon (indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea is still called the Pierian gulf) of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbors of the Chalcidians, from Bottia, [4] and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea; the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon, being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians. [5] From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca, and the Almopians from Almopia. [6] These Macedonians also conquered places belonging to the other tribes, which are still theirs--Anthemus, Crestonia, Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper. The whole is now called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces, Perdiccas, Alexander's son, was the reigning king.

It is clear from this passage that Macedonians e.g., the Lyncestae) existed outside the Macedonian state, while some people who lived within it were not reckoned as Macedonians. Macedonians and the "Kingdom of Macedonia" are not conterminous entities. Thucydides does not assert that the non-Macedonians within the Macedonian state become, by reason of their inclusion in this state, Macedonians.

Thus, there were non-Macedonians within the Kingdom of Macedonia, and none of the independent self-governing Macedonians listed by Thucydides lived in present-day FYROM.

W. writes:

But to call Cleopatra a “Macedonian” gives away what constitutes true identity in the eyes of the letter’s authors: to them, identity seems defined by ancestry and blood-lines, by the past more than the present. Are we then to conclude that, for example, John F. Kennedy—or George W. Bush or Barack Obama, for that matter—were never real Americans? And if John F. Kennedy’s ancestors spoke Irish at one point, is it preposterous for all English-speaking Americans to use him today in their construction of a national identity because of that?

On what basis was Cleopatra not a Macedonian? She was a Macedonian by blood, and indeed by a fairly inbred pedigree full of Macedonians. But, suppose we discount, for the sake of argument, the importance of ancestry. Why, still, was Cleopatra not a Macedonian?

According to W. the conquered Paionians became Macedonians on account of them being conquered, but Cleopatra, the descendant of the conquerors of Egypt became a non-Macedonian, and, presumably, an Egyptian.

In W's strange world of doublethink, it appears that conquerors become the conquered (Cleopatra becomes an Egyptian), and the conquered become the conquerors (Paionians become Macedonians).

W. continues the JFK analogy:

By coming to America John F. Kennedy’s ancestors chose to become Americans (with Irish roots); but why could the Slavs coming to Macedonia then not become Macedonians (with Slavic roots)?

The analogy is false, for several reasons. First of all, JFK's ancestors came to the US as peaceful immigrants while the Slavs came to Macedonia as enemies of the local inhabitants. One needs to read the Miracula Sancti Demetrii to see what the local Macedonians thought of Slavs during the time of their arrival.

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept that the Slavs after several centuries, and because they live in part of Ottoman Macedonia, have some reason to consider themselves some kind of Macedonian. If this was all they did, no Greek would mind; after all, Greeks speak of Turkocretans, or Turkocypriots, or Slavomacedonians.

No, the real issue is that the Slavs of FYROM want to usurp the rights to the use of Macedonians exclusively for Slavs. Consider the official FYROM state policy about the existence of a "Macedonian" minority in Greece, which is -supposedly- oppressed by Greeks.

Going back to the Irish immigrants example, imagine if Irish immigrants not only started calling themselves Americans, but also started speaking about an American minority (by which they meant Americans of Irish origin) oppressed by "Anglos." That is, they tried to dispossess the original bearers of the name and take it as their property. Yet, this is precisely what FYROM Slavs are attempting to do.

W. writes:

No matter what its ethnic mix was—and what serious scholar would nowadays want to argue that the only “good” states are ethnically “pure” states, in which everyone must speak the same language?—the tendentiously-labeled “pseudo-greater Macedonia,” far from being a recent invention, did exist as a real recent invention, did exist as a real identitarian concept well before the 20th century. And in a sense its roots can be traced back to the conquests of Philip II, Alexander the Great and their successors in “Paionia”; for if those conquests had never taken place, the history of the region would have looked different and the territory of “Paionia” might not have shared the fate and fortune of “Aegean” Macedonia for long stretches of its history. Thus, unless one subscribes to a dangerous “blood-and-soil ideology,” there is no reason why the modern Slavic Macedonians should not be allowed to continue to call their country “Macedonia” and to pride themselves in Alexander the Great just as much as the modern Hellenic Greeks do. What does it matter if Alexander “was Greek, not Slavic,” as long as no one claims the opposite?

This is a truly peculiar argument. Alexander's conquests influenced the history of much of the known world, so, should they all be called Macedonians on account of being conquered by the actual Macedonians?

Also, what can one make of the statement about sharing the "fate and fortune"? Was a Macedonian Greek in any case closer to a Skopje Slav because they both happened to live in a territory that Ottoman Sultans claimed to be Macedonia? Was he not closer --Ottoman borders notwithstanding-- to a Thessalian or Thracian Greek? If we abandon the "blood-and-soil ideology", should we replace it with a "borders-and-history ideology", whereby an annexation of Paionia 23 centuries ago has forever marked the territory as Macedonia?

FYROM Slavs may, of course, feel pride that the ancient Paionians were conquered by Philip and Alexander a thousand years before their linguistic ancestors came to Macedonia. I don't feel particular pride that Greece was conquered by the Romans or the Ottomans or the Nazis, but there's no accounting for taste.

One cannot fail to notice, however, how thoroughly un-Macedonian this attitude is. Philip and Alexander loved Greek culture, and proudly proclaimed their Greekness, while these modern "Macedonians" despise Greeks, and proudly proclaim their non-Greekness. I submit this as exhibit A in the case that they are not, indeed, Macedonians at all.

More on the insanity that has dominated historical discourse in FYROM

I recently became aware of how insane some of the claims of the present-day FYROM government have become. It is hard to appreciate this for the Slav-less spectator who doesn't really have access to what is discussed in that country.

Thankfully, there are still rational voices in FYROM, and thanks to the efforts of brave citizens of that country such as Vasko Gligorjevic, we get to hear some of them.

Here are a couple of YouTube videos where the former Prime Minsiter of the country Ljubčo Georgievski describes the program of "antiquization" in the country, the adoption of fringe revisionist history as official, the denial of the Slavic element in modern Slavo-Paionians, and the extremely negative sentiments of proponents of "Ancient Macedonians" against those who emphasize the Slavic element in the country's history.



In the second clip, Mr. Georgievski asks why the proponents of "Ancient Macedonians" in FYROM seem so unconcerned with determining the Thracian, Illyrian, Dardanian, and Paeonian element in their ancestry, and are so hell-bent on discovering Macedonian ancestors. He also states -correctly- that Ancient Macedonia, including most of Upper Macedonia was in today's Greece, and all the rest (including FYROM) were conquered by the Macedonians, and not part of Macedonia itself.

Macedonia Evidence initiative

A very worthwhile effort. From the About section of the website:

Classical Scholars from around the world, well known for their expertise in the history of Greece are presenting, examining, and discussing the historical evidence.

The first few scholars were motivated by the article in the Archaeology magazine, and the letter Stephen G. Miller, Ph.D sent in response, which Archaeology did not publish.

Since then, the list of scholars that have examined the evidence has been growing and 222 scholars have undersigned the letter to President Barak Obama.

If you want to contribute to the discussion, please contact us at: SavingAlexander@macedonia-evidence.org.

The text of the letter:

Dear President Obama,

We, the undersigned scholars of Graeco-Roman antiquity, respectfully request that you intervene to clean up some of the historical debris left in southeast Europe by the previous U.S. administration.

On November 4, 2004, two days after the re-election of President George W. Bush, his administration unilaterally recognized the “Republic of Macedonia.” This action not only abrogated geographic and historic fact, but it also has unleashed a dangerous epidemic of historical revisionism, of which the most obvious symptom is the misappropriation by the government in Skopje of the most famous of Macedonians, Alexander the Great.

We believe that this silliness has gone too far, and that the U.S.A. has no business in supporting the subversion of history. Let us review facts. (The documentation for these facts [here in boldface] can be found attached and at: http://macedonia-evidence.org/documentation.html)

The land in question, with its modern capital at Skopje, was called Paionia in antiquity. Mts. Barnous and Orbelos (which form today the northern limits of Greece) provide a natural barrier that separated, and separates, Macedonia from its northern neighbor. The only real connection is along the Axios/Vardar River and even this valley “does not form a line of communication because it is divided by gorges.”

While it is true that the Paionians were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 358 B.C. they were not Macedonians and did not live in Macedonia. Likewise, for example, the Egyptians, who were subdued by Alexander, may have been ruled by Macedonians, including the famous Cleopatra, but they were never Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia.

Rather, Macedonia and Macedonian Greeks have been located for at least 2,500 years just where the modern Greek province of Macedonia is. Exactly this same relationship is true for Attica and Athenian Greeks, Argos and Argive Greeks, Corinth and Corinthian Greeks, etc.

We do not understand how the modern inhabitants of ancient Paionia, who speak Slavic – a language introduced into the Balkans about a millennium after the death of Alexander – can claim him as their national hero. Alexander the Great was thoroughly and indisputably Greek. His great-great-great grandfather, Alexander I, competed in the Olympic Games where participation was limited to Greeks.

Even before Alexander I, the Macedonians traced their ancestry to Argos, and many of their kings used the head of Herakles - the quintessential Greek hero - on their coins.

Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia– wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, and in Greek. While in Macedonia, Euripides also wrote the Bacchai, again in Greek. Presumably the Macedonian audience could understand what he wrote and what they heard.

Alexander’s father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi, the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where non-Greeks were not allowed to compete. Even more significantly, Philip was appointed to conduct the Pythian Games at Delphi in 346 B.C. In other words, Alexander the Great’s father and his ancestors were thoroughly Greek. Greek was the language used by Demosthenes and his delegation from Athens when they paid visits to Philip, also in 346 B.C. Another northern Greek, Aristotle, went off to study for nearly 20 years in the Academy of Plato. Aristotle subsequently returned to Macedonia and became the tutor of Alexander III. They used Greek in their classroom which can still be seen near Naoussa in Macedonia.

Alexander carried with him throughout his conquests Aristotle’s edition of Homer’s Iliad. Alexander also spread Greek language and culture throughout his empire, founding cities and establishing centers of learning. Hence inscriptions concerning such typical Greek institutions as the gymnasium are found as far away as Afghanistan. They are all written in Greek.

The questions follow: Why was Greek the lingua franca all over Alexander’s empire if he was a “Macedonian”? Why was the New Testament, for example, written in Greek?

The answers are clear: Alexander the Great was Greek, not Slavic, and Slavs and their language were nowhere near Alexander or his homeland until 1000 years later. This brings us back to the geographic area known in antiquity as Paionia. Why would the people who live there now call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia? Why would they abduct a completely Greek figure and make him their national hero?

The ancient Paionians may or may not have been Greek, but they certainly became Greekish, and they were never Slavs. They were also not Macedonians. Ancient Paionia was a part of the Macedonian Empire. So were Ionia and Syria and Palestine and Egypt and Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Bactria and many more. They may thus have become “Macedonian” temporarily, but none was ever “Macedonia”. The theft of Philip and Alexander by a land that was never Macedonia cannot be justified.

The traditions of ancient Paionia could be adopted by the current residents of that geographical area with considerable justification. But the extension of the geographic term “Macedonia” to cover southern Yugoslavia cannot. Even in the late 19th century, this misuse implied unhealthy territorial aspirations.

The same motivation is to be seen in school maps that show the pseudo-greater Macedonia, stretching from Skopje to Mt. Olympus and labeled in Slavic. The same map and its claims are in calendars, bumper stickers, bank notes, etc., that have been circulating in the new state ever since it declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Why would a poor land-locked new state attempt such historical nonsense? Why would it brazenly mock and provoke its neighbor?

However one might like to characterize such behavior, it is clearly not a force for historical accuracy, nor for stability in the Balkans. It is sad that the United States of America has abetted and encouraged such behavior.

We call upon you, Mr. President, to help - in whatever ways you deem appropriate - the government in Skopje to understand that it cannot build a national identity at the expense of historic truth. Our common international society cannot survive when history is ignored, much less when history is fabricated.

The Frequently Asked Questions are worth reading too.

Slavopaionian propaganda video + Stephen Miller's excellent letter to Archaeology magazine

Last year, when the "Macedonian issue" was in the news, due to FYROM's NATO candidacy I proposed that the issue could be resolved if FYROM accepted a compromise in the "name issue" that would qualify "Macedonia" with an appropriate geographical disambiguating adjective.

Events since that time have further strengthened my belief that no compromise is possible any more with our neighbors to the north, who refuse to budge even to the slightest degree in their stubborn adherence to their invented identity.

If you are in doubt of the degree of irrationality present in FYROM, this official video in state TV will change your mind:



The part at 04:25 is especially strange, where the narrator announces that one of the three races of mankind are the "Whites-Macedonoids" who spread to the "Sea of Japan", but the whole thing has a lunatic vibe to it.

On a more positive note, Prof. Stephen G. Miller's letter to Archaeology magazine is a welcome scholarly demolition of the Slavomacedonians' invented history.

I opened the January/February issue of Archaeology today and eagerly turned to “A Letter from Macedonia” only to discover that it was actually a letter from ancient Paionia – the land north of Mt. Barmous and Mt. Orbelos. Livy’s account of the creation of the Roman province of Macedonia (45.29.7 and 12) makes clear that the Paionians lived north of those mountains (which form today the geographically natural northern limits of Greece) and south of the Dardanians who were in today’s Kosovo. Strabo (7. frag 4) is even more succinct in saying that Paionia was north of Macedonia and the only connection from one to the other was (and is today) through the narrow gorge of the Axios (or Vardar) River. In other words, the land which is described by Matthew Brunwasser in his “Owning Alexander” was Paionia in antiquity.


While it is true that those people were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 359 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus 16.4.2), they were never Macedonians and never lived in Macedonia. Indeed, Demosthenes (Olynthian 1.23) tells us that they were “enslaved” by the Macedonian Philip and clearly, therefore, not Macedonians. Isokrates (5.23) makes the same point. Likewise, for example, the Egyptians who were subdued by Alexander may have been ruled by Macedonians, including the famous Cleopatra, but they were never Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia (and so far as I can tell does not seek that name today).

Certainly, as Thucydides (2.99) tells us, the Macedonians had taken over “a narrow strip of Paionia extending along the Axios river from the interior to Pella and the sea”. One might therefore understand if the people in the modern republic centered at Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides.

But why, instead, would the modern people of ancient Paionia try to call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia? Mr. Brunwasser (p. 55) touches on the Greek claims “that it implies ambitions over Greek territory” and he notes that “the northern province of Greece is also called Macedonia.” Leaving aside the fact that the area of that northern province of modern Greece has been called Macedonia for more than 2,500 years (see, inter alios, Herodotus 5.17; 7.128, et alibi), more recent history shows that the Greek concerns are legitimate. For example, a map produced in Skopje in 1992 (Figure 1) shows clearly the claim that Macedonia extends from there to Mt. Olympus in the south; that is, combining the ancient regions of Paionia and Macedonia into a single entity. The same claim is explicit on a pseudo-bank note of the Republic of Macedonia which shows, as one of its monuments, the White Tower of Thessalonike, in Greece (Figure 2). There are many more examples of calendars, Christmas cards, bumper-stickers, etc., that all make the same claim.

Further, Mr. Brunwasser has reported with approval (International Herald Tribune 10/1/08) the work of the “Macedonian Institute for Strategic Research 16:9”, the name of which refers “to Acts 16:9, a verse in the New Testament in which a Macedonian man appears to the Apostle Paul begging him: ‘Come over into Macedonia, and help us.’” But where did Paul go in Macedonia? Neapolis (Kavala), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloniki, and Veroia (Acts 16:11-17:10) all of which are in the historic Macedonia, none in Paionia. What claim is being made by an Institute based in Skopje that names itself for a trip through what was Macedonia in antiquity and what is the northern province of Greece today?

I wonder what we would conclude if a certain large island off the southeast coast of the United States started to call itself Florida, and emblazoned its currency with images of Disney World and distributed maps showing the Greater Florida.
Certainly there was no doubt of the underlying point of “Macedonia” in the mind of U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius on December 26, 1944, when he wrote:

“The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This government considers talk of Macedonian ”nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.”
[Source: U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations vol viii, Washington, D.C., Circular Airgram (868.014/26Dec1944)]

Mr. Brunwasser (a resident of Bulgaria), however, goes on to state, with apparent distain, that Greece claims “Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great) . . . as Greek.”

This attitude mystifies me. What is there to “claim”? Alexander’s great-great-great grandfather, Alexander I, was certified as Greek at Olympia and, in the words of the father of history “I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek” (Herodotus 5.22). Alexander’s father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi (Plutarch, Alexander 4.9; Moralia 105A), the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where non-Greeks were not allowed to compete. If Philip was Greek, wasn’t his son also Greek?

When Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia (Thucydides apud Pal. Anth. 7.45; Pausanias 1.2.2; Diodorus Siculus 13.103) – wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, did he write it in Slavic? When he wrote the Bacchai while at the court of Archelaos did he not write it in Greek even as it has survived to us? Or should we imagine that Euripides was a “Macedonian” who wrote in Slavic (at a date when that language is not attested) which was translated into Greek?

What was the language of instruction when Aristotle taught Alexander? What language was carried by Alexander with him on his expedition to the East? Why do we have ancient inscriptions in Greek in settlements established by Alexander as far away as Afghanistan, and none in Slavic? Why did Greek become the lingua franca in Alexander’s empire if he was actually a “Macedonian”? Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?

On page 57 of the so-called “Letter from Macedonia” there is a photograph of the author standing “before a bronze statue of Alexander the Great in the city of Prilep.” The statue is patently modern, but the question is whether the real historic Alexander could have read the Slavic inscription beneath his feet. Given the known historic posterity of Slavic to Greek, the answer is obvious.

While Mr. Brunwasser’s reporting of the archaeological work in Paionia is welcome, his adoption and promotion of the modern political stance of its people about the use of the name Macedonia is not only unwelcome, it is a disservice to the readers of Archaeology who are, I imagine, interested in historic fact. But then, the decision to propagate this historical nonsense by Archaeology – a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America - is a disservice to its own reputation.

Let it be said once more: the region of ancient Paionia was a part of the Macedonian empire. So were Ephesos and Tyre and Palestine and Memphis and Babylon and Taxila and dozens more. They may thus have become “Macedonian” temporarily, but none was ever “Macedonia”.

Allow me to end this exegesis by making a suggestion to resolve the question of the modern use of the name “Macedonia.” Greece should annex Paionia – that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. And that would appear to be acceptable to the modern residents of that area since they claim to be Greek by appropriating the name Macedonia and its most famous man. Then the modern people of this new Greek province could work on learning to speak and read and write Greek, hopefully even as well as Alexander did.


Sincerely,

Stephen G. Miller

Professor Emeritus,
University of California, Berkeley

PS: For a more complete examination of the ancient evidence regarding Paionia, see I. L. Merker,“The Ancient Kingdom of Paionia,” Balkan Studies 6 (1965) 35-54

My only disagreement with the good professor, is that the Slavs of FYROM do not merit either the name of Macedonians or of Paionians, since they have no ethnic link to either ancient people. They are in fact, largely Bulgarians, but since some of them don't like (or are afraid) to be called such, they should be called Slavopaionians, as is appropriate for Slavs inhabiting the ancient region of Paionia.

Publication of Y-STR haplotypes from northern Greece

Forensic Science International: Genetics doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.01.001

Population genetics of Y-chromosome STRs in a population of Northern Greeks

Leda Kovatsi et al.

Abstract

Seventeen Y STR loci were typed in a population sample of 191 unrelated male individuals from Northern Greece. Haplotypes are presented for the following loci: DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS19, DYS385a/b, DYS393, DYS391, DYS439, DYS635, DYS392, Y GATA H4, DYS437, DYS438 and DYS448. The overall haplotype diversity was 0.9992. This database study provides significant additional information for the application of Y-chromosomal STRs to forensic identification efforts in Greece by nearly doubling both the number of individuals and the number of Y-loci typed from Greek populations. These samples have been previously typed for autosomal STRs [L. Kovatsi, T.J. Parsons, R.S. Just, J.A. Irwin, Genetic variation for 15 autosomal STR loci (PowerPlex 16) in a population sample from northern Greece, Forensic Sci. Int. 159 (2006) 61–63] and the mitochondrial DNA control region [J. Irwin, J. Saunier, K. Strouss, C. Paintner, T. Diegoli, K. Sturk, L. Kovatsi, A. Brandstatter, M.A. Cariolou, W. Parson, T.J. Parsons, Mitochondrial control region sequences from northern Greece and Greek Cypriots, Int. J. Legal Med. 122 (2008) 87–89].

Link

ESHG 2008 abstracts

The European Society of Human Genetics conference is coming up, and there are some very interesting abstracts.

Note: The ESHG site has updated with a notice that the abstracts are embargoed until their presentation time. Therefore, I have decided to remove the body of this post until then, although I think it is a bit weird to embargo something that one places on the public web. In any case, you can find the abstracts easily by going to the site above. (June 1): post restored.

The peopling of North Asia: Y and X perspectives

V. A. Stepanov, V. Kharkov, I. Khitrinskaya, O. Medvedeva, M. Spiridonova, A. Marusin, V. Puzyrev; Institute for Medical Genetics, Tomsk, Russian Federation.

Presentation Number: P07.056

To reconstruct the origin and evolution of human populations in North Asia we investigated the genetic diversity in 50 population samples (about 2000 individuals totally) using Y and X chromosome lineages. Y-chromosomal haplotypes were constructed with unique event polymorphisms (UEP) and STR markers according to Y Chromosome consortium (YCC) classification. SNP markers in a single 60 kb linkage disequilibrium region of ZFX gene was used to trace the X chromosomal population history. The genetic diversity of Y haplogroups was quite high (0.70 - 0.95) in most populations except few very isolated groups. The proportion of inter-population differences in the total genetic variability measured by Fst statistics is 17% for binary haplogroups and 19% for YSTR. Multidimensional scaling and principal component analysis revealed four major components in North Asian Y gene pool, reflecting the presence of Paleoasiatic (Q), Proto-Uralic (N3, N2), Eastern Asian (O, C), and Western Eurasian (R1, I, J) lineages. X-chromosomal haplotypes in North Asia are less divers (gene diversity within populations 0.65 - 0.80) and less differentiated (Fst = 4%) compared to Y lineages. The population clustering by X and Y gives, to a first approximation, a similar picture, and matrixes of genetic distances between populations for X and Y haplotypes significantly correlates. The age of genetic diversity generation and time of population differentiation demonstrates the Upper Paleolithic origin of major Y and X lineages and post-glacial population expansions. This work is supported by RFBR grants ##06-04-48274 and 07-04-01629.

The following seems to be a very important study; in particular the notion that particular Y chromosome/mtDNA haplogroups may be associated with higher or lower fertility may have implications about their distribution.

UPDATE (May 21): I did a quick and dirty analysis of the Y-haplogroup and mtDNA-haplogroup data from Bosch et al. (2006) (Ann Hum Genet. 2006 Jul;70(Pt 4):459-87.), and there is a -0.43 correlation between Y-haplogroup I and mtDNA-haplogroup H and a +0.46 correlation between Y-haplogroup R1 and mtDNA-haplogroup H. While not significant (with only 10 populations), this is definitely in the right direction for a selection effect for/against specific Y-DNA/mtDNA combinations.

... on the other hand, another quick and dirty analysis of 23 populations from Rootsi's survey on Y-haplogroup I and mtDNA frequencies from AJHG Volume 80, Issue 4, April 2007, Pages 759-768 didn't turn up any correlation. Perhaps, someone can look at possible correlations between Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups in Europe to see if anything interesting turns up.

Male infertility induced by mtDNA/Y unfavorable combination? An association study on human mitochondrial DNA

S. C. Gomes1, S. Fernandes2, R. Gonçalves1, A. T. Fernandes1, A. Barros3, H. Geada4, A. Brehm1; 1Human Genetics Laboratory, University of Madeira, Funchal, Portugal, 2Genetics Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, 3Centre of Reproductive Genetics A Barros, Porto, Portugal, 4Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal.

Presentation Number: P07.084

There is growing evidence that certain mtDNA haplogroups determine a genetic susceptibility to various disorders bringing out the interest in the possible role of mtDNA background on the phenotype expression of mitochondrial genetic disorders. An association between haplogroup T and asthenospermia has been reported and several sublineages of haplogroup U were associated with differences in sperm motility and vitality. The deletion of some DAZ copies gene in 10-15% of azoospermic and oligospermic patients has been reported but also present in fertile men belonging to certain Y-haplogroups. The findings of one study have rarely been replicated by studies in other populations and conflicting associations have been reported. Our focus in this case-control study is to investigate the existence of other influences, besides a weak mtDNA background, promoting male infertility. The occurrence of a specific mtDNA variant associated to a certain Y-chromosome haplogroup could represent a vital link that will compromise the sperm function and be responsible for male infertility. A group of 99 infertile men and other one composed by 90 subjects with proven fertility were selected and analysed. The frequency of the combination mtDNA-haplogroup H (especially with the CRS sequence) and Y-haplogroup R was higher in fertile than in infertile men seemingly to be favorable to fertility. On the other hand, a considerable number of infertile men belonging to mtDNA-haplogroup H (CRS) and to Y-haplogroup I, associated to a specific DAZ gene deletion pattern- 2+4d, suggests a non favorable combination to male fertility.

The Bayash Roma: phylogenetic dissection of Eurasian paternal genetic elements

I. Martinovic Klaric, M. Pericic Salihovic, L. Barac Lauc, B. Janicijevic; Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia.

Presentation Number: P07.110

The Bayash consist of numerous and small Romani groups speaking different dialects of the Romanian language and living dispersedly in Croatia, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and to the lesser extent in Macedonia, Greece, Ukraine, Slovakia and Slovenia. Larger Bayash groups migrated to Croatia most likely during the 19th century, after abolition of slavery in Romania. Molecular architecture and the origin of the Croatian Bayash paternal gene pool was addressed by analysing 151 Bayash Y chromosomes from two Croatian regions, 332 Y chromosomes from Romani populations across Europe, 814 Y-chromosomes from non-Romani host populations living in Southeastern, Southern and Eastern Europe as well as with 1680 Y-chromosomes from South Asian populations. The Bayash in Croatia represent one population of largely shared paternal genetic history characterized by substantial percentage (44%) of common H1-M82 and E3b1-M78 lineages. Relatively ancient expansion signals and limited diversity of Indian specific H1-M82 lineages imply descent from closely related paternal ancestors who could have been settled in the Indian subcontinent between 7th and 9th centuries AD. Minimal time divergence of the Bayash subpopulations is consistent with their putative migratory split within Romania towards Wallachia and Transilvania. Substantial percentage of E3b1 lineages and high associated microsatellite variance in the Bayash men is a reflection of significant admixture with majority populations from the Vardar-Morava-Danube catchment basin - possibly a common paternal signature of Romani populations in Southeastern Europe. Additional traces of admixture are evident in the modest presence of typical European haplogroups.

Are the Moravian Valachs of Czech Republic the Aromuns of Central Europe? Model population for isolation and admixture

E. Ehler1,2, V. Vančata2; 1Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Prague, Czech Republic, 2Department of Biology and Ecological Education, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic.

Presentation Number: P07.129

Moravian Valachs of Czech Republic are one of the most distinct ethnic groups from Central Europe. Related to similar populations in Poland and Slovakia, they emerge at the end of 15th century, as the north-westernmost prominence of migration that started 250 years earlier in northern Romania. Being predominately highland sheep herders and of putative Romanian origin, they represent a Central European analogue of Balkan Aromanian populations. We have gathered Y-chromosomal, linguistic, ethnographic and historical data for this population and compared them with surrounding as well as with east European populations. Linguistic data show specific parts of shared vocabulary of Romanian origin between several pastoral groups in Central and Eastern Europe. Comparing genetic and linguistic pairwise distance matrices (Mantel test) in these populations did not revealed any significant correlation. Thus we confirmed that plain geographical distance still plays the major role in genetic distances between populations in Europe. From our further analysis it is clear, that the Moravian Valachs, after at least five centuries of admixture, are not overly genetically different from surrounding populations. On the other hand, from the point of view of intra-population diversity, they are much more similar to isolated Balkan populations (e.g. Aromuns) than to Central European populations.

Phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup E3a

F. Cruciani1, B. Trombetta1, D. Sellitto2, C. Nodale1, R. Scozzari1; 1Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy, 2Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy.

Presentation Number: P07.134

The Y chromosome specific biallelic marker DYS271 defines the most common haplogroup (E3a) currently found in sub-Saharan Africa. A sister clade, E3b (E-M215), is rare in sub-Saharan Africa, but very common in northern and eastern Africa. On the whole, these two clades represent more than 70% of the Y chromosomes of the African continent. A third clade belonging to E3 (E3c or E-M329) has been recently reported to be present only in eastern Africa, at low frequencies. In this study we analyzed more than 1,600 Y chromosomes from 55 African populations, using both new and previously described biallelic markers, in order to refine the phylogeny and the geographic distribution of the E3a haplogroup. The most common E-DYS271 sub-clades (E-DYS271*, E-M191, E-U209) showed a non uniform distribution across sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the E-DYS271 chromosomes found in northern and western Africa belong to the paragroup E-DYS271*, which is rare in central and southern Africa. In these latter regions, haplogroups E-M191 and E-U209 show similar frequency distributions and coalescence ages (13 and 11 kyr, respectively), suggesting their involvement in the same migratory event/s. By the use of two new phylogenetically equivalent markers (V38 and V89), the earlier tripartite structure of E3 haplogroup was resolved in favor of a common ancestor for haplogroups E-DYS271 (formerly E3a) and E-M329 (formerly E3c). The new topology of the E3 haplogroup is suggestive of a relatively recent eastern African origin for the majority of the chromosomes presently found in sub-Saharan Africa.

Y-chromosome lineages in Xhosa and Zulu Bantu speaking populations

R. P. A. Gonçalves, H. Spínola, A. Brehm; Human Genetics Laboratory, Funchal, Portugal.

Presentation Number: P07.137

Y-chromosome Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms have been analysed in Zulu and Xhosa, two southern Africa Bantu speaking populations. These two ethnic groups have their origin on the farmer’s Bantu expansion from Niger-Congo border towards sub-Sahel regions on the southern tip of the continent, during the past 3000 years. Seven different Y-chromosome haplogroups were found in Zulu contrasting with only two in Xhosa. E3a, a common haplogroup among West sub-Saharans associated to Bantu migration was the most prevalent in both populations (56.9% in Zulu and 90% in Xhosa). The second most common haplogroup was E2 (29.3% in Zulu and 10% in Xhosa), present both in West and East African populations. The present-day Zulu and Xhosa paternal legacy is essentially of West sub-Saharan origin. Zulu population shows a most diverse genetic influence comparing to Xhosa, revealing some pre-Bantu expansion markers and East African influences. Zulu presents 8.6% Y-chromosome haplogroups (A, B, J1) of non-Bantu influence that could indicate gene flow from other populations, particularly Khoisan.

Human genetic population structure: Patterns and underlying processes

Presentation Time: Tuesday, 9:15 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.

G. Barbujani; University of Ferrara, Department of Biology and Evolution, Ferrara, Italy.

Presentation Number: S15.2

Classical studies of genetic diversity in humans consistently showed that the largest proportion of human diversity occurs among members of the same population. On average, differences among different populations in the same continent represent 5% of the global human variance, and differences among continents another 10%. Genetic variation is largely discordant across the genome, meaning that different loci show different spatial patterns, and implying that a good description of population structure can only be based on the analysis of multiple loci. Studies of single loci are also unlikely to reasonably identify an individual’s place of origin. A general decline of genetic of genetic diversity with distance from Africa, and a parallel increase in linkage disequilibrium, can be accounted for by the effects of a series of founder effects accompanying the spread of anatomically-modern humans from Africa. Recent DNA analyses at the global level show that most allelic variants are cosmopolitan and only a small percentage are continent-specific, whereas a clearer continental structure emerges when considering composite haplotypes. This suggests that, at the global level, gene flow has had a strong impact on genetic diversity, through both directional dispersal and successive short-range migratory exchanges. At the local level, several factors have contributed to genetic differentiation, and, in particular, language barriers have been shown to be associated with small but non-negligible increases of the genetic differences between neighboring populations.

Hierarchical analysis of 28 Y-chromosome SNP’s in the population of the Republic of Macedonia

P. Noveski, S. Trivodalieva, G. D. Efremov, D. Plaseska-Karanfilska;
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Skopje, Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of.

Presentation Number: P05.211

Analysis of Y-chromosome haplogroups, defined by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP’s), has become a standard approach for studying the origin of human populations and measuring the variability among them. Furthermore, Y-SNP’s represent a new forensic tool, because their population specificity may allow to determine the origin of any male sample of interest for forensic purposes. The aim of this study was to develop a strategy for rapid, simple and inexpensive Y-chromosome SNP’s typing in the population of R. Macedonia. We have studied a total of 343 DNA male samples; 211 Macedonians, 111 Albanians and 21 of other ethnic origin (Roma, Serbs and Turks). Methodology included multiplex PCR and single nucleotide extension reaction by SNaPshot multiplex kit. The set of 28 markers has been grouped in 5 multiplexes in order to determine the most frequent haplogroups using only 1 or 2 multiplexes. Twenty different Y haplogroups were determined among 343 male DNA samples. The finding that five haplogroups (E3b1, I1b1, J2b1a, R1a and R1b) comprise more than 70% of the Y chromosomes is consistent with the typical European Y chromosome gene pool. The distribution of the Y-haplogroups differs between Macedonians and Albanians. The most common Y haplogroup among Macedonians is I1b1 (27.5%), followed by three haplogroups present with similar frequencies E3b1 (15.6%), R1a (14.2%) and R1b (11.4%). Among Albanians the most frequent Y haplogroup is E3b1 (28.8%), followed by R1b (18.0%), J2b1a (13.5%) and R1a (12.6%).

The following paper (probably) refers to a recent study, according to which:

One of the most elevated values of 35delG prevalence corresponds to Greece (1/28); the pattern of various 35delG prevalences is interpretated in the present meta-analysis as the result of Ancient Greek colonizations of the "Magna Grecia" in historical times.

Strong linkage disequilibrium for the frequent GJB2 35delG mutation in the Greek population
H. Kokotas¹, L. Van Laer², M. Grigoriadou¹, V. Iliadou³, J. Economides⁴, S. Pomoni¹, A. Pampanos¹, N. Eleftheriades⁵, E. Ferekidou⁶, S. Korres⁶, A. Giannoulia-Karantana⁷, G. Van Camp², M. B. Petersen¹;
¹Institute of Child Health, Athens, Greece, ²University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium, ³AHEPA Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece, ⁴‘Aghia Sophia’ Children’s Hospital, Athens, Greece, ⁵St. Loukas Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece, ⁶Athens University, Athens, Greece, ⁷Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece.

Presentation Number: P06.080

Approximately one in 1,000 children is affected by severe or profound hearing loss at birth or during early childhood (prelingual deafness). Up to forty percent of autosomal recessive, congenital, severe to profound hearing impairment cases result from mutations in a single gene, GJB2. The 35delG mutation accounts for the majority of GJB2 mutations detected in Caucasian populations and represents one of the most frequent disease mutations identified so far. Some previous studies have assumed that the high frequency of the 35delG mutation reflects the presence of a mutational hot spot, whilst other studies support the theory of a common founder. Greece is amongst the countries presenting high frequency of the 35delG mutation (3.5%), and a recent study raised the hypothesis of the origin of this mutation in ancient Greece. We genotyped 60 Greek deafness patients homozygous for the 35delG mutation for six single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and two microsatellite markers, mapping within or flanking the GJB2 gene, as compared to 60 Greek hearing controls. A strong linkage disequilibrium was found between the 35delG mutation and markers inside or flanking the GJB2 gene, at distances of 34 kb on the centromeric and 90 kb on the telomeric side of the gene, respectively. Our study supports the hypothesis of a founder effect and we further propose that ethnic groups of Greek ancestry could have propagated the 35delG mutation, as evidenced by historical data beginning from the 15^th century BC.

Kalevi Wiik's paper "Where did European Men Come From?"

Some notes on the paper (last update Apr 22):

• p. 67: points (1) and (2) both refer to a north-south gradient of haplogroup R1b in the Balkans; one of them probably should refer to a different haplogroup (R1a?).
  
• Table 12 gives the frequency of haplogroups in Macedonians, identified in Maps 64-65 by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM). However, the ultimate source of the data is Semino et al. "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective", SCIENCE VOL 290 10 NOVEMBER 2000 where the sample is described as "20 Macedonians from northern Greece". Thus, the identification of the sample as Slavic and representing the fYROM is incorrect (cf. Pericic et al. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22(10):1964–1975.) where the "Macedonians" of Semino et al. (2000) are clearly listed as "Macedonian (Greek)" and their language is listed as "IE (Greek)".
  
  A source of data from the fYROM is: Bosch et al. "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns", Ann Hum Genet. 2006 Jul;70(Pt 4):459-87.
• Map 1 shows the expansion of N3 into Europe as taking place 12,000 years ago. According to Derenko et al. (J Hum Genet (2007) 52:763–770) there is substructure within N3, and the oldest N3 cluster expanded 8kya into Europe.
  

Kalevi Wiik, "Where did European Men Come From?", Journal of Genetic Genealogy 4:35-85. (pdf)

1,000 ancient graves from Thessaloniki

Ancient Graves Found in Greece

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greek workers discovered around 1,000 graves, some filled with ancient treasures, while excavating for a subway system in the historic city of Thessaloniki, the state archaeological authority said Monday.

Some of the graves, which dated from the first century B.C. to the 5th century A.D., contained jewelry, coins and various pieces of art, the Greek archaeological service said in a statement.

Thessaloniki was founded around 315 B.C. and flourished during the Roman and Byzantine eras. Today it is the Mediterranean country's second largest city.

Most of the graves — 886 — were just east of the city center in what was the eastern cemetery during Roman and Byzantine times. Those graves ranged from traces of wooden coffins left in simple holes in the ground, to marble enclosures in five-room family mausoleums.

A separate group of 94 graves were found near the city's train station, in what was once part of the city's western cemetery.

More findings were expected as digging for the Thessaloniki metro continues. Digging started in 2006 and the first 13 stations are expected to be done by the end of 2012. A 10-station extension to the west and east has been announced.

Early Bronze Age cemetary in Pella

Kathimerini has a news story about the discovery of an ancient cemetary dating from the early Bronze Age in Pella, the historical Macedonian capital. Excerpt:

Exciting new finds at the archaeological site of Pella have opened a new chapter in Macedonian history. Beneath the ruins of the ancient capital of the Macedonian kingdom is a large prehistoric burial ground that has yielded the first evidence of organized life in Pella during the third millennium BC.

It was while they were engaged in conservation, repairs and other work to highlight the site that the excavation team from Aristotle University came across more than 100 Early Bronze Age burials in large jars, accompanied by marble works of art from the Cyclades, local ceramics and metalware.

The finds are so recent that experts at the Demokritos Center have not yet completed the analysis of bones that will yield precise dates. However, the initial evidence supplements what is already known about Pella in the Early Bronze Age (2100-2000 BC), when it was the most important city in Bottiaea, long before it was made capital of the Macedonian realm. What became known as “the greatest of Macedonian cities” was apparently built on top of the prehistoric graveyard when Archelaus moved his capital there from Aiges, excavation director Professor Ioannis Akamatis told Kathimerini.

The Macedonian Issue

The issue of the naming dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is currently in the news, so this is a good time to address some facts pertaining to it.

The dispute centers around the issue of the use of the adjective "Macedonian". This adjective has a geographical sense, describing someone who is from the geographical region of Macedonia. However, for the inhabitants of FYROM, it also has an ethnic sense, since many (or most) Slavic-speaking inhabitants of FYROM consider themselves to be Macedonian in an ethnic sense. I will distinguish between these two uses as Geo-Macedonians and Slavo-Macedonians henceforth.

Three types of criteria are used with regard to ethnic identification: language, self-definition, descent.

Descent is the easier one to address: according to most reputable genetic studies, Geo-Macedonians tend to be more of indigenous Balkan origins. In short, Geo-Macedonians, whether they speak Greek, Vlach, Albanian, or Slavic, and whether they live in Greece or the FYROM are characterized by genetic characteristics attesting to a substantial amount of distinctive southern Balkan ancestry, having, in particular substantial frequencies of Y-haplogroups E and J.

Genetically-speaking Geo-Macedonians are Balkan Europeans, and are differentiated both from Northern-Balkan/Central/Eastern Europeans as well as from West Asians.

Language is also easy to address. Within Geo-Macedonia, several languages and dialects are spoken, including Greek, Slavic, Vlach, and Albanian. These languages were established at different times, with the oldest attested one being the Greek. A Slavic language spoken in the FYROM is named "Macedonian" by the Slavo-Macedonians.

Sometimes, it is asserted by scholars from FYROM that Ancient Macedonian was not a Greek dialect, but a separate Indo-European language. While these claims are not very serious, they are actually irrelevant to the modern issues at hand, since the "Macedonian" of the Slavo-Macedonians has no relationship to the ancient language: it is a Slavic idiom dating at most from the 6th c. AD.

Self-Identity is more complex. It is true that Slavic speakers from FYROM have a Macedonian ethnic identity, but Geo-Macedonians in Greece have a Greek ethnic identity. Thus, Greek Macedonians assert the name "Macedonian" in a geographical sense, i.e., "Greeks from the region of Macedonia", whereas Slavo-Macedonians assert it in an ethnic sense, i.e., "Members of the Macedonian ethnic group".

To summarize, we must make these points:

• Slavo-Macedonians from FYROM assert a Macedonian ethnicity, as well as (in some cases) continuity with ancient Macedonia
• Such continuity with ancient Macedonia can be based either on language, or on descent.
• Linguistic continuity between Slavic Macedonian and the ancient Macedonian dialect/language does not exist.
  
• Continuity of descent from the ancient Macedonians to the modern ones is not limited to the Slavic-speaking Slavo-Macedonians. Slav Macedonians have no monopoly on Macedonian "blood".
  

Thus, in what sense is the name Republic of Macedonia a reasonable choice for the FYROM?

• It does not encompass the entirety of Macedonia (as a geographical region).
  
• The Macedonian dialect/language of Slavic is not related to the ancient Macedonian language/dialect.
• The people of FYROM have a Macedonian ethnic self-identity, but the Greeks of Macedonia have a Greek ethnic self-identity. One's "right" to the name of Macedonian infringes on the other's right to use it in a different sense; the name "Macedonian" is thus ambiguous.

There are only two reasonable choices for the name of the FYROM.

Republic of Upper Macedonia describes the state geographically, since FYROM includes the northern part of historical Macedonia, as well as other historically non-Macedonian regions.

Republic of Slav Macedonia describes the state linguistically, since FYROM includes the mainly Slav-speaking portion of historical Macedonia.

The name New Macedonia might also be considered, but does not really describe the identity of FYROM as clearly as the above two.

My personal preference would be for Upper Macedonia, a clear, unambiguous geographical description that has certain advantages over Slav Macedonia:

• There are Slav speakers also in Bulgarian and Greek Macedonia.
• FYROM includes also Albanian, Vlach, and Greek speakers who might not be as open to the name "Slav Macedonia".
  

This is the time for cool-headed reflection on the part of both Greeks and the Slavo-Macedonians:

• The people of Greece are justified in wanting to deny exclusive rights to the Macedonian name to FYROM, because FYROM encompasses only part of Macedonia: geographically, the northern part; genetically, a subset of the Macedonian blood; linguistically, a Slavic dialect of the Macedonian region.
• The people of FYROM are justified in wanting to have some rights to the name Macedonian: they inhabit parts of Macedonia, they speak a Macedonian dialect of the Slavic group, and they have come to think of themselves as a separate nation from other Balkan Slavs.
  

Acceptance of a single name for all uses such as Republic of Upper Macedonia is the reasonable thing to do.