PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Angela
02-08-17, 20:12
YEAH! Finally.

See: Lazaridis et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310.epdf?author_access_token=E4JxhmOKVE0Zk 7xCXmpm99RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OwLzzqUmCLV4d2G6bjGa7 kiPBb7TTVpAsutKGfIQRMrq8WVAMpP-SfGerriklOb5-JK4PQu2o4hKeBf7fel4E9



"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref2), and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref3) and Iran4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 5 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref5). However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref7), 8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref8), introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9) or Armenia4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9). Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

Admixture analysis- See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature23310_SF1.html

Y dna from page 52 of the supplement:
8992

The Bronze Age Anatolia individual:
"This individual wasancestral for the major subclade3 P58 (J1a2b; previously designated3 J1e) and could thus bedesignated as J1a(xJ1a2b)."

"I0070 (Minoan from Lasithi)This individual was derived for mutation M319:15467785T->A (J2a1d) as well as upstream mutationsL26:22942897T->C (J2a1) and M410:2751678A->G, L212:22711465T->C (J2a). He was not foundto be ancestral for any downstream mutations and could be designated as J2a1d. Haplogroup M319was found4 at a frequency of 8.8% in one sample set of 193 present-day Cretans (95% confidenceinterval from the binomial distribution 5.2-13.7%) and 5.4% in another set5 of 168 Cretans (95% C.I.:2.5-10%), but no examples were found in a combined sample set of 171 Greeks from three locationsnear early Neolithic settlements in mainland Greece (95% C.I: 0-2.1%). A re-analysis4 of large set of523 present-day Anatolian males6 revealed only 2 examples of M319 in this population (95% C.I.: 0-1.4%). Thus, it appears plausible that this represents a Y-chromosome lineage that existed in MinoanCrete but was at a lower (or absent) frequency in neighboring mainland Greece and Anatolia and itsoccurrence in present-day Cretans represents continuity with those of the Bronze Age."

"I0073 (Minoan from Lasithi)This individual was derived for mutation L26:22942897T->C (J2a1) as well as upstream mutationsM410, L559, L152 (J2a). He was ancestral for several downstream haplogroups: M322:15469740C->A (J2a1a), L560:21899860C->T (J2a1b1a), M166:21764694C->T (J2a1b2), M68:21878700A->G(J2a1c), M339:2881367T->G (J2a1e), L24:14286528G->A (J2a1h), L88.2:17595842T->C andL198:17595861A->C (J2a1i). He could thus be designated as J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1a, J2a1b2, J2a1c,J2a1e, J2a1h, J2a1i)."

"I9130 (Minoan from Moni Odigitria)This individual was derived for mutations CTS946:7100848A->G (G2a2b2a) and upstream mutationsF3088:20813445G->A and M3397:21605685G->C (G2a). He was ancestral for downstreammutations CTS4803:15833180G->A (G2a2b2a1b1a2a) and Z3423:19251438G->T (G2a2b2a1c1a).He could thus be designated as G2a2b2a(xG2a2b2a1b1a2a, G2a2b2a1c1a). G2a2 Y-chromosomeswere common in Neolithic Europe7, western Anatolia8,9, and Neolithic mainland Greece9. We havealso re-analyzed data from a recent study of central Anatolian Neolithic genomes10, determining thatthey were present there during both the Aceramic phase at Boncuklu (2 G2a2b2b samples) and later atTepecik-Çiftlik (1 G2a2a sample). Plausibly, the Minoan from Moni Odigitria who belonged to thislineage was also related to the same group of early Neolithic farmers as those from Europe, mainlandGreece, and Anatolia."

"I9041 (Mycenaean from Galatas Apatheia in the Peloponnese)This individual was derived for mutations L26:22942897T->C and F4326:23021978A->G (J2a1) aswell as upstream mutations M410:2751678A->G, L559:21674327A->G, L152:22243566C->T,L212:22711465T->C (J2a). He was ancestral for M322:15469740C->A (J2a1a), M260:15025506G->A and M92:21904023T->C (J2a1b1), M166:21764694C->T (J2a1b2), L210:16492197A->T(J2a1b3), M68:21878700A->G (J2a1c), M339:2881367T->G (J2a1e), P81:6739856G->A (J2a1g),L207.1:6753448A->G and L24:14286528G->A (J2a1h), L88.2:17595842T->C andL198:17595861A->C (J2a1i). He could thus be designated as J2a1x(J2a1a, J2a1b1, J2a1b2, J2a1c,J2a1e, J2a1g, J2a1h, J2a1i)."

"More sampling of ancient populations is needed to establish the presence (and frequency) ofhaplogroup J in the Aegean and neighboring regions). However, (i) the great time depth of itspresence in the Caucasus/Iran, together with (ii) its low frequency/absence in NeolithicGreece/Anatolia, and (iii) its appearance in the samples of our study, lead us to believe that it mayhave accompanied the genetic admixture (Neolithic Iran/Caucasus-hunter-gatherer related) that seemsto have affected all populations in our study (Supplementary Information, section 2). Thus, the Ychromosometurnover that occurred in central Europe during the Bronze Age7,19 may also haveoccurred in the Aegean, with a different set of incoming lineages."

So we've been saying here for a long time. Perhaps it's time to put some of the more exotic explanations to rest.

Angela
02-08-17, 20:58
For those interested in phenotypic data:

The actual snp data is on page 59 of the Supplement.
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature23310-s1.pdf

8993

"Present-day Europeans are almost fixed for the derived (light pigmentation) allele G atrs1426654, but the ancestral allele occurred in western European hunter-gatherers3,4. Werecord no copy of the ancestral allele in 9 individuals with at least one sequence. We alsoexamined the rs16891982 SNP in SLC45A2, the second strongest signal of selection inEuropeans discovered in a genome-wide scan3. The overall frequency of the C allele could beestimated as 24% (C.I.: 8-47%) in the Aegean Bronze Age. The frequency of the minor Callele in present-day Greeks is 14% (95% C.I.: 11-17%)5. The C allele has decreased infrequency in eastern Europe6 or Europe in general3 due to likely selection since the BronzeAge, but with the available data, the Bronze Age frequency is consistent with its modernprevalence."

"Classic blond hair has been associated with the C allele in the rs12821256 SNP in KITLG9.We have reads covering this site in 11 individuals and do not detect the C allele."

"The rs12913832 SNP in HERC2 is a major determinant of blue eye color in humans7. Thefrequency of the A allele could be estimated as 86% (C.I.: 64-98%) in the Bronze AgeAegean. The G allele was present in Anatolia since Neolithic times3and our results suggest itspresence in all studied Bronze Age groups at a low frequency."

"These results suggest that ancient Bronze Age individuals from the Aegean and southwesternAnatolia had mostly dark (brown or black) hair and brown eyes. Blue eyes were uncommonas predicted by the lack of homozygotes for the G allele at rs12913832 which is the majorpredictor of this trait, however, this allele did occur in all studied populations (Table S4.1),thus the phenotype would have been uncommon but not unknown in the region. The browneye phenotype is still the most common in present-day Greeks occurring in ~3/4 of them, withthe remainder split between blue and intermediate shades1. Similarly, ~79% of present-dayGreeks have light or dark brown hair, with the remainder split between blond and black."

So much for blonde-blue eyed Mycenaeans.

I guess this reconstruction of the Mycenaean "Griffin warrior" may be pretty accurate, despite all the naysayers.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/Facial-Reconstruction-Griffin-Warrior.jpg

Jovialis
02-08-17, 21:26
This means us too. :great:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34084-Mediterranean-migration-layers-in-Sicily-and-southern-Italy

Diomedes
02-08-17, 21:32
Nice, the continuity of the groovy Greeks is proven once more. For those "naysayers", Greece strong!

Diomedes
02-08-17, 21:48
Does this article also prove the "Dorian Invasion" in a sense?

bicicleur
02-08-17, 21:54
Minoan and Mycenean culture and people are percieved as different from each other.
The later Mycenean culture is not derived from the Minoan culture.

Yet the genetic difference is small :

However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref7), 8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref8), introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9) or Armenia4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9).

Did these few EHG shape the Mycenean culture? Where they a small ruling elite?
Well, they had charriots and swords ..

btw, is there a way to go around the paywall?

Pax Augusta
02-08-17, 22:00
btw, is there a way to go around the paywall?

Downloadable full paper

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature23310

or this version shared by Lazaridis

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310.epdf?author_access_token=E4JxhmOKVE0Zk 7xCXmpm99RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OwLzzqUmCLV4d2G6bjGa7 kiPBb7TTVpAsutKGfIQRMrq8WVAMpP-SfGerriklOb5-JK4PQu2o4hKeBf7fel4E9

Angela
02-08-17, 22:19
Here are some more goodies:
8994

Admixture modeling was done every which way. The discussion starts on page 27 of the Supplement.
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature23310-s1.pdf

"The successful models agree that Mycenaeans have most of their ancestry from the Neolithicsubstratum (~74-79%), with the remainder from both the Eastern European/Siberian set ofpopulations (~5-16%), and the Iran/Caucasus populations (~9-18%). These results do not, of coursedetermine whether the non-Anatolian Neolithic-related admixture in Mycenaeans was introduced by asingle population that was itself a mix of the Eastern European/Siberian and Iran/Caucasus sources, orby separate admixtures that reached the Aegean presumably from the north and east. They do,however, show that admixture from only a single of those sources is insufficient to properly model theancestry of Mycenaeans (as the failure of any 2-source model in Table S2.1 indicates)."

"We were concerned that the admixture from these three sources could be driven by heterogeneitywithin the Mycenaean population itself. Mycenaeans do appear to form a tight cluster in PCA (Fig.1b) and to have similar admixture proportions in ADMIXTURE analysis."

"More formally, we tested all (42) = 6 pairs of Mycenaean individuals in our dataset as a Left list,using the All as the Right list. All 6 pairs were consistent with forming a clade with respect to the Allset to the limits of our resolution (p-value for rank=0 ≥0.08)."

So, we're talking about, say, 10% "steppe" admixture. I don't know what they'll say about this later, but this doesn't seem like a typical amount for a population coming straight down from the steppe, does it? Does this leave open the whole "Greeks from the east" scenario?

"Minoans from Moni OdigitriaMinoans from Moni Odigitria in the Heraklion regional unit (south-central Crete) do not form a cladewith any single (N=1) population of the All set. The best single population is Neolithic Anatolians, forwhich rank=0 can be rejected with p=9.13e-05, with all others being rejected much more strongly(p<1e-16). We can model Minoans from Moni Odigitria as a 2-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithicand Caucasus hunter-gatherers or Neolithic Iran (Table S2.4), with most ancestry (~86%) derivedfrom a Neolithic Anatolian-related population."

Minoans from Lashiti:
"We can model them as a 3-way mixture(Table S2.5) of ~84-85% Neolithic Anatolians, ~15% CHG, and <1% MA1 or Mota (the third typeminor ancestry is within 1 standard error of zero). The mixture proportions for Lasithi Minoans arethus practically the same as with the Moni Odigitria Minoans (Table S2.4). The lack of differentiationbetween these two Bronze Age Cretan populations can also be shown by their clustering in PCA."

"Cretan from ArmenoiThis individual has only 42,052 SNPs covered in the HOIll dataset and it belongs to a later period(Late Minoan III A-B ~ 1400-1200 BC) than the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi. It does notform a clade with any single (N=1) population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 0.001). There areseveral models that fit (p-value for rank=1 > 0.05) for N=2 that agree on this individual having mostof its ancestry from Anatolian Neolithic-related population with additional ancestry from easternEuropean/North Eurasian hunter-gatherers (Table S2.7), as also suggested by the shift of thisindividual in PCA relative to other Minoans and indeed even the Mycenaeans (Fig. 1b). Weacknowledge the possibility that there was geographical structure in the Bronze Age Cretanpopulation (the Armenoi sample comes from northwestern Crete; Fig. 1a), or that population changehad occurred between the time of the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi and the time of thisindividual, however, the lack of high quality data does not allow us to test these hypotheses further."

That makes sense to me; in later periods there was some movement north to south.

It seems to me that perhaps more J2 came to Crete and mainland Greece before the Bronze Age proper for the CHG/Iran type ancestry to be so low. That, or like Bronze Age migrations in Europe, they were more male dominated, because the Minoans seem to be largely Neolithic Anatolians, which is what I always suspected and proposed.

Of course, they always think of everything, so they thought of this too.:)

". However, all the Bronze Age populations also have ancestry related to the Caucasusor Iran, consistent with their shift in PCA (Fig. 1b). This shift began in Anatolia no later than theChalcolithic (3943-3708 calBCE)16 and was not evident in Greece by the time of the Final Neolithic(4,230–3,995 calBCE) individual from Kleitos14 that resembled (like all other Greek Neolithicindividuals) Anatolian farmers (Fig. 1b). The newly reported Neolithic individual from Diros Cave inthe Peloponnese (where most of the Mycenaean samples are from) did not have this ancestry as late as5479-5338 calBCE (Extended Data Table 1). (Future studies may show when the transformationoccurred in Greece, but by the time of the Minoan and Mycenaean samples, both populations tracedsome ancestry to this eastern source, as did the southwestern Anatolians from Harmanören Göndürle.

"Bronze Age AnatoliaThe population from Bronze Age southwestern Anatolia does not form a clade with any single (N=1)population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-25). It cannot be modelled as any 2-way mixture(Table S2.8), with the best ones involving a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and either Iran Neolithicor Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This population can be modelled as a 3-way mixture (Table S2.9) of~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), and ~6% Levantine Neolithicancestry. This extra Levantine Neolithic ancestry parallels the PCA (Fig. 1b) that shows that theBronze Age Anatolian sample is to the “east” (towards the Levant) relative to the Minoans andMycenaeans.""

Angela
02-08-17, 22:26
This means us too. :great:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34084-Mediterranean-migration-layers-in-Sicily-and-southern-Italy

Indeed. The Mycenaeans seem to be clustering with Sicilians. Ashkenazi too, so I wonder if it's possible that the Philistines will turn out to be pretty close to Mycenaneans, and the Philistines started the change we see in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

berun
02-08-17, 22:34
It's a new trick merging EHG with WHG in all admixture analysis... what was done with EHG?

By the way if the common difference between Neolithic Greece and pre-Mycenean + Minoan is the CHG and their old languages were not IE but Minoan and Pelasgian, the CHG side is not supporting much a "Caucasian" IE urheimat.


However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref7), 8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref8), introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9) or Armenia4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9)

Sintashta

Angela
02-08-17, 22:35
Minoan and Mycenean culture and people are percieved as different from each other.
The later Mycenean culture is not derived from the Minoan culture.

Yet the genetic difference is small :

However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref7), 8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref8), introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9) or Armenia4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9).

Did these few EHG shape the Mycenean culture? Where they a small ruling elite?
Well, they had charriots and swords ..

btw, is there a way to go around the paywall?

I'd agree with the first sentence but not with the last.

Greeks from the east is still on the table?

"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. However, populations of Armenia themselves have someEHG-related ancestry16, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHGrelatedancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it ispossible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the eastt; Table S2.2), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia.Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasiansteppe16 in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture ofAnatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeanshave more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2). It is possible that there were otherpopulations along the Iran/EHG “northeastern interaction sphere13” than the ones sampled here.

Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-relatedpopulations (Table S2.13) we infer that they have ~56-63% Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry,which is smaller than the ~74-80% of such ancestry when modeling them without the laterpopulations as a source (Table S2.2). This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselveshave Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry16. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia andNeolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of itinto the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the preMycenaeaninhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrationsfrom the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it.Nonetheless, if it arrived with populations like those of Armenia, it is still inferred that the majority(~56-63%) of the ancestry of Mycenaeans was Anatolian Neolithic-related, and so while non-trivialgenetic turnover occurred in Greece, it was not as significant as in central Europe where ~3/4 of theancestry of the Corded Ware people was of steppe origin1."

I1a3_Young
02-08-17, 22:36
Big news. Does the northern Iran/Caucus/Steppe mix referenced get explained by Kura Axes seed population?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

davef
02-08-17, 22:40
Indeed. The Mycenaeans seem to be clustering with Sicilians. Ashkenazi too, so I wonder if it's possible that the Philistines will turn out to be pretty close to Mycenaneans, and the Philistines started the change we see in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Ha!!! I wonder how Nordicists feel about Mycenaens being closer to Ashkenazim/Sephardic Jews and South Italians! There will be many tears shed on Stormfront over this paper.

Diomedes
02-08-17, 22:46
^ They are crying, losing hope.

Diomedes
02-08-17, 22:47
Actually this article is really important. I even saw it in a Greek news website, y'all.

Angela
02-08-17, 22:50
Big news. Does the northern Iran/Caucus/Steppe mix referenced get explained by Kura Axes seed population?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

I haven't found any reference to a specific archaeological culture yet.

See above post #11 for info on Mycenaens.

As far as the Minoans are concerned:

"Minoans from Moni OdigitriaMinoans from Moni Odigitria do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-valuefor rank=0 < 1e-6). The best 2-way mixture models (N=2) involve a pairing of Anatolian Neolithicwith an eastern population from Armenia, Iran, or the Caucasus (Table S2.14). We can successfullymodel them as 3-way mixtures composed primarily of these two components with a minor (~2-3%and not significantly different from zero) contribution from the Levantine Neolithic (Table S2.15)."

Minoans from Lashithi:

"This might suggest an earlier formation of the Minoans by arelatively simple admixture of the Anatolia-related substratum with an eastern (CHG-like) population,or back-flow from a Minoan-related populations into the ancestors of populations in the All+ set.Sampling of earlier populations from Crete and eastern populations may find a better surrogate for theeastern ancestry in this population than the CHG."

"Bronze Age AnatoliaBronze Age Anatolians do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value forrank=0 < 1e-17), except with a Chalcolithic northwestern Anatolian13 (p=0.072). The rather low pvaluetogether with the fact that the Chalcolithic Anatolian (Anatolia_ChL) does not cluster with theBronze Age southwestern Anatolians led us to also test statistics of the form f4(Anatolia_BA,Anatolia_ChL; Ancient, Chimp) for all other Ancient populations (Extended Data Fig. 3). These donot reach significance at the |Z|=3 level, but statistics involving Ancient as CHG, EHG, SHG, or MA1approach this level, which appears to be consistent with the more “northern” position of theChalcolithic Anatolian in the PCA (Fig. 1b). Overall, we believe that it is reasonable to think thatthese differences are real, although it is unclear whether they reflect spatial structure (as the twopopulations were sampled ~260 km apart) or a temporal change (as the two populations lived >1,000years apart). A more thorough sampling of ancient Anatolian variation may clarify this. When wemodel Bronze Age Anatolians as 2-way mixtures (N=2), the best models (Table S2.18) involveChalcolithic Anatolians and populations from the Levant (Natufians, Neolithic and Bronze Age Levantines), as do the best N=3 models (Table S2.19). Recall that we could model this population as amixture of Neolithic Anatolians, Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and Levantine Neolithic (Table S2.9).

Angela
02-08-17, 22:54
Ha!!! I wonder how Nordicists feel about Mycenaens being closer to Ashkenazim/Sephardic Jews and South Italians! There will be many tears shed on Stormfront over this paper.

They're not the only ones.

Whatever will a certain person do if it turns out that Sicilians are indeed very close to ancient Greeks?

It doesn't bear thinking about!!! :)

Angela
02-08-17, 23:00
"The amount ofsteppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group(“Yamnya/Afnasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA), which is in harmonywith our finding of ~7% EHG ancestry in Mycenaeans, as this group has about half of its ancestryfrom the EHG1,8,16. The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age(Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher stillwhen the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used asa source, reflecting the fact that these have substantial European/Anatolian Neolithic-relatedancestry1,8,20 which dilutes their EHG-related ancestry further. We cannot distinguish which of thesepopulations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe,from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration fromcentral Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/NeolithicBronze Age)."

"Thus, while we cannot distinguish between the differentsource populations of ‘northern’ ancestry, our results do not depend strongly on the sampledpopulations, as quantitatively similar estimates of their impact on Mycenaeans are inferred when weeither use any of them, or use none of them, but simply infer ancestry from an unsampled “ghost”population from either the eastern European-Iran continuum that formed the early populations of thesteppe1,10,13, or the steppe-European farmer continuum of the Middle/Late Bronze Age8,20."

"While both ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ 2-way mixture models fit the data statistically, we were curiouswhether a more complicated model could provide additional insight, so we tested 3-way mixturemodels with Anatolia_N or Minoan_Lasithi as the substratum population and both steppe-related‘northern’ ancestry (Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA, or Europe_LNBA) and Armenia-related‘eastern’ ancestry (Armenia_MLBA or Armenia_ChL). The results are presented in Table S2.26.Anatolian Neolithic/Minoans make up the majority of the ancestry (~59-90%) in all these models.Most of the coefficients for the ‘northern’ and ‘eastern’ ancestry are positive, suggesting that there ismigration from both sources, but many of these positive coefficients do not significantly differ fromzero (explaining why the simpler 2-way mixture models fit the data adequately without taking intoaccount a 3rd ancestral source). Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon.Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++"

"However, we do notice that the model79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individualsfrom mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece mightidentify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA modelrepresents the true history."

There's a large section on the implications for language change...too large to copy and paste. It starts on page 49.

Certain people won't be at all happy.

Johane Derite
02-08-17, 23:33
This is such an exciting paper, science is awesome.

From Page 4:

"We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region(Extended Data Fig. 7)"

Figure 2:

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature23310-f2.jpg

Extended Figure 7:

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature23310-sf7.jpg

blevins13
02-08-17, 23:34
"The amount ofsteppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group(“Yamnya/Afnasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA), which is in harmonywith our finding of ~7% EHG ancestry in Mycenaeans, as this group has about half of its ancestryfrom the EHG1,8,16. The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age(Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher stillwhen the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used asa source, reflecting the fact that these have substantial European/Anatolian Neolithic-relatedancestry1,8,20 which dilutes their EHG-related ancestry further. We cannot distinguish which of thesepopulations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe,from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration fromcentral Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/NeolithicBronze Age)."

"Thus, while we cannot distinguish between the differentsource populations of ‘northern’ ancestry, our results do not depend strongly on the sampledpopulations, as quantitatively similar estimates of their impact on Mycenaeans are inferred when weeither use any of them, or use none of them, but simply infer ancestry from an unsampled “ghost”population from either the eastern European-Iran continuum that formed the early populations of thesteppe1,10,13, or the steppe-European farmer continuum of the Middle/Late Bronze Age8,20."

"While both ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ 2-way mixture models fit the data statistically, we were curiouswhether a more complicated model could provide additional insight, so we tested 3-way mixturemodels with Anatolia_N or Minoan_Lasithi as the substratum population and both steppe-related‘northern’ ancestry (Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA, or Europe_LNBA) and Armenia-related‘eastern’ ancestry (Armenia_MLBA or Armenia_ChL). The results are presented in Table S2.26.Anatolian Neolithic/Minoans make up the majority of the ancestry (~59-90%) in all these models.Most of the coefficients for the ‘northern’ and ‘eastern’ ancestry are positive, suggesting that there ismigration from both sources, but many of these positive coefficients do not significantly differ fromzero (explaining why the simpler 2-way mixture models fit the data adequately without taking intoaccount a 3rd ancestral source). Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon.Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++"

"However, we do notice that the model79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individualsfrom mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece mightidentify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA modelrepresents the true history."

There's a large section on the implications for language change...too large to copy and paste. It starts on page 49.

Certain people won't be at all happy.

I don't understand, what is the reason to be unhappy.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Yetos
02-08-17, 23:41
"The amount ofsteppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group(“Yamnya/Afnasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA), which is in harmonywith our finding of ~7% EHG ancestry in Mycenaeans, as this group has about half of its ancestryfrom the EHG1,8,16.

Correct

the estimation of Triantafilides of Auth was 10% bronze age in all Greece,
it means 10% of what in the forum we call IE,
but has 59% post glacial and 20% Neolithic Anatolian
THAT CLEAR MEANS THAT GREEK LANGUAGE as IE MIGHT COME FROM THE 10 % of Bronze age
But from the rest % of the other groups

many times I said that Kurgan etc and other IE like steppe theories,
might not fit in Greece,

so is it time to reconsider the Farmers possibility of IE speakers?

anyway

the results which were expected
show many things

one of this is that Myceneans (10%) probably were a warriors class, that become elite by protecting people
since in many Neolithic we do not even found fortifications

Pax Augusta
02-08-17, 23:59
Ha!!! I wonder how Nordicists feel about Mycenaens being closer to Ashkenazim/Sephardic Jews and South Italians! There will be many tears shed on Stormfront over this paper.

Exactly, not only the Nordicists, but also some nordicist who pretends to be a mediterranicist. :)

Yetos
03-08-17, 00:00
Does this article also prove the "Dorian Invasion" in a sense?


Dorian Invasion is an inner ddevastation on NW Greeks to S Greeks
and is much much younger for at least 1500 years from the bellow
Maybe you reffering to the Mycenean descent that came from Istros (Δουναβης)

Yetos
03-08-17, 00:07
Interesting for me is Villabruna which marks +- 0 in a sample of Minoans
that certifies the connection of the area with Aegean,
as some archaiological founds I mention in previous posts,

Angela
03-08-17, 00:33
The usual suspects seem to be trying to spread disinformation.

From the paper:

"The elite Mycenaean individual from the 'royal' tomb at Peristeria in the western Peloponnese did not differ genetically from the other three Mycenaean individuals buried in common graves."

So, no, the "royal" or otherwise elite Mycenaeans were not any different from the "peasants" in terms of "steppe" ancestry.

When are these people going to give it a rest? It's over.

Other stupidity from another usual suspect. No, neither the Mycenaeans nor the Minoans had a "ton" of CHG/Iran type autosomal ancestry, although they did have a lot of J2a, at least based on this sample. They're majority Anatolian Neolithic.

Real the paper or at least the excerpts printed here, people.

For yet another usual suspect, we already have a pretty good idea from the Greek paper how much "Slavic" admixture there is in modern Greeks, and it's on a north/south cline. People from the Peloponnese have less than people from Thessaly. And no, it's not because of any mythical huge population movement from Sicily to the Peloponnese, for which I have yet to see any source whatsoever other than the fevered brains of agenda driven ****** or one ***** and several alter-egos.:) Now we have ancient Mycenaeans clustering with Sicilians, Mycenaeans from thousands of years before that bogus large migration. When are people going to stop being so gullible when reading posts from certain people?

If people want to get a handle on "Slavic" admixture one way to go is to figure out "Slavic" R1a and what used to be called I2a-Din, and estimate downwards from there as there was probably some male bias to the immigration.

Fire Haired14
03-08-17, 00:55
Indeed. The Mycenaeans seem to be clustering with Sicilians. Ashkenazi too, so I wonder if it's possible that the Philistines will turn out to be pretty close to Mycenaneans, and the Philistines started the change we see in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Nah, Philistines will cluster with ancient Egyptians and Canaanites.

Fire Haired14
03-08-17, 01:06
Using D-stats here's what modern mainland Greeks get...

Anatolia Neolithic-58%
CHG/Iran Neo-21%
EHG-18%
WHG-3%

Here's what Mycenaean get.

Anatolia Neolithic-80%
EHG-7%
Iran Neo-14%

And what Minoans get.
Anatolia Neolithic-86%
Iran Neo-14%

But notice when Levant_N is added to the model Minoan's Iran Neo/CHG score goes way up.
Anatolia Neolithic-62%
CHG-32%
Levant Neolithic-6%

Angela
03-08-17, 01:35
Cycladic, Minoan, and Mycenaean cultures in the Bronze Age:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/50/3c/60503c028aa9cce6bc7081aa4a77863b.jpg



Palace at Knossos:

http://www.minoanatlantis.com/pix/Minoan_Knossos_Palace_Reconstruction_1.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/www.kidslovegreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Bull-leaping-fresco-taurokathapsia-Knossos-family-guided-tour-kids-love-greece-Crete-Greek-mythology-family-vacation-package-activities-for-families-4.jpg?resize=1000%2C562&ssl=1

Look familiar? She's holding prayer beads:
https://68.media.tumblr.com/d52f076bac052e551ab2127669ec17ac/tumblr_oefsvnhAke1rmd611o1_500.jpg

Lady of Mycenae:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c1/64/1a/c1641a61f8a46c3c1f38a143a1358260.jpg

Angela
03-08-17, 01:47
8995

I love this type of graphic:

8996

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 01:48
8995

I love how he does this:

8996

Angela i really enjoy your posts so it bothers me that i cant open these attachments : /

Angela
03-08-17, 01:49
Angela i really enjoy your posts so it bothers me that i cant open these attachments : /

Oh, no...Were you signed in? Can you try it one more time? It works for me.

Thank-you, btw. Nice of you to say.

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 01:53
Oh, no...Were you signed in? Can you try it one more time? It works for me.

yeah I'm signed in, but it just gives me this: 8997

Angela
03-08-17, 01:55
Big news. Does the northern Iran/Caucus/Steppe mix referenced get explained by Kura Axes seed population?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Some people had speculated that Kura Araxes was tied to J1, but the J1 here in Anatolia doesn't plot near our ancient Kura Araxes samples. Plus, of course, the samples were not J1 Someone check me but I don't think any of these new Anatolian samples do...

@Fire-Haired,

Huh? The Philistines were intrusive to Canaan, and Egypt for that matter. Have you forgotten the ancient Egyptian dna paper?


Just a general comment: I've never seen so much special pleading in my life. People, given what the Bronze Age looked like in the Balkans no one should have been expecting a lot of "steppe" in the Mycenaeans. Now, we're going to base everything from one woman in late Minoan Crete who could have arrived from anywhere, but not look at a 'royal' male? Really? I guess if you don't fall in line with the interpretation you don't get to post either.

Even if the admixture came through the Balkans, rather than from the region around Armenia, we're talking about 13% "steppe", 8% EHG. Big whoops.

I wouldn't have thought that was enough for language change but I guess it is.

Even the title of the thread on Eurogenes is misinformation. The Minoans can be modeled as about 80% Anatolian Neolithic. The Mycenaeans have about 13% "steppe" ancestry. Again, big whoops. Do people think nobody reads the Supplementary material?

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 02:06
Cycladic, Minoan, and Mycenaean cultures in the Bronze Age:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/50/3c/60503c028aa9cce6bc7081aa4a77863b.jpg



Palace at Knossos:

http://www.minoanatlantis.com/pix/Minoan_Knossos_Palace_Reconstruction_1.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/www.kidslovegreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Bull-leaping-fresco-taurokathapsia-Knossos-family-guided-tour-kids-love-greece-Crete-Greek-mythology-family-vacation-package-activities-for-families-4.jpg?resize=1000%2C562&ssl=1

Look familiar? She's holding prayer beads:
https://68.media.tumblr.com/d52f076bac052e551ab2127669ec17ac/tumblr_oefsvnhAke1rmd611o1_500.jpg

Lady of Mycenae:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c1/64/1a/c1641a61f8a46c3c1f38a143a1358260.jpg

For the record I can see all of these, just the next comment with the 2 attachments I can't

Angela
03-08-17, 02:48
For the record I can see all of these, just the next comment with the 2 attachments I can't

This is the important one. It's from the prior Lazaridis et al paper-2016:

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

Angela
03-08-17, 03:25
Some people had speculated that Kura Araxes was tied to J1, but the J1 here in Anatolia doesn't plot near our ancient Kura Araxes samples. Plus, of course, the samples were not J1 Someone check me but I don't think any of these new Anatolian samples do...

@Fire-Haired,

Huh? The Philistines were intrusive to Canaan, and Egypt for that matter. Have you forgotten the ancient Egyptian dna paper?


Just a general comment: I've never seen so much special pleading in my life. People, given what the Bronze Age looked like in the Balkans no one should have been expecting a lot of "steppe" in the Mycenaeans. Now, we're going to base everything from one woman in late Minoan Crete who could have arrived from anywhere, but not look at a 'royal' male? Really? I guess if you don't fall in line with the interpretation you don't get to post either.

Even if the admixture came through the Balkans, rather than from the region around Armenia, we're talking about 13% "steppe", 8% EHG. Big whoops.

I wouldn't have thought that was enough for language change but I guess it is.

Even the title of the thread on Eurogenes is misinformation. The Minoans can be modeled as about 80% Neolithic. Do people think nobody reads the Supplementary material?

Ed. Good lord, now people know what the Dorians were like? Where is the ancient dna sample that tells us that they were more "steppe like"? When are people going to learn to let the data speak and stop trying to define everything in terms of dubious agendas? Maybe, and maybe not. The Dorians settled "SPARTA", people, you know, where the Peloponnesians are, the people who are so close to the Sicilians?

Also, for the umpteenth time, read the supplement, and don't pay any attention to posts from discredited people. There wasn't much "Levantine" Neolithic in the Myceneneans, or even the Minoans. The authors found 2-3%, which would be additional on top of what is in Anatolian Neolithic already, so, no, Sicilians are not, because they plot near Mycenaeans, a proxy for "East Mediterranean" populations if by that is meant populations from the area which is today Syria, Palestine and Israel, as the usual suspect is always trying to assert. Nice try but no cigar. Someone who loves PCAs suddenly can't tell how far the Mycenaeans are from Levant Bronze Age? Please....

Tomenable
03-08-17, 03:26
The aristocratic sample was 30% Steppe (while commoners only few % Steppe):

http://i.imgur.com/hgGmGHl.png

Modern continental Greeks have a lot more of Steppe than those Mycenaean continental commoners, while modern Cretans have much less of Steppe than that Post-Minoan aristocratic woman from Crete.

Angela
03-08-17, 03:29
The aristocratic sample was 30% Steppe, while commoners only few % Steppe:

http://i.imgur.com/hgGmGHl.png

Modern continental Greeks have a lot more of Steppe than those Mycenaean continental commoners, while modern Cretans have much less of Steppe than that Post-Minoan aristocratic woman from Crete.

This leads us to the Greek Nationalist's Dilemma... : :grin:



Yeah? Well, the royal Mycenaean male is just like commoner males, same minute amount of steppe, as directly from the paper. Did you miss that part or you hoped everyone else did?

The "elite" female from very late Minoan times could have had ancestry from a far off place. We just don't know, but it was quite common to bring wives from far away groups.

What high steppe in Greeks? Look carefully at the "steppe" in Greeks, and mainland Thessaly Greeks at that. Who are you trying to kid?
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/727/files/2015/06/Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png

You can't spread misinformation here, do you understand?

Keep it up with the provocative posts ******** other ethnicities and you'll get another infraction. Are we clear?

Tomenable
03-08-17, 03:32
Yeah? Well, the royal Mycenaean male is just like commoner males, same minute amount of steppe, as directly from the paper. Did you miss that part or you hope everyone else did?

Evo Morales is just like commoner Quechuas. But the average landowner in Bolivia is about 30% European, while the average peasant in Bolivia is only about 5% European. However, thanks to social mobility their president is a Quechua peasant with less than 5% European. Some people become elites thanks to their merits, not blood.

I think that the situation in Mycenaean Greece could be similar to this in modern Bolivia (with commoners being "almost pure Pelasgians", while aristocracy being on average more Steppe-admixed):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wj6yez66ws

davef
03-08-17, 03:33
Fire haired, can you do a d stat on south italians?

Angela
03-08-17, 03:39
Evo Morales is just like commoner Quechuas. But the average landowner in Bolivia is about 30% European, while the average peasant in Bolivia is only about 5% European. However, thanks to social mobility their president is a Quechua peasant with less than 5% European. Some people become elites thanks to their merits, not blood.

I think that the situation in Mycenaean Greece could be similar to this in modern Bolivia (with commoners being "almost pure Pelasgians", while aristocracy being on average more Steppe-admixed):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wj6yez66ws

Read the paper, and the supplement, and the figures, all of it, including the new methodology, and while you're at it go back and read the Southeastern European paper by Iain Mathiesen, and look at the Bronze Age samples there. The Balkans, Southeastern Europe, Iberia don't fit your template...period. Too bad. Either you have no clue what you're talking about, or you just want to spread your Nordicist-Slavic supremacy nonsense. Either way, I have no time for it, so consider yourself ignored.

Angela
03-08-17, 03:43
Fire haired, can you do a d stat on south italians?

Rob at Anthrogenica already did them. We need ancient dna from Italy badly.

I also would like to see samples analyzed by the new tools presented in this paper.

Angela
03-08-17, 04:07
Yeah? Well, the royal Mycenaean male is just like commoner males, same minute amount of steppe, as directly from the paper. Did you miss that part or you hoped everyone else did?

The "elite" female from very late Minoan times could have had ancestry from a far off place. We just don't know, but it was quite common to bring wives from far away groups.

What high steppe in Greeks? Look carefully at the "steppe" in Greeks, and mainland Thessaly Greeks at that. Who are you trying to kid?
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/727/files/2015/06/Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png

You can't spread misinformation here, do you understand?

Keep it up with the provocative posts ******** other ethnicities and you'll get another infraction. Are we clear?

Just eyeballing it, the modern Northern Greeks look like they have about 20% "steppe" as defined by Yamnaya, and that's after the Slavic invasions and it's in the north. The Mycenaeans were at about 13%. So, I'm afraid your fantasies and your trying to provoke Greeks are not based on facts, as usual.

Given this data, 13% steppe, why exactly would people assume we'd be finding lots of R1a? I'm not saying there isn't some and it won't show up, btw.

Angela
03-08-17, 04:31
Razib Khan has opined.

https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/08/02/when-the-ancestors-were-cyclops/

For those who need it said over and over again...

"About 85% of the ancestry of the Minoan samples could be modeled as being derived from Anatolian farmers, the ancestors of the “Early European Farmers” (EEF) that introduced agriculture to most of the continent, and whose heritage is most clear in modern populations among Sardinians. For the three Mycenaean samples the value is closer to 80% (though perhaps high 70s is more accurate)."

Actually, it's only the interior isolated Sardinians, but that's nit-picking.

"Now the question though is what’s the balance? For the Minoans the residual is a component which seems to derive from “Eastern Farmer” populations. Additionally the authors note that the Y chromosomes in four out of five individuals in their Mycenaean-Minoan-Anatolians are haplogroup J associated with these eastern groups, rather than the ubiquitous G2 of the earlier farmer populations. The authors suggest that in the 4th millennium B.C. there was a demographic event where this ancestral component swept west, and served as the common Mycenaean-Minoan (and Anatolian) substrate.

Just so we're clear, not a "ton" of eastern, and not 25%.

"But the Mycenaean samples (one of which was elite, two of which were not) also have a third component: affinities with steppe populations. One model which presents itself is that there was a pulse out of the Balkans, and this was part of the dynamic described in Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html). But another model, which they could not reject, is that the steppe affinity came from the east, perhaps from a proto-Armenian population. Additionally, they did not find much steppe ancestry in the Anatolian samples at all."

"My own preference is for a migration through the Balkans. It seems relatively straightforward. As for why the Anatolian samples did not have the steppe ancestry, the authors provide the reasonable supposition that Indo-European in Anatolia branched off first, and the demographic signal was diluted over successor generations. Perhaps. But another aspect of Anatolia is that it seems the Hittites, the Nesa, where never a numerous population in comparison to the Hatti amongst whom they lived. Perhaps a good model for their rise and takeover may be that of the post-Roman West and the Franks in Gaul."

I think there were more Franks in Gaul, but no matter.

"Then the question becomes how does a less numerous people impose their language on a more numerous one? This happens. See the Hungarians for an example. In fact the paper which covered the other end of the Mediterranean, The population genomics of archaeological transition in west Iberia: Investigation of ancient substructure using imputation and haplotype-based methods (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852), suggests that language shift can occur in unpredictable ways. On the one hand Basques seem to have mostly Indo-European Y chromosomes, but their whole genome ancestry indicates less exogenous input than their neighbors. Speaking of which, we know by the Classical period large regions of western Spain were dominated by Celtic speaking peoples, but the genetic imprint of the Indo-Europeans is still very modest in the Iberian peninsula.:"

Maybe if it comes from a man some Neanderthals will be more willing to accept it.

Pay attention, Tomenable:

"I think what we’re seeing here is the difference between Indo-European agro-pastoralists arriving to a landscape of relatively simple societies with more primal institutions, and those who migrated into regions where local population densities are higher and social complexity is also greater. This higher social complexity means that external elites can takeover a system, as opposed to an almost animal competition for resources as seems to have occurred in Northern Europe."

davef
03-08-17, 04:43
Actually I don't even need the d-stats, but thank you. Ancient Greeks were Sicilian like, and they plot close to Sicilians. They were just how most people expected them to be. Let's all relax and enjoy the rest of the summer ;)

Ralphie Boy
03-08-17, 04:44
This is such an exciting paper, science is awesome.

From Page 4:

"We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region(Extended Data Fig. 7)"

Figure 2:

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature23310-f2.jpg

Extended Figure 7:

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature23310-sf7.jpg

Yes it is awesome. This looks like genetic relatedness or continuity to my layperson's eyes. If true, I hope this finally puts to rest the ideas that Greeks and other regional peoples were completely replaced by "modern" invasions--those that occurred for example from Roman times forward.

LeBrok
03-08-17, 04:58
A great paper though somewhat inconclusive about origin of Mycenaeans, in light of the IE transition part.

Anyway, I'm so glad that it confirms what I saw in HarappaWorld admixtures for this region. We have a transition from European Neolithic towards Anatolian Chalcolithic and Armenia BA. Though I was suspecting the transition happened during BA but Anatolian BA is shifted towards Levant BA. Well, this might depend on sampled region I guess. Theirs was from SE Anatolia. Then, I envisioned Mycenaeans coming at the end of BA with more Armenia BA admixture, bringing IE language and some steppe/NE Euro/Baloch admixture. So far so good, however, it is still possible that Mycenaeans have come from Central Europe/Hungarian BA. Tough their lack of R1 haplogroups points more to Anatolia/Armenia origin, I guess. More samples in the future should clear this up.

LeBrok
03-08-17, 05:00
The aristocratic sample was 30% Steppe (while commoners only few % Steppe):

http://i.imgur.com/hgGmGHl.png

Modern continental Greeks have a lot more of Steppe than those Mycenaean continental commoners, while modern Cretans have much less of Steppe than that Post-Minoan aristocratic woman from Crete.
Why are you so excited about samples containing steppe admixture only. You can't like other human beings if they don't have it! Nuts!

Promenade
03-08-17, 05:15
This whole paper is amusing to me because I remember davidski claiming just a few weeks ago that genetically Mycenaeans would appear just like the steppe individuals. If anything it leads me to believe they came from the east.


Actually I don't even need the d-stats, but thank you. Ancient Greeks were Sicilian like, and they plot close to Sicilians. They were just how most people expected them to be. Let's all relax and enjoy the rest of the summer ;)

Why would the Mycenaeans be closer to Sicilians than modern Greeks though? The inhabitants of Magna Grecia mixed with the native inhabitants of the Sicily itself when they first colonized, they even considered themselves a new people, and the island has been home to everyone from the Carthaginians to the Normans. That would mean mixing with the Sicels changed very little and then they remained the same for the next 3000 years while Greece failed too.

Angela
03-08-17, 05:25
Actually I don't even need the d-stats, but thank you. Ancient Greeks were Sicilian like, and they plot close to Sicilians. They were just how most people expected them to be. Let's all relax and enjoy the rest of the summer ;)

Well, I would gather some people are surprised, and not pleasantly so! :)


Promenade: I remember davidski claiming just a few weeks ago that genetically Mycenaeans would appear just like the steppe individuals.

Angela
03-08-17, 05:32
This whole paper is amusing to me because I remember davidski claiming just a few weeks ago that genetically Mycenaeans would appear just like the steppe individuals. If anything it leads me to believe they came from the east.



Why would the Mycenaeans be closer to Sicilians than modern Greeks though? The inhabitants of Magna Grecia mixed with the native inhabitants of the Sicily itself when they first colonized, they even considered themselves a new people, and the island has been home to everyone from the Carthaginians to the Normans. That would mean mixing with the Sicels changed very little and then they remained the same for the next 3000 years while Greece failed too.


One factor might be that the mainland Greeks, particularly in the north, received some ancestry from the migration of the Slavic tribes. The Italians got virtually none of that. Northern Italians and Tuscans did get some Celtic and some, if less, Germanic, the prior before the fall of Rome, in the first millennium BC, and the latter after the fall of Rome, but much less of it got to places like Sicily. In fact, I think a good percentagae of what they did get was mediated through the Romans, perhaps, and then the "Lombards", i.e. northern Italians from Lombardia and Liguria and some from Piemonte, as well as from the native "Italic" tribes, who might not have had all that much "steppe" by the time they got to Sicily. I mean, look at the "steppe" percentages in Bronze Age Iberia, even with all that R1b. The small percentage from the Muslim invasions in Sicily and perhaps infusing a bit into far southern Italy didn't change things very much, apparently, at least that's what it looks like to me based on the NA percentages autosomally.

We won't really know if we're totally on the right track, however, until we get ancient dna from Italy. That will trump any speculations based on PCAs, modern proportions etc. I don't mean to imply otherwise.

I've been saying since I was on dna forums and then on 23andme and then here that all that "West Asian" in southern Italy and Sicily did not come with the Muslims. The folk migration to Sicily was from North Africa, and we know how much North African they have. The "Arabs" were the very thin layer at the top, the elites. We'll have to see what the ancient dna from Italy tells us about what Bronze Age and Magna Graecia southern Italians were like.

There's also been a lot of ******** and mythology on the internet about southern Italy/Sicily. The Normans were under 100 men at arms when they arrived. How much autosomal change could they have brought? The Carthaginians had two small emporia in northwestern Sicily, no presence at all on mainland southern Italy. It wouldn't matter to me in the least if southern Italians had a lot of this ancestry, but I still believe that major autosomal change comes from large folk migrations which does not describe these people at all.

I don't know what the ancient dna will show for Italy, but it seems pretty clear that Iberia and Greece don't fit the same pattern as central and Northern Europe. How could they? It's very different when you move into virtually de-populated places or where the "natives" have experienced lots of disease and debilitation from repeated crop failures due to either degradation of the soil and/or climate change?

berun
03-08-17, 07:27
Really I get much fun from steppemaniacs, how they transform a paper in a kind of game show about who is more steppic.

But now back to the serious matter, the game show is hijacked by an incapability to distingish between EHG and WHG and between direct CHG and hybridized European CHG.

Diomedes
03-08-17, 08:16
Yes Yetos, you are correct. My bad here.


Dorian Invasion is an inner ddevastation on NW Greeks to S Greeks
and is much much younger for at least 1500 years from the bellow
Maybe you reffering to the Mycenean descent that came from Istros (Δουναβης)

Maciamo
03-08-17, 09:08
Nice to finally have some Minoan and Mycenaean genomes.

There are only 4 Minoan and 1 Mycenaean Y-DNA samples, so we can't tell much from that. This data at least confirms that the Minoans carried G2a, J1a and J2a1 as I had predicted. Too bad they couldn't identify the deeper clades, although I am confident that the J2a1 clades will fall under M319 (Y5009), L210, M92 (Z6254), CTS6804 and YP879. I am certain that T1a-P77 will show up too if more samples are tested. Perhaps some L1b too, but at very low frequency.

It's a shame that there is only one Mycenaean Y-DNA sample as I was really looking forward to know which Steppe Y-DNA they carried. Ever since 2009 I have been wondering if they were primarily R1a (so more Srubna-derived) or R1b (more Catacomb culture-derived), or a blend of both. I think they were primarily R1b-Z2103 but with possibly a bit of R1a. More recently I suggested that they also carried E-V13 and J2b lineages and that they may have been related to the Illyrians who invaded the Balkans around the same time. The J2a1 sample tested is obviously an assimilated Minoan, so it doesn't shed any light on the patrilineal origins of Mycenaeans.

The mtDNA data is not much more useful for the Mycenaeans. Oddly, 3 out of the 4 samples tested belonged to the rare haplogroup X2. The 4th is merely reported as H, which could be anything.

If we exclude uncertain haplogroups like H and T2b, about half of Minoan mtDNA samples could be traced back the Neolithic Greece (J2b1a, K1a2, U5a1). The rest shows strong affinities with Anatolia and the Caucasus (haplogroups H13a1, I5, U3b3) and was mostly absent from Neolithic Europe. Note that U3b was not found in Neolithic Europe and the oldest known sample in Europe so far was from Thracia dated 800-500 BCE.

The admixture data as presented in the paper do not really allow to determine the actual proportion of Minoan DNA that was inherited from Neolithic Greece, as opposed to Neolithic Anatolia. What is certain is that the Minoans brought about 20% of CHG admixture that wasn't present before in Neolithic Greece. The Armenian EBA samples had 50% of CHG, so if there had been a direct migration from that region (Kura-Araxes) to Greece, it would mean that 40% of Minoan DNA is from Kura-Araxes. However it is practically impossible that a migration occurs over such a distance without blending with other populations (in Anatolia) on the way. If we look at the Anatolian Bronze Age samples, they either have 20% or 25% of CHG, which is almost identical to that of the Minoans. This could mean that a much bigger portion of Minoan DNA is not descended from Neolithic Greece. I wouldn't say 100% because of the presence of U5a1 and J2b1a (K1a2 was also found in Neolithic Anatolia though), but I'd say that over 50% and up to 85% of Minoan DNA came from the wave of EBA migrants from Anatolia.

The authors say the Mycenaeans can be modelled as having 13% of Yamna-related admixture, but have more if we take Srubnaya or Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Europe as the source population of the invaders. I wonder why they do not take into account the possibility that the Mycenaeans came from the Middle Bronze Age Balkans? The most likely scenario based on archaeological evidence is that they originated in the Late Catacomb or Early Srubna culture, but first settled in the Balkans, including Illyria, before truly invading Greece shortly after. They would have spent only a few generations in the Balkans, but that may be enough to acquire more Neolithic farmer DNA. In any case, the overall genetic impact of the Mycenaean invaders on the population of Greece at the time would be at least 15-20%. It's just very hard to tell apart all that ENF admixture.

Maciamo
03-08-17, 09:17
There is something I don't understand in the admixture analysis from the paper. Modern Greeks from Thessaloniki are shown as having 20% of red EHG, 20% of pink CHG, 59% of blue ENF and 1% of dark green Natufian, but they completely lack the purple admixture that makes up 35-100% of Neolithic Greeks, 15-30% of Minoans and 25-45% of Mycenaeans. It's also missing from other modern Greeks and Cypriots. What happened to that admixture? It couldn't simply have vanished like that. Is that because they didn't re-run those samples using the same K17 parameters? If so that would be highly unprofessional of them for a published peer-reviewed paper. If not, that raises a lot of questions.

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature23310-sf1.jpg


I also disagree with Lazaridis and al. when they say that "Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry". Mycenaeans are much closer to the Minoans than to Modern Greeks. Modern Greeks have 3x more EHG (about 20%) than Mycenaeans (7%), but they also have WHG (3% according to D-stat). This suggests that numerous waves of European invaders (Dorians, Celts, Romans, Goths, Slavs) contributed to a large share of modern Greek DNA. Since obviously no invader to Greece were pure EHG, and none had more than 50% of EHG in average (30-35% might be more realistic as the Romans had comparatively low EHG), to increase from 7% to 20% of EHG, the percentage of post-Mycenaean DNA from European invaders must be comprised between 25% and 40%. Most of it will be blue ENF and pink CHG that won't be identifiable using these relatively simple admixtures. What we see is only the clear increase in EHG, which is only one third to half of the new invaders' DNA.

In other words modern Greeks are nothing like Mycenaean Greeks, and even less Minoan Greeks. Modern Greeks have much more European ancestry. Y-DNA alone suggests 40 to 45% of European lineages (as opposed to Near Eastern), and over 60% if we included E-V13 (E1b1b came from the Near East but E-V13 clearly emerged in Europe). Greeks possess lineages that are clearly Germanic (3.5% of I1, so about 10% of Germanic overall with I2a2-L801, R1b-U106 and R1a-L664), Slavic (11% of R1a, which is overwhelmingly M458 and CTS1211) and Italo-Celtic (about 7% of R1b-U152 and 1% of G2a-L497).

bicicleur
03-08-17, 10:13
The authors say the Mycenaeans can be modelled as having 13% of Yamna-related admixture, but have more if we take Srubnaya or Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Europe as the source population of the invaders. I wonder why they do not take into account the possibility that the Mycenaeans came from the Middle Bronze Age Balkans? The most likely scenario based on archaeological evidence is that they originated in the Late Catacomb or Early Srubna culture, but first settled in the Balkans, including Illyria, before truly invading Greece shortly after. They would have spent only a few generations in the Balkans, but that may be enough to acquire more Neolithic farmer DNA. In any case, the overall genetic impact of the Mycenaean invaders on the population of Greece at the time would be at least 15-20%. It's just very hard to tell apart all that ENF admixture.

afaik charriots and swords appeared in the Carpathian Basin, not the Balkans prior to the appearance of the Myceneans
anyway it is strange that BA Balkan or Carpathian Basin DNA does not appear in the models

Maciamo
03-08-17, 10:18
afaik charriots and swords appeared in the Carpathian Basin, not the Balkans prior to the appearance of the Myceneans
anyway it is strange that BA Balkan or Carpathian Basin DNA does not appear in the models

It depends on one's definitions of Balkans. I sometimes include the Carpathians too (notably Romania). I should have said Southeast Europe.

Fire Haired14
03-08-17, 10:41
@Maciamo,
"In other words modern Greeks are nothing like Mycenaean Greeks, and even less Minoan Greeks. "

Myceneans were Greeks, the literal predecessor of modern Greece, I can't imagine that modern Greeks are nothing like them? You just said modern Greeks might have 25-40% non-Mycenean ancestry, that would still make them mostly Mycenaean. I remember reading that Greek Islanders don't have the North European admixture mainland Greeks do. They might be roughly the same as Mycenaeans.

Fire Haired14
03-08-17, 10:56
Stone Henge and the Minoan civilization were created by very close relatives, mind blowing. Both were 70-80% EEF.

Another interesting thing is both the Minoans and the Egyptians were indigenous to their separate regions. Egyptians mostly Levant_Neo, Minoans mostly Anatolia_Neo. Both were indigenous, descended from the primitive stone age people that lived in their regions 1,000s of years earlier.

Maciamo
03-08-17, 12:02
@Maciamo,
"In other words modern Greeks are nothing like Mycenaean Greeks, and even less Minoan Greeks. "

Myceneans were Greeks, the literal predecessor of modern Greece, I can't imagine that modern Greeks are nothing like them? You just said modern Greeks might have 25-40% non-Mycenean ancestry, that would still make them mostly Mycenaean. I remember reading that Greek Islanders don't have the North European admixture mainland Greeks do. They might be roughly the same as Mycenaeans.

That would make them mostly Mycenaeans if you reckon that Mycenaeans are themselves a blend of many populations. They had ancestry from Mesolithic SE Europeans, Neolithic Greeks, Neolithic Anatolians, Chalcolithic Iranians/Caucasians, Bronze Age Kura-Araxes, then of course Mesolithic Steppe (EHG), Neolithic Balkans, Bronze Age Steppe, etc. It's pretty meaningless to say that modern Greeks share 60-75% of DNA with such a heavily admixed population as the Mycenaeans, who shares lots of ancestry with all modern Europeans. With that logic, Albanians and Bulgarians could be just as close to the Mycenaeans.

Anyway, my point was that 25 to 40% of post-Mycenaean ancestry isn't trivial. That's much more than the whole Indo-European ancestry in India, even among the Brahmins (who have 15-20% of Steppe ancestry). According to the Haak et al. (2015) paper (which Angela loves to quote), modern Spaniards have only 20% of Steppe ancestry, while Albanians have a mere 13%. And yet both are considered Indo-European populations (because of the language they speak). This puts into perspective the 25% to 40% of post-Mycenaean European ancestry in modern Greeks. And I did not even include the post-Mycenaean Middle Eastern ancestry! There is no way to calculate this from the admixture data, but why wouldn't other Middle Eastern people have contributed to the modern Greek gene pool in the last 3500 years? After all Greece was part of the Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine then Ottoman empires, which had open borders between Greece and the whole eastern Mediterranean from 332 BCE to 1918 CE (2250 years). It's unthinkable that Europeans contributed 40% of modern Greek DNA and that during that time no population exchange at all happened within the empire to which Greece belonged! The genetic exchange with Anatolia would surely have been considerable over time, considering all the Greek-speaking cities in Ionia or the Pontus, and the displacement of all these Anatolian Greeks to European Greece after 1918. Iosif Lazaridis is himself a Greek whose family hails from the Pontus region. It's baffling that he shouldn't have considered the impact of over 2000 years of intermingling with neighbouring Anatolian populations on those Greek communities that later resettled in the modern state of Greece.

It's very hard to estimate how much DNA in modern Greeks came from Anatolia, or elsewhere in the Near East, in the last 2000 or 3000 years, but I am confident it is more than 10% and probably more than 20%. So overall it could be than less than half of the modern Greek DNA is directly inherited from the Mycenaean-age population.

blevins13
03-08-17, 12:23
[QUOTE=Diomedes;516171]Yes Yetos, you are correct. My bad here.[/

Don't you worry Diomedes, Maciamo has done the same mistake as you in his post above....:I quote" This suggests that numerous waves of European invaders (Dorians, Celts, Romans, Goths, Slavs) contributed to a large share of modern Greek DNA." Maybe Yetos can shed some light here.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Maciamo
03-08-17, 12:36
Don't you worry Diomedes, Maciamo has done the same mistake as you in his post above....:I quote" This suggests that numerous waves of European invaders (Dorians, Celts, Romans, Goths, Slavs) contributed to a large share of modern Greek DNA." Maybe Yetos can shed some light here.


I suppose you are referring to the Dorian invasion. The fact is that we still don't know where the Dorians originated, except that they came from the north. This could have been in northern Greece or Macedonia, but also from Albania or further north in the Balkans. They might also have been a hybrid population of foreign invaders and assimilated northern Greeks, who joined up forces to run over central and southern Greece. It's often the case with invasions. In the context of the turmoils of 1200 BCE around the East Med, it's quite likely that some foreign invaders did participate to the Dorian invasion following the civilisation collapse in Greece proper.

Fire Haired14
03-08-17, 12:38
@Maciamo,

*Relatively* speaking the Myceneans were mixed. All of their ancestors don't have to have lived in Greece for 20,000 years for them to be unmixed. The genetic shifts we see in ancient DNA; EEF migration, Steppe migration, occur once every like 5,000 years. For the most part people were born, had kids, and died on the same plot of land.

Mycenaeans were by and large EEF. The models give them like 70% EEF. Some EEF would have come from the north alongside Steppe admixture, some came alongside CHG admixture, but still by and large Myceneans traced their ancestry back to the Neolithic Aegean or at least Neolithic Greece and Turkey.

European genetic diversity is more complex than EEF, WHG, CHG, EHG. The EEF's in Poland may be more related to Sardinians than to Eastern Europeans but they share unique genetic markers (eg, mtDNA H1b2) only with Eastern Europeans. While there are other Europeans with a more similar EEF/EHG/etc. composition to Myceneans than what modern Greeks have, modern Greeks probably have the closest genealogical relationship with Myceneans.

The more recent admixtures in Greece; Goths, Slavs, ancient Anatolia, etc. are all hypothetical right now. Maybe the ancient Greeks didn't mix at all with people in Turkey.

I do think obvious difference between Myceneans and modern Greeks is really interesting. Coincidentally everywhere from Turkey to Ireland EEF got beat up during the Bronze age.

blevins13
03-08-17, 12:39
I suppose you are referring to the Dorian invasion. The fact is that we still don't know where the Dorians originated, except that they came from the north. This could have been in northern Greece or Macedonia, but also from Albania or further north in the Balkans. They might also have been a hybrid population of foreign invaders and assimilated northern Greeks, who joined up forces to run over central and southern Greece. It's often the case with invasions. In the context of the turmoils of 1200 BCE around the East Med, it's quite likely that some foreign invaders did participate to the Dorian invasion following the civilisation collapse in Greece proper.

Yes I am referring to that....Yetos prospective is quite different from yours, I guess further studies will clarify this.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

blevins13
03-08-17, 12:51
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Leandros
03-08-17, 13:04
So, anyone shocked by this study? [emoji14]
Seems pretty reasonable

MOESAN
03-08-17, 13:05
at the mergin:

"Similarly, ~79% of present-dayGreeks have light or dark brown hair, with the remainder split between blond and black."

with so a great precision in phenotypes, I wonder if it is worth comparing pops and studying the genotypes for pigmentation!!!

Leandros
03-08-17, 13:06
at the mergin:

"Similarly, ~79% of present-dayGreeks have light or dark brown hair, with the remainder split between blond and black."

with so a great precision in phenotypes, I wonder if it is worth comparing pops and studying the genotypes for pigmentation!!!
Most light hair and eyes came in middle ages. In ancient and prehistoric Greece, it was rare if not non existent.

Tomenable
03-08-17, 13:10
What high steppe in Greeks?

Relatively high.

High steppe in modern Greeks compared to what Mycenaean peasants had. Modern Greeks have way more of steppe ancestry than Mycenaean commoners. Look at the PCA graph. Mycenaeans cluster with Sicilians, not with mainland Greeks - who are ca. 1/4 more shifted in the direction of Russians.

Why did you remove my satirical picture (Greek Nationalist's Dilemma)?:

http://i.imgur.com/w1EL4by.png

Maciamo
03-08-17, 13:12
@Maciamo,

*Relatively* speaking the Myceneans were mixed. All of their ancestors don't have to have lived in Greece for 20,000 years for them to be unmixed. The genetic shifts we see in ancient DNA; EEF migration, Steppe migration, occur once every like 5,000 years. For the most part people were born, had kids, and died on the same plot of land.

Mycenaeans were by and large EEF. The models give them like 70% EEF. Some EEF would have come from the north alongside Steppe admixture, some came alongside CHG admixture, but still by and large Myceneans traced their ancestry back to the Neolithic Aegean or at least Neolithic Greece and Turkey.

European genetic diversity is more complex than EEF, WHG, CHG, EHG. The EEF's in Poland may be more related to Sardinians than to Eastern Europeans but they share unique genetic markers (eg, mtDNA H1b2) only with Eastern Europeans. While there are other Europeans with a more similar EEF/EHG/etc. composition to Myceneans than what modern Greeks have, modern Greeks probably have the closest genealogical relationship with Myceneans.

It doesn't mean anything to say that the Mycenaeans were by and large EEF. That is the case for practically all Europeans populations since the Neolithic! (except Bronze Age Steppe, and modern Finns and Lapps). By that logic the Mycenaeans could be closely related to the Sardinians and Basques, which is obviously nonsense, as their last common EEF ancestors date back to the Early Neolithic.



The more recent admixtures in Greece; Goths, Slavs, ancient Anatolia, etc. are all hypothetical right now. Maybe the ancient Greeks didn't mix at all with people in Turkey.

I do think obvious difference between Myceneans and modern Greeks is really interesting. Coincidentally everywhere from Turkey to Ireland EEF got beat up during the Bronze age.

Hypothetical? How is 3.5% of I1 in Greece with subclades dating from the Gothic migrations hypothetical? What about the 20% of clearly Slavic R1a-CTS1211, R1a-M458 and I2a1b-CTS10228 in modern Greece? There is nothing hypothetical about these migrations. Just look at the FTDNA Greece project. Among the I2a1 members, all those tested for deep clades belong to CTS10228. The subclades found downstream are Y4460 (2300 ybp), A2512 (2200 ybp), Z17855 (1650 ybp), and A10959 (1800 ybp), all too young to be anything but Slavic.

Diomedes
03-08-17, 13:18
It appears to me that some of you imply that the ruling class of the Mycenaeans was different from the peasants. If so, why and where did they come from?

(in the background thoughts about the "Nephalem" and the ruling class of the archaic times. Could the Bible be right after all ...)

Leandros
03-08-17, 13:18
Relatively high.

High steppe in modern Greeks compared to what Mycenaean peasants had. Modern Greeks have way more of steppe ancestry than Mycenaean commoners. Look at the PCA graph. Mycenaeans cluster with Sicilians, not with mainland Greeks - who are ca. 1/4 more shifted in the direction of Russians.

Why did you remove my satirical picture (Greek Nationalist's Dilemma)?:

http://i.imgur.com/w1EL4by.png
Hahahahhahaha

Diomedes
03-08-17, 13:19
They are very close to mainland Greeks also. By and large, the Slavic influence is very small in Greece.


Relatively high.

High steppe in modern Greeks compared to what Mycenaean peasants had. Modern Greeks have way more of steppe ancestry than Mycenaean commoners. Look at the PCA graph. Mycenaeans cluster with Sicilians, not with mainland Greeks - who are ca. 1/4 more shifted in the direction of Russians.

Why did you remove my satirical picture (Greek Nationalist's Dilemma)?:

http://i.imgur.com/w1EL4by.png

bicicleur
03-08-17, 14:27
It appears to me that some of you imply that the ruling class of the Mycenaeans was different from the peasants. If so, why and where did they come from?

(in the background thoughts about the "Nephalem" and the ruling class of the archaic times. Could the Bible be right after all ...)

tell me where the Mycenian charriots and swords came from, and maybe you've got the answer

and the paper tells in what component the Mycenian genome differs from the Minoan genome

Diomedes
03-08-17, 15:06
With riddles you speak, old man :)


tell me where the Mycenian charriots and swords came from, and maybe you've got the answer

Cato
03-08-17, 15:19
I think that there's some chance that Mycenaeans came from some Corded Ware influenced culture of the Northern Balkans, not directly from the Steppe.

https://books.google.it/books?id=0CEiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=mycenaeans+corded+ware&source=bl&ots=wBQS-_q55U&sig=Vy007ULWoS7oZWwh0XZ4Mnc4bJA&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix8dK0k7vVAhXrLMAKHbtvBIQQ6AEITzAE#v=on epage&q&f=false

LATGAL
03-08-17, 15:35
Not that surprising huh? The results likely show the Bronze Age Anatolian connection, apparently represented by J2a, of southern Greece and Crete some of us were expecting already and then some steppe admixture likely arriving from the Balkans. Greece looks like the contemporary Balkans with extra post-Neolithic Anatolian ancestry to me and with steppe in similar lower amounts with some slight outliers like in that case (and others might come along too). Post Bronze Age Greece seems to have reduced Neolithic and more steppe (likely impacts from the Northeast, mostly Slavic) and Anatolian which Fire Haired's little experiment seems to point to, as well.


Relatively high. High steppe in modern Greeks compared to what Mycenaean peasants had. Modern Greeks have way more of steppe ancestry than Mycenaean commoners. Look at the PCA graph. Mycenaeans cluster with Sicilians, not with mainland Greeks - who are ca. 1/4 more shifted in the direction of Russians.

This suffers from some projection bias it seems so the actual position will be better shown in non-projected PCAs but they're definitely close to South Italians. We need to see whether the post-Neolithic 'Anatolian' stuff had intruded in South Italy at this point or later on, even with the Greek settlements - who knows.

One of the samples was from the aristocracy while the higher steppe low-coverage woman was from a non-elite context but likely a recent immigrant from mainland Greece to Crete guessing by her autosomal DNA. You should at least wait for more samples that confirm your suppositions before bombarding us with your usual, yeah?

And that's a false dilemma even by the "Greek nationalist's" standards since both proto-Greeks and early Slavs would have reinforced the 'steppe' component compared to the locals, no matter how important demographically, since they were more northern populations. My guess is that you're proposing it because the currently available samples, even the aristocrat, were lower on steppe than you'd like I imagine based on your general views. ;-)


The genetic exchange with Anatolia would surely have been considerable over time, considering all the Greek-speaking cities in Ionia or the Pontus, and the displacement of all these Anatolian Greeks to European Greece after 1918. Iosif Lazaridis is himself a Greek whose family hails from the Pontus region. It's baffling that he shouldn't have considered the impact of over 2000 years of intermingling with neighbouring Anatolian populations on those Greek communities that later resettled in the modern state of Greece.

Pontic Greeks were a minority of the total exchanged while West Anatolian Greeks (the bulk of the Anatolian exchangees) were Ottoman-era immigrants from southern Greece and the islands to Anatolia, not native remnants of Byzantium. So this particular example, which often pops up, is not particularly good. But continuing interactions with Anatolia and Northeast Europe in post-Bronze Age times were obviously the case and that's evident in the data. But by definition we can't tell if autosomal admixture comes from a population that's already autosomally similar like in the case of the Canaanites and the modern Lebanese.

@Cato, that's possible - or some of the Beaker-influenced cultures in the West Balkans. Clever modelling will likely not get us anywhere closer to a solution is my guess but more Y-DNA might.

Genetiker
03-08-17, 15:36
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls for Minoans and Mycenaeans (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/y-snp-calls-for-minoans-and-mycenaeans/)

Pax Augusta
03-08-17, 16:10
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:
Y-SNP calls for Minoans and Mycenaeans (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/y-snp-calls-for-minoans-and-mycenaeans/)
Thaks for sharing.

I0070 Minoan 2000–1700 J2a1d-M319*

Ben Affleck's Haplogroup. If I'm not mistaken, he descends from this Scottish man.
Robert Affleck, Born about 1785 in Urr, Kirkcudbright, Scotland

Maciamo
03-08-17, 16:25
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls for Minoans and Mycenaeans (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/y-snp-calls-for-minoans-and-mycenaeans/)

Great! Just as Azzurro and I had predicted! J1-Z1828 and J2a1-M319.

G2a-CTS946 is G2a-P303, so typically Anatolian, be it from the Neolithic or Bronze Age. It's not possible to determine if it's a Neolithic remnant or a newcomer.

Pax Augusta
03-08-17, 16:31
There is something I don't understand in the admixture analysis from the paper. Modern Greeks from Thessaloniki are shown as having 20% of red EHG, 20% of pink CHG, 59% of blue ENF and 1% of dark green Natufian, but they completely lack the purple admixture that makes up 35-100% of Neolithic Greeks, 15-30% of Minoans and 25-45% of Mycenaeans. It's also missing from other modern Greeks and Cypriots.
I also disagree with Lazaridis and al. when they say that "Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry". Mycenaeans are much closer to the Minoans than to Modern Greeks. Modern Greeks have 3x more EHG (about 20%) than Mycenaeans (7%), but they also have WHG (3% according to D-stat). This suggests that numerous waves of European invaders (Dorians, Celts, Romans, Goths, Slavs) contributed to a large share of modern Greek DNA. Since obviously no invader to Greece were pure EHG, and none had more than 50% of EHG in average (30-35% might be more realistic as the Romans had comparatively low EHG), to increase from 7% to 20% of EHG, the percentage of post-Mycenaean DNA from European invaders must be comprised between 25% and 40%. Most of it will be blue ENF and pink CHG that won't be identifiable using these relatively simple admixtures. What we see is only the clear increase in EHG, which is only one third to half of the new invaders' DNA.
In other words modern Greeks are nothing like Mycenaean Greeks, and even less Minoan Greeks. Modern Greeks have much more European ancestry. Y-DNA alone suggests 40 to 45% of European lineages (as opposed to Near Eastern), and over 60% if we included E-V13 (E1b1b came from the Near East but E-V13 clearly emerged in Europe). Greeks possess lineages that are clearly Germanic (3.5% of I1, so about 10% of Germanic overall with I2a2-L801, R1b-U106 and R1a-L664), Slavic (11% of R1a, which is overwhelmingly M458 and CTS1211) and Italo-Celtic (about 7% of R1b-U152 and 1% of G2a-L497).

Not all modern Greeks are from Thessaloniki though. Modern Greeks from Thessaloniki are nowadays 22% of the Greek population. In 1913 in Greek Macedonia 42.6% of the people were Greek, less than half of the population of the Greek Macedonia.

Greek Macedonia 1913

Greeks 42.6% (513,000)
Bulgarians 9.9% (119,000)
Muslism 39.4% (475,000)
Others 8.1% (98,000)
Total 1,205,000

Greek Macedonia 1926 League of nations data after the population exchange between Greece and Turkey

Greeks 88.8% (1,341,000)
Bulgarians 5.1% (77,000)
Muslims 0.1% (2,000)
Others 6.0% (91,000)
Total 1,511,000

Greek Macedonia 1928 Census data Language

Greek language 82.52% (1,165,553)
Slavic dialects 5.72% (80,789)
Turkish 5.09% (71,960)
Ladino (Judaeo-Spanish) 4.19 (59,146)
Aromanian 0.95% (13,475)
Armenian 0.84% (11,859)
Other 0.69% (9,695)
Total 1,412,477

So not all the modern Greeks are like the sample from Thessaloniki and have 20% EHG. Central Greeks and Peloponnesians are 50% of the modern Greek population. Lazaridis says that "Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry" because he is aware that Greeks from Thessaloniki can't be used as a proxy for the whole population of Greece.

2001 Greek Census

Macedonia 22% (2,424,765)
Thessaly 6,8% (753,888)
Thrace 3.30% (362,038)
Epirus 3.21% (353,822)
Central Greece 42% (4,591,568)
Peloponnese 10.5% (1,155,019)
Aegean Islands 4.63% (508,807)
Crete 5.48% (601,131)
Ionian Islands 1.93% ( 212,984)
______

Greece mainland total 87.9% (9,641,098)
Greece (islands) total 12.1% (1,322,922)
_____
Greece total 100% (10,964,020)

Pax Augusta
03-08-17, 16:35
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature23310-sf8.jpg

Angela
03-08-17, 17:02
It is what it is: whatever yDna the new group that moved into Greece carried, the impact was slight. The analysis in the Supplement is more than excellent, including a new statistical tool that hasn't even been formally released yet, but will soon make its way into Admixtools, I'm sure. The data was analyzed in every possible way. It has to be read carefully. The "steppe" impact was 4-16% or 13-18% depending on the method used. That makes sense because wherever the origin, there would have been dilution all along the way.

The modern Greeks have steppe ancestry of about 20%, and that's in more northern areas. What huge impact did the Slavs have? How does this invalidate the argument for continuity?

Surely we don't have to go over again how yDna is not a reliable predictor of total ancestry? Nor should we have to keep saying again and again that without ancient dna it's all just speculation.

As I elaborated upon above, the impact of the steppe people is going to be very different when encountering a densely populated, culturally advanced area than when reaching large un-or-depopulated areas.

Most modern day Greeks have the majority of their ancestry from people who have been in Greece since the Neolithic. If you extend that to the Bronze Age, it's the vast majority of their ancestry.

Oh, I had forgotten to point to this part of the supporting information.

Symmetry testing of Mycenaeans with Modern Greek populations. He does analyze some samples from Thessaloniki. Take a look.


See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature23310_SF8.html

Ed.
@Pax, I see we cross-posted. Thanks for posting the actual graphic.

People should really take a look at the map of the areas we're talking about, which I posted upthread. Most of northern Greece was "colonized" by the Greeks, often not until the period of classical Greece. I have in the past posted papers documenting that. It's easily checked.

David Reich, Nick Patterson, and Wolfgang Haak, Krause, etc. are not Greeks of any variety. Claiming ethnic bias is really not going to work in this case.

Sakattack
03-08-17, 17:18
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls for Minoans and Mycenaeans (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/y-snp-calls-for-minoans-and-mycenaeans/)

Where is this Anatolian sample from? And what can we say about him autosomally by comparing him with the Minoans? Close? Identical?

He looks like my forefather (J1a2-z1828), Ι am Anatolian Greek (Cappadocian).

BTW, how close to the modern Greek Islanders, Cretans and Anatolian Greeks (people that lack mostly the historical era northern admixtures) are plotting these BA samples? Or the Sicilians are the closest call?

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 17:21
First nordicists were like:

https://media.giphy.com/media/WyAMxMekMFSXC/giphy.gif

Now they're like:

http://www.propbay.com/attachments/original/11477d1391787343-achilles-brad-pitt-body-armor-troy8.jpg

blevins13
03-08-17, 17:53
First nordicists were like:

https://media.giphy.com/media/WyAMxMekMFSXC/giphy.gif

Now they're like:

http://www.propbay.com/attachments/original/11477d1391787343-achilles-brad-pitt-body-armor-troy8.jpg

Not really....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

LATGAL
03-08-17, 17:54
Angela, I'd say that very local continuity (except in some cases) is non-existent in the Balkans anyway (and many other places) since you had plenty of local depopulations, migrations all over and inter-mixing. We aren't going to get a detailed history of general autosomal change, let alone a local one, of the Balkans with these preliminary results of course but they show that certain 'eastern' changes some people were already expecting for this period based on archaeology and linguistics did happen (and others were associating *solely* with all sorts of later events due to certain biases that we all have ;-)). And going by current samples (and always being open to revision), it seems like post-Bronze Age 'northern' ancestry had more impact in Greece than did 'eastern/southern' one and actually drew later Greeks closer to 'mainstream Europe'.

And yes, a very good chunk of contemporary northern Greece might not have been particularly 'Greek' at all until archaic times when the Argeads settled in lower Macedonia, ousted/assimilated the Thracian-Paeonian-Phrygian locals and started expanding (that is, if we consider the Macedonians-proper to have been Greek-speaking which my biased self does). The question of course is to what extent we can trace those likely relatively small populations before they definitively appear in history and how separate we expect them to be compared to their neighbors who were Indo-European-speaking Balkanites too.

Now I'm wondering whether South and Central Italy were already CHG-shifted in this period and the supposition of the ss/nth substratum expanding all the way to Italy from Anatolia based on some Italian place-names was for real (but they might just be unrelated even if the change happened by the Bronze Age). The extra-steppe Armenoi sample seems to be particularly close to Tuscans and mainland Greeks on PCA anyway.

blevins13
03-08-17, 18:12
YEAH! Finally.

See: Lazaridis et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html?foxtrotcallback=true



"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref2), and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref3) and Iran4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 5 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref5). However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref7), 8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref8), introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9) or Armenia4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9). Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

Admixture analysis- See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature23310_SF1.html

Y dna from page 52 of the supplement:
8992

The Bronze Age Anatolia individual:
"This individual wasancestral for the major subclade3 P58 (J1a2b; previously designated3 J1e) and could thus bedesignated as J1a(xJ1a2b)."

"I0070 (Minoan from Lasithi)This individual was derived for mutation M319:15467785T->A (J2a1d) as well as upstream mutationsL26:22942897T->C (J2a1) and M410:2751678A->G, L212:22711465T->C (J2a). He was not foundto be ancestral for any downstream mutations and could be designated as J2a1d. Haplogroup M319was found4 at a frequency of 8.8% in one sample set of 193 present-day Cretans (95% confidenceinterval from the binomial distribution 5.2-13.7%) and 5.4% in another set5 of 168 Cretans (95% C.I.:2.5-10%), but no examples were found in a combined sample set of 171 Greeks from three locationsnear early Neolithic settlements in mainland Greece (95% C.I: 0-2.1%). A re-analysis4 of large set of523 present-day Anatolian males6 revealed only 2 examples of M319 in this population (95% C.I.: 0-1.4%). Thus, it appears plausible that this represents a Y-chromosome lineage that existed in MinoanCrete but was at a lower (or absent) frequency in neighboring mainland Greece and Anatolia and itsoccurrence in present-day Cretans represents continuity with those of the Bronze Age."

"I0073 (Minoan from Lasithi)This individual was derived for mutation L26:22942897T->C (J2a1) as well as upstream mutationsM410, L559, L152 (J2a). He was ancestral for several downstream haplogroups: M322:15469740C->A (J2a1a), L560:21899860C->T (J2a1b1a), M166:21764694C->T (J2a1b2), M68:21878700A->G(J2a1c), M339:2881367T->G (J2a1e), L24:14286528G->A (J2a1h), L88.2:17595842T->C andL198:17595861A->C (J2a1i). He could thus be designated as J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1a, J2a1b2, J2a1c,J2a1e, J2a1h, J2a1i)."

"I9130 (Minoan from Moni Odigitria)This individual was derived for mutations CTS946:7100848A->G (G2a2b2a) and upstream mutationsF3088:20813445G->A and M3397:21605685G->C (G2a). He was ancestral for downstreammutations CTS4803:15833180G->A (G2a2b2a1b1a2a) and Z3423:19251438G->T (G2a2b2a1c1a).He could thus be designated as G2a2b2a(xG2a2b2a1b1a2a, G2a2b2a1c1a). G2a2 Y-chromosomeswere common in Neolithic Europe7, western Anatolia8,9, and Neolithic mainland Greece9. We havealso re-analyzed data from a recent study of central Anatolian Neolithic genomes10, determining thatthey were present there during both the Aceramic phase at Boncuklu (2 G2a2b2b samples) and later atTepecik-Çiftlik (1 G2a2a sample). Plausibly, the Minoan from Moni Odigitria who belonged to thislineage was also related to the same group of early Neolithic farmers as those from Europe, mainlandGreece, and Anatolia."

"I9041 (Mycenaean from Galatas Apatheia in the Peloponnese)This individual was derived for mutations L26:22942897T->C and F4326:23021978A->G (J2a1) aswell as upstream mutations M410:2751678A->G, L559:21674327A->G, L152:22243566C->T,L212:22711465T->C (J2a). He was ancestral for M322:15469740C->A (J2a1a), M260:15025506G->A and M92:21904023T->C (J2a1b1), M166:21764694C->T (J2a1b2), L210:16492197A->T(J2a1b3), M68:21878700A->G (J2a1c), M339:2881367T->G (J2a1e), P81:6739856G->A (J2a1g),L207.1:6753448A->G and L24:14286528G->A (J2a1h), L88.2:17595842T->C andL198:17595861A->C (J2a1i). He could thus be designated as J2a1x(J2a1a, J2a1b1, J2a1b2, J2a1c,J2a1e, J2a1g, J2a1h, J2a1i)."

"More sampling of ancient populations is needed to establish the presence (and frequency) ofhaplogroup J in the Aegean and neighboring regions). However, (i) the great time depth of itspresence in the Caucasus/Iran, together with (ii) its low frequency/absence in NeolithicGreece/Anatolia, and (iii) its appearance in the samples of our study, lead us to believe that it mayhave accompanied the genetic admixture (Neolithic Iran/Caucasus-hunter-gatherer related) that seemsto have affected all populations in our study (Supplementary Information, section 2). Thus, the Ychromosometurnover that occurred in central Europe during the Bronze Age7,19 may also haveoccurred in the Aegean, with a different set of incoming lineages."

So we've been saying here for a long time. Perhaps it's time to put some of the more exotic explanations to rest.

Very interesting, but I was not able to understand where the indoeuropian language came from??

Angela
03-08-17, 18:32
Angela, I'd say that very local continuity (except in some cases) is non-existent in the Balkans anyway (and many other places) since you had plenty of local depopulations, migrations all over and inter-mixing. We aren't going to get a detailed history of general autosomal change, let alone a local one, of the Balkans with these preliminary results of course but they show that certain 'eastern' changes some people were already expecting for this period based on archaeology and linguistics did happen (and others were associating *solely* with all sorts of later events due to certain biases that we all have ;-)). And going by current samples (and always being open to revision), it seems like post-Bronze Age 'northern' ancestry had more impact in Greece than did 'eastern/southern' one and actually drew later Greeks closer to 'mainstream Europe'.

And yes, a very good chunk of contemporary northern Greece might not have been particularly 'Greek' at all until archaic times when the Argeads settled in lower Macedonia, ousted/assimilated the Thracian-Paeonian-Phrygian locals and started expanding (that is, if we consider the Macedonians-proper to have been Greek-speaking which my biased self does). The question of course is to what extent we can trace those likely relatively small populations before they definitively appear in history and how separate we expect them to be compared to their neighbors who were Indo-European-speaking Balkanites too.

Now I'm wondering whether South and Central Italy were already CHG-shifted in this period and the supposition of the ss/nth substratum expanding all the way to Italy from Anatolia based on some Italian place-names was for real (but they might just be unrelated even if the change happened by the Bronze Age). The extra-steppe Armenoi sample seems to be particularly close to Tuscans and mainland Greeks on PCA anyway.

This is, in my opinion, the "heart" of the ancient Greek world, maybe reaching a bit more into the western coast of Anatolia:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/70/d2/dd/70d2ddcdb933ebb9b75996b305fa0148.gif
As you acknowledge, "a good chunk of contemporary northern Greece might not have been particularly 'Greek' at all" until later on. Indeed, some of the "colonies" date to the same period when colonies were being sent to southern Italy and Greece. As I said it is well documented, and I've previously pointed to papers which detail the colonizations. The genetics of the people in these more northern areas may bear the mark of that prior population base to this day. That also is what it is..Of course, it's all on a cline.

With regard to your first paragraph, I'm with Fire-Haired on this one, and population geneticists for that matter. Significant genetic change comes from significant folk migrations. Ydna change fluctuates a lot more. Some groups in West Africa are mostly R1b V88. That doesn't stop them from being West Africans indistinguishable from their neighbors on every genetic measure other than yDna, which is about 2% of their ancestry.

Those significant folk migrations are pulses separated by thousands of years. For vast stretches of time people were born, lived and died right where their ancestors did, especially the "peasants", who were always the biggest chunk of the population. If you'll permit a personal digression, my family tree, particularly on my father's side, goes back to an extremely circumscribed area of a few villages for six hundred years. No in, no out. If there were written genealogical records I'm sure the line would go all the way back to 1000 AD or thereabouts when the villages were founded. That's 1000 years. That happened in a lot of places, and especially in places like Italy and a lot of Greece, which are very mountainous and also surrounded by water. Geography has a lot to do with genetics.

Look at England. There was a Neolithic migration. Then there was depopulation, followed by a huge movement of what look to be Bell Beaker like people from Central Europe in the Bronze Age. After that, nothing, although remaining Neolithic remnants might have then been incorporated, partly explaining the more "southern" shift in modern Britain. Perhaps there was a trickle of Roman era type people, but nothing significant. Then, a folk migration of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes etc. after the fall of Rome, which even then only tracks to about 30% of modern ancestry. After that, only changes around the edges from people like the Normans, who would have been mostly "Gallic" by then.

That's the way it works from what I can see. Significant folk migrations bringing significant change, separated by long periods of stasis and a few smaller migrations tinkering with the percentages around the edges.

About Italy I honestly don't know. It's a black hole in terms of ancient dna, which is the only thing that will straighten it out. Contrary to the expectations of some, the steppe movements of the Bronze Age didn't work out the same way in all places, so we'll see if Italy is like Iberia and Greece or slightly different. What I have gone on record saying is that I believe there was a lot of gene flow into Italy from across the Adriatic. We'll see if I was right.

I just wish one of the "big guns", i.e. the Reich Lab, or Allentoft, or Max Plank were doing the analysis of ancient Italian dna. I don't have particularly high hopes for the group that is working on it.

IronSide
03-08-17, 18:34
I feel good for some reason :) Congratulations to all who predicted the Y-haplogroups before, very well done.

What can these results tell us about the origin of some of the Minoans social and religious practices like bull leaping and the goddesses they shared with the Indus Valley Civilisation? We had this discussion before, and it didn't help that there was no proof of the Minoans "eastern" ancestry, until now.

The component that these two ancient populations shared was the Iran Neolithic/CHG like admixture, and so we can theorize for the existence of a "proto culture" for an expanding people, very much like the Proto Indo-Europeans, migrating east, west, and north, from that part of the world.

The migration east was in my opinion, with the advance of agriculture, based on the age of the J2 lineages of South Asia, they seem to be older than the subclades that migrated west, which date to the beginning of the Bronze Age. If we were to assume the existence of this ancestral "proto-culture" then can we predict that their languages were also related? of course, we don't know anything about both languages and it may have been the language of the locals, with no language replacement.

bicicleur
03-08-17, 18:36
With riddles you speak, old man :)

yes, it's more like a question than an answer

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 18:48
yes, it's more like a question than an answer

Cultural and technological transmission can occur without genetic transmission.
Chariots and sword making technology can be sold and reverse engineered to the ruling classes of other societies, yeah?

David Reich makes this point at the 32 minute mark of this video. He uses the spread of beakers among heterogenous populations to
demonstrate that people copy each others ideas:


https://youtu.be/IZjbp_LepPM?t=32m57s

Dianatomia
03-08-17, 18:58
Just eyeballing it, the modern Northern Greeks look like they have about 20% "steppe" as defined by Yamnaya, and that's after the Slavic invasions and it's in the north. The Mycenaeans were at about 13%. So, I'm afraid your fantasies and your trying to provoke Greeks are not based on facts, as usual.

Given this data, 13% steppe, why exactly would people assume we'd be finding lots of R1a? I'm not saying there isn't some and it won't show up, btw.

I am not surprised by the results. Antropologist have already proven this more than a century ago. They all noted that Greece has changed surprisingly little since the Bronze Age. And they do add that since the Mycenean era an extra component was added to the population. That said, we should not ignore the Dorians. They did come from the North (like the proto-hellenes) and they could have been more northern admixture. So I do not exclude some more Northern impact on classical Greeks.

What we do need to understand is that perhaps, Myceneans does not equal proto-Greeks.

Angela
03-08-17, 19:01
This is, in my opinion, the "heart" of the ancient Greek world, maybe reaching a bit more into the western coast of Anatolia:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/70/d2/dd/70d2ddcdb933ebb9b75996b305fa0148.gif
As you acknowledge, "a good chunk of contemporary northern Greece might not have been particularly 'Greek' at all" until later on. Indeed, some of the "colonies" date to the same period when colonies were being sent to southern Italy and Greece. As I said it is well documented, and I've previously pointed to papers which detail the colonizations. The genetics of the people in these more northern areas may bear the mark of that prior population base to this day. That also is what it is..Of course, it's all on a cline.

With regard to your first paragraph, I'm with Fire-Haired on this one, and population geneticists for that matter. Significant genetic change comes from significant folk migrations. Ydna change fluctuates a lot more. Some groups in West Africa are mostly R1b V88. That doesn't stop them from being West Africans indistinguishable from their neighbors on every genetic measure other than yDna, which is about 2% of their ancestry.

Those significant folk migrations are pulses separated by thousands of years. For vast stretches of time people were born, lived and died right where their ancestors did, especially the "peasants", who were always the biggest chunk of the population. If you'll permit a personal digression, my family tree, particularly on my father's side, goes back to an extremely circumscribed area of a few villages for six hundred years. No in, no out. If there were written genealogical records I'm sure the line would go all the way back to 1000 AD or thereabouts when the villages were founded. That's 1000 years. That happened in a lot of places, and especially in places like Italy and a lot of Greece, which are very mountainous and also surrounded by water. Geography has a lot to do with genetics.

Look at England. There was a Neolithic migration. Then there was depopulation, followed by a huge movement of what look to be Bell Beaker like people from Central Europe in the Bronze Age. After that, nothing, although remaining Neolithic remnants might have then been incorporated, partly explaining the more "southern" shift in modern Britain. Perhaps there was a trickle of Roman era type people, but nothing significant. Then, a folk migration of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes etc. after the fall of Rome, which even then only tracks to about 30% of modern ancestry. After that, only changes around the edges from people like the Normans, who would have been mostly "Gallic" by then.

That's the way it works from what I can see. Significant folk migrations bringing significant change, separated by long periods of stasis and a few smaller migrations tinkering with the percentages around the edges.

About Italy I honestly don't know. It's a black hole in terms of ancient dna, which is the only thing that will straighten it out. Contrary to the expectations of some, the steppe movements of the Bronze Age didn't work out the same way in all places, so we'll see if Italy is like Iberia and Greece or slightly different. What I have gone on record saying is that I believe there was a lot of gene flow into Italy from across the Adriatic. We'll see if I was right.

I just wish one of the "big guns", i.e. the Reich Lab, or Allentoft, or Max Plank were doing the analysis of ancient Italian dna. I don't have particularly high hopes for the group that is working on it.

Ed. To be clear, the mixing population into the "natives" of Greece which brought this steppe related ancestry need not have been directly from the steppe, i.e. Yamnaya itself, and probably was not, imo. If it came from the Balkans, as is more likely, imo, than Armenia, it would have been mixed with EEF itself, and maybe even some CHG if it had already arrived, so yes, to get an idea of the actual population turnover we would need a comparison of Bronze Age Balkan people with the Mycenaeans. So yes, the EEF/Anatolian farmer genes in modern Greeks might have come from north of Mycenae.

Also, we need to get a handle on the Bronze Age collapse and its effects on the genome. Might the Dorians have had a slightly different genetic make-up? Perhaps slightly more "steppe", even if it had a more "western" flavor after quite a bit of admixing? We need samples from that area and time period to know.

Angela
03-08-17, 19:02
I am not surprised by the results. Antropologist have already proven this more than a century ago. They all noted that Greece has changed surprisingly little since the Bronze Age. And they do add that since the Mycenean era an extra component was added to the population. That said, we should not ignore the Dorians. They did come from the North (like the proto-hellenes) and they could have been more northern admixture. So I do not exclude some more Northern impact on classical Greeks.

What we do need to understand is that perhaps, Myceneans does not equal proto-Greeks.

Then who does? The Mycenaeans are in the heart of ancient Greece and are the first people we can assert unequivocally spoke the Greek language.

To be sure, I'd like to get a look at the "Dorian" genomes, and most avidly of all, I'd like to see the genomes of the classical Greeks.

Angela
03-08-17, 19:04
Cultural and technological transmission can occur without genetic transmission.
Chariots and sword making technology can be sold and reverse engineered to the ruling classes of other societies, yeah?

David Reich makes this point at the 32 minute mark of this video. He uses the spread of beakers among heterogenous populations to
demonstrate that people copy each others ideas:


https://youtu.be/IZjbp_LepPM?t=32m57s

Indeed. Chariots spread all the way to Egypt very quickly as these things go. Did they have lots of steppe ancestry too? Anyone who hasn't read the Egyptian ancient dna paper shouldn't answer. :)

MOESAN
03-08-17, 19:04
Most light hair and eyes came in middle ages. In ancient and prehistoric Greece, it was rare if not non existent.

A bit too affirmative? In ancient time dark hair pigmentation (in the general sense: brownish black to jet black) was I think the rule among inhabitants of today Greece like in the current pop. At the I-E times it would have been very close to the today Greece one too: later times send a bit more depigmented people, but not a lot. BTW, today people of Creta are LIGHTER pigmented than continental Greece...
But my point was: Greeks on the phenotypic level don't have 79% of "middle hues" hair: no pop has; to be of some use we have to divide this big bag into more than one: the english term "brown" is very unuseful in phenotypes: it spans a too wide range of colours; by dividing this category we can show very evident differences between pops, in hues AND surely in concerned genotypes, differences concealed by this terminology - Greeks of today are dominantly dark haired, about 66 to 70% at least (cf Portugal: about 78%, Cyprus about 80%, Spain about 60%, Arabic countries between 90 to 98%, more often over 95%: all that makes sense), and seldomly light, under 3% I think (as a mean). The remnant is middle mixed hues, not over 30% all the way in Greece. This concerning still wide categories. Every category has subcategories which implies at least partly distinct genetic background. If the study of todate known genotypes dont allow more precision it shows we are not already aware of all the acting genes on hair pigmentation and their way to act, or maybe, that we have a general feeling of which ones cause some depigmentation, but without more info about the depth of this depigmentation.
Personally I think the dominance in pigmentation can be broken down after some generations of crossing and that a lot of middle hues are not the result of specific mutated genes but the result of interaction of diverse genes (causing dark or light) after crossings. No proof, only feeling (I'm not genetist).
I answer you here but this is aside the principal topic about haplo's (poor) and auDNA and their discussed origins.
I think auDNA is useful but uneasy to interpret for pops mixed since a long time, with common ancient ancestors, whose genes have been acquired more than a time in diverse times and places: wide place to intepretation: the help of archeology and other tools is needed I think (I'm very little knowledged in archeology aside some general info's).
My vague feelings todate are: some pops attained Creta and Greece at EBA (and even Eneolithic) from Anatolia, already crossed with Iranic farmers and Caucasian HG's descendants (after metals acquisition). later came pops - since MBA? - from North (Carpathian Bassin, then the rivers, not the mountainous Balkans), with maybe some precited elements but with more Eastern (EHG/WHG) and Central Europe elements (EEF/WHG): very general but senseful I think. AuDNA in itself cannot be very more precise without help of other tools and without numerous uniparental haplo's. and the socail classes discrimination too coud be useful.

A. Papadimitriou
03-08-17, 19:27
Stone Henge and the Minoan civilization were created by very close relatives, mind blowing. Both were 70-80% EEF.

Another interesting thing is both the Minoans and the Egyptians were indigenous to their separate regions. Egyptians mostly Levant_Neo, Minoans mostly Anatolia_Neo. Both were indigenous, descended from the primitive stone age people that lived in their regions 1,000s of years earlier.

I had said that the megalithic European passage tombs and the 'tomb of Agamemnon' are conceptually similar.

Dianatomia
03-08-17, 19:29
Then who does?

The people who carried the IE language prior to their arrival in Greece. To say that Myceneans are proto-Greeks is to say that current Balkan Slavs are are proto-Slavs.

I supported many times that mainland Greek ancestry is more limited in the islands because it went through more phases of intermixture, hence the autochtonous ancestry pervails. Same is true for the Myceneans vs the proto-Hellenes who migrated to what is now Greece.

The thing is, those proto-Hellenes are not the catch. It is the dominant, numerically superior, indigenous people around the Aegean which are the carriers of ancient Greek civilization. The Minoans, the Greeks in the Anatolian coasts, the Dorians etc. Why claim the Myceneans if Greeks from Anatolia had an equal share in making Greek civilization flourish? People where so focused on the Myceneans because they argued that they somehow brought fire to the people (to use an example of Greek mythology). The newcomers were however a simple addition. Greece is just absorbing layers of newcomers since before the Bronze Age. The proto-Hellenes were just one of them. And they were not the Myceneans. They were already absorbed.

At the very least I would argue that the Proto-Greeks were the one who occupied parts of Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia. They went South and mixed with more numerous Minoan like peoples. They were absorbed to become the early Myceneans.

Pratt
03-08-17, 19:31
Has anyone already uploaded Minoans and Mycenaeans on GEDmatch?



The extra-steppe Armenoi sample seems to be particularly close to Tuscans and mainland Greeks on PCA anyway.

Crete Armenoi is more southeastern than Tuscans (Tuscans are a western version of Greek_Thessaloniki in Lazaridis' PCA). Crete Armenoi is closer to modern Greeks, or just intermediate between Greek_Thessaloniki and Sicilians. Anyway, Lazaridis has said that Crete Armenoi is a low quality sample, can't be labelled Minoan or Mycenaean.


http://i.imgur.com/WK6QnI2.png

Dianatomia
03-08-17, 19:37
Crete Armenoi is more southeastern than Tuscans (Tuscans are a western version of Greek_Thessaloniki in Lazaridis' PCA). Crete Armenoi is closer to modern Greeks, or just intermediate between Greek_Thessaloniki and Sicilians. Anyway, Lazaridis has said that Crete Armenoi is a low quality sample, can't be labelled Minoan or Mycenaean.


There is a trend though. Since it is post Mycenean it may be closer to classical era Greeks and it has more Northern admixture.

Pratt
03-08-17, 19:39
There is a trend though. Since it is post Mycenean it may be closer to classical era Greeks and it has more Northern admixture.

For sure it has more Northern admixture.

Angela
03-08-17, 19:40
There is a trend though. Since it is post Mycenean it may be closer to classical era Greeks and it has more Northern admixture.

There's a trend only if more ancient dna shows she wasn't an anomaly.

Angela
03-08-17, 19:43
Has anyone already uploaded Minoans and Mycenaeans on GEDmatch?




Crete Armenoi is more southeastern than Tuscans (Tuscans are a western version of Greek_Thessaloniki in Lazaridis' PCA). Crete Armenoi is closer to modern Greeks, or just intermediate between Greek_Thessaloniki and Sicilians. Anyway, Lazaridis has said that Crete Armenoi is a low quality sample, can't be labelled Minoan or Mycenaean.


http://i.imgur.com/WK6QnI2.png

Thank you Pratt. Do you know where this tweet appeared?

It's nitpicking, but I think some Tuscans are north of Thessaloniki, as well as west.

Pratt
03-08-17, 19:53
Thank you Pratt. Do you know where this tweet appeared?

It originally appeared on Lazaridis' twitter account as a reply to @PreznitCamacho, @PaIeodeadlift and other two.

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/892931776372498434


It's nitpicking, but I think some Tuscans are north of Thessaloniki, as well as west.

Yes, Northwest I think.

Angela
03-08-17, 20:05
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=516180#post516180)
Stone Henge and the Minoan civilization were created by very close relatives, mind blowing. Both were 70-80% EEF.

Another interesting thing is both the Minoans and the Egyptians were indigenous to their separate regions. Egyptians mostly Levant_Neo, Minoans mostly Anatolia_Neo. Both were indigenous, descended from the primitive stone age people that lived in their regions 1,000s of years earlier.

Papadimitriou;516246]I had said that the megalithic European passage tombs and the 'tomb of Agamemnon' are conceptually similar.[/QUOTE]

Yes, both very good observations. That hadn't immediately occurred to me.

People need to get over it, already.

Ancient Greeks weren't Nordic, they weren't Corded Ware (or Slavic) or anything similar. (I don't get the point of the pictures of Brad Pitt btw. What's the difference before and after?)

Ancient Egyptians weren't SSA either.

These kinds of agendas don't belong in discussions of population genetics.

LATGAL
03-08-17, 20:05
Pratt, you're right of course but it seems to be closest to Tuscans and mainland Greeks of all populations on a PCA but with some differences to both. David of Eurogenes made one with non-projected samples: http://i.imgur.com/yztc6dl.png

The Armenoi sample seems to be shifted towards the direction of various Beaker and Corded samples relative to the Mycenaean cluster.

blevins13
03-08-17, 20:09
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=516180#post516180)
Stone Henge and the Minoan civilization were created by very close relatives, mind blowing. Both were 70-80% EEF.

Another interesting thing is both the Minoans and the Egyptians were indigenous to their separate regions. Egyptians mostly Levant_Neo, Minoans mostly Anatolia_Neo. Both were indigenous, descended from the primitive stone age people that lived in their regions 1,000s of years earlier.

Papadimitriou;516246]I had said that the megalithic European passage tombs and the 'tomb of Agamemnon' are conceptually similar.

Yes, both very good observations. That hadn't immediately occurred to me.

People need to get over it, already.

Ancient Greeks weren't Nordic, they weren't Corded Ware (or Slavic) or anything similar. (I don't get the point of the pictures of Brad Pitt btw. What's the difference before and after?)

Ancient Egyptians weren't SSA either.

These kinds of agendas don't belong in discussions of population genetics.[/QUOTE]

Brad Pit is injured by an arrow in the second one.....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
03-08-17, 20:11
The Armenoi sample is from a site dated to 1390-1190 BCE, close to the time of the Bronze Age Collapse.


Page 22 of the Supplement...
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature23310-s1.pdf

The specific sample is dated to 1370 to 1340 BC.

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 20:12
Ancient Greeks weren't Nordic (or Slavic), they weren't Corded Ware or anything similar. (I don't get the point of the pictures of Brad Pitt btw. What's the difference before and after.)

First gif tried to portray the smug fantasy of those who project nordic/slavic on to ancient greek ruling classes via "steppe'ing" them.

Second gif is Brad Pitt's portrayal of Achilles being pierced with an arrow, i.e. the march of science annihilating the nordicist fantasy and simplification of world history.

On a meta level, the movie Troy(2004) was full of this type of stuff so I felt it extra appropriate.

Angela
03-08-17, 20:13
First gif tried to portray the smug fantasy of those who project nordic/slavic on to ancient greek ruling classes via "steppe'ing" them.

Second gif is Brad Pitt's portrayal of Achilles being pierced with an arrow, i.e. the march of science annihilating the nordicist fantasy and simplification of world history.

On a meta level, the movie Troy(2004) was full of this type of stuff so I felt it extra appropriate.

Ah, now I get it. :)

That movie was an abomination in terms of historicity on numerous levels, and even Brad Pitt's body couldn't save it for me, and it's a very nice body indeed.

Leandros
03-08-17, 20:25
Ah, now I get it. :)

That movie was an abomination in terms of historicity on numerous levels, and Brad Pitt's body couldn't save it.
300 was more accurate, in terms of historicity, even with persian depicted orcs ;)

Jovialis
03-08-17, 20:31
Yes, both very good observations. That hadn't immediately occurred to me.

People need to get over it, already.

Ancient Greeks weren't Nordic, they weren't Corded Ware (or Slavic) or anything similar. (I don't get the point of the pictures of Brad Pitt btw. What's the difference before and after?)

Ancient Egyptians weren't SSA either.

These kinds of agendas don't belong in discussions of population genetics.

Thus far we have seen:

Lebanese largely share a genetic continuity with Canaanites.

Britons largely shared a genetic continuity with Celts during the Roman Period. Genetics in England changed with the arrival and admixture with groups like the the Anglo-Saxons, and Normans. While the Romans and Vikings only left a marginal genetic impact.

Modern Greeks largely share a genetic continuity with the Mycenaean and Minoans. Moreover, Cyprus, Albania, Sicily, and Southern Italy have similar genetic continuity.

Egyptians retained their genetic continuity throughout the Roman Period. The shift towards more Yoruba admixture occurred during the Middle Ages.

So far it seems to me that the Roman Empire didn’t have a huge impact on changing the genetics of many places it occupied.

bicicleur
03-08-17, 20:32
Cultural and technological transmission can occur without genetic transmission.
Chariots and sword making technology can be sold and reverse engineered to the ruling classes of other societies, yeah?

David Reich makes this point at the 32 minute mark of this video. He uses the spread of beakers among heterogenous populations to
demonstrate that people copy each others ideas:


https://youtu.be/IZjbp_LepPM?t=32m57s

yes, but there was also a language switch
Minoan language is not deciphered yet, because it is not related to Greek/proto-Greek

whatever transmission there was and how it occured, it left a very deep impact

Leandros
03-08-17, 20:35
yes, but there was also a language switch
Minoan language is not deciphered yet, because it is not related to Greek/proto-Greek

whatever transmission there was and how it occured, it left a very deep impact
That what they thought about Linear B before it got translated.

Just because Linear A hasnt translated yet, doesnt mean that it is foreign.

You logically leap, making identical mistakes of past researchers about Linear B

bicicleur
03-08-17, 20:38
I feel good for some reason :) Congratulations to all who predicted the Y-haplogroups before, very well done.

What can these results tell us about the origin of some of the Minoans social and religious practices like bull leaping and the goddesses they shared with the Indus Valley Civilisation? We had this discussion before, and it didn't help that there was no proof of the Minoans "eastern" ancestry, until now.

The component that these two ancient populations shared was the Iran Neolithic/CHG like admixture, and so we can theorize for the existence of a "proto culture" for an expanding people, very much like the Proto Indo-Europeans, migrating east, west, and north, from that part of the world.

The migration east was in my opinion, with the advance of agriculture, based on the age of the J2 lineages of South Asia, they seem to be older than the subclades that migrated west, which date to the beginning of the Bronze Age. If we were to assume the existence of this ancestral "proto-culture" then can we predict that their languages were also related? of course, we don't know anything about both languages and it may have been the language of the locals, with no language replacement.

and what culture could this proto-culture be that predates both Minoan and Indus Valley?
can you identify such culture with bull-leaping and godesses?
if I recall well, there are some speculations about Elamite and Dravidian languages ..

Angela
03-08-17, 20:45
Thus far we have seen:

Lebanese largely share a genetic continuity with Canaanites.

Britons largely shared a genetic continuity with Celts during the Roman Period. Population in England changed with the arrival of groups like the the Anglo-Saxons, and Normans. While the Romans and Vikings only left a marginal genetic impact.

Modern Greeks largely share a genetic continuity with the Mycenaean and Minoans. Moreover, Cyprus, Albania, Sicily, and Southern Italy have similar genetic continuity.

Egyptians retained their genetic continuity throughout the Roman Period. The shift towards more Yoruba admixture occurred during the Middle Ages.

So far it seems to me that the Roman Empire didn’t have a huge impact on changing the genetics of many places it occupied.

I would agree with that, except that we don't have ancient dna from Sicily or Southern Italy or Albania for that matter. We'll see about those.

The Romans didn't want to move out of Italy it seems to me. They had no interest in living in Britain by and large, or along the Danube. Spain, and certainly southern France were probably different. They certainly liked Southern Italy. Two thousand years later, I was the same. I didn't want to move either, and I'm still going back someday, at least for half the year even after all my time here. I might even settle in the south. The north is changing too fast. :)

Seriously, what the Romans did was conquer. Then they instituted a process of Romanization, whereby they co-opted the local elites. Let us have our monopolies, of which you'll get your share, pay your taxes, use Latin for official business, and you can keep your local tongues (didn't last, btw, but it wasn't because the Romans mandated it, just the natural way of things), your local customs, and even your local gods, as long as you pay homage to the god of the Roman state to show your ultimate fealty to Rome.

By the time that Rome fell, there were people who identified as "Romans" in England, Gaul, Spain, even Greece, who weren't Roman at all genetically.

Now, soldiers from the Empire did go to far away places, take common law wives, and stay, or not, after their decades long service was over. However, in most places their dna was only a trickle, tinkering with the edges of the total genome of these places.

As I've said ad nauseam, big genetic change comes from significant folk migrations.

Johane Derite
03-08-17, 20:51
Now, soldiers from the Empire did go to far away places, take common law wives, and stay, or not, after their decades long service was over. However, in most places their dna was only a trickle, tinkering with the edges of the total genome of these places.

This site is a good resource. Its a "Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire"
http://dare.ht.lu.se/

bicicleur
03-08-17, 20:52
Indeed. Chariots spread all the way to Egypt very quickly as these things go. Did they have lots of steppe ancestry too? Anyone who hasn't read the Egyptian ancient dna paper shouldn't answer. :)

do you have a date for the 1st Egyptian charriots?
IMO the Mittanni were the 1st to spread charriots in the Levantine and Anatolian area, and the technical vocabulary they used was borrowed from Indic language
the Mittanni empire was built upon being the 1st with charriots in the area
it was from the Mittanni that the Egyptians and the Hittites copied charriots, which led to the downfall of the same Mittanni empire
even the early Hittites didn't have charriots - at least there is no proof of that, but a lot has been speculated by Orientalists
the Mittanni postdate the Myceaneans and they also postdate the BMAC downfall which IMO the most likely caused by Indic people related to those that introduced the charriot into the Mittanni court
it is very unlikely though that the Mittanni themselves spoke an Indic language and I also suspect that the genetic impact of those few Indic people into the Mittanni was very significant
with the Myceneans a language shift along with the introduction of swords and charriots (only as ceremonial status symbol) is likely - I don't think those neolithic Greeks spoke an IE language and neither did the Minoans
I am aware that there is a lot of speculation here but that seems the most plausible explanation to me

check this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikkuli

Kikkuli was the Hurrian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian) "master horse trainer" (assussanni, virtually Sanskrit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) aśva-sana-) of the land Mitanni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni)" (LÚA-AŠ-ŠU-UŠ-ŠA-AN-NI ŠA KUR URUMI-IT-TA-AN-NI) and author of a chariot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot)horse training (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_training) text written in the Hittite language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language), dating to the Hittite New Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites) (around 1400 BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1400s_BC_(decade))). The text is notable both for the information it provides about the development of Indo-European languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) and for its content.

he was Hurrian, but the technical vocabulary he used to introduce chariothorse training was Indic
the proper training of horses for battle may have been more dificult than the actual construction techniques to build the chariots

Angela
03-08-17, 21:05
300 was more accurate, in terms of historicity, even with persian depicted orcs ;)

More accurate for Greeks. (Except for Michael Fassbender: I like him a lot, but ancient Greek?) Of course, they had to darken Gerard Butler's hair, eyes, skin, and probably fiddle with his nose. They couldn't find a Southern European descended actor to bulk up like that? Whatever...

They took, as you imply, a lot of license with the Persians. Some of the troops were also decidedly Middle Eastern looking to me, all those black robes etc. Not that the Persians wouldn't have had a lot of troops from all over their Empire, but there was a lot of signalling going on.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kmgRv2V_7P4/maxresdefault.jpg

Angela
03-08-17, 21:12
The modern PCA:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png



Then take a look at the PCAs in this section:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature23310_SF5.html

Extended Data Figure 5: Correspondence of qpAdm estimates with PCA.




This is just one of the graphics:
8999

Click to enlarge.

Perhaps someone handier than I am at this can upload all of them in larger size.

If I'm mistaken, correct me, but the Mycenaeans are smack in the middle of the modern Sicilians, yes? I guess some people haven't read the whole paper yet.

Yetos
03-08-17, 21:32
@Maciamo

Maciamo ti si clear that Doris=ans never inveded Greece,
the one who invade are the Myceneans,

Lazarides just certified Triantafylides,
and allows the open space of Giannopoulos.

the I1 in Greece I doupt it is Germanic,
All genetists in Greece found and are certain that is paliolithic,
Sarakatsans are heavily in I1 and are consider the pre-glacial population of Greece.
in fact at all the palaiolithic congresses that is discussed,
and there is also one Y-Dna that is still kept in a kind of fog.
But I1 of Sarakatsans is considered the most ancient not only in Greece but in a wider area,

So indeed as Lazarides certified Triantafyllides then we have 11% paleolithic
59% post Glacial
20% Neolithic farmers
only 10 % of we call IE (Yamnaa etc)

on the other hand Giannopoulos believed that Descent Of Myceneans (NOTICE MYCENEANS NOT DORIANS as belived at 1928)
was a massive Huge devastation of IE from Vucedol/Vucocar/Vatin who came from Yamnaa and Steppe.
But it seems that Lazarides measures the same % that Triantafyllides claim
the 7-13% of Myceneans is From Vucedol or ProtoCetina,
so I think Lazrides results just certifies and unites the previous olders Triantafyllides and Giannopoulos,

in fact the question now is could 7-10-13% of Vucedol change the language to IE?
or the neolithic 20%, or ...?

the numbers of Lazarides simply certify the previous works done,
and give result in balance with older searches.

I agree that more Mycenean,
as also Thessalian and Makedonian Neolithic and Bronze age would give better results,
but not in very long from these,

as for North Greece
N Greece was Half NW Greeks and Half Thracians.
N Greece ones run out of men who moved by Alexander
N Greece was raided and habitetd by SLavs and enough mark of them is still here.
Gauls entered Greece but moved to North to end at Galateia,
the Gaulish remnants, especially in Kutsuk Vlachs are from Roman legions and Roman citizens.
The EXTRA SLAVIC mark is cause some Vlachs are from Slavic descent (Antes Romanised Slavs)

considering that Makedonia which is main body of N Greece,
was the land of heaven for Aromani Epirotans and Greeks of Balkans (Bulgaria Romania Albania Serbo-Croatia Istria Austria Hungary Alexandreia France Russia)
after 1860,
and the favorite tactic of Ottoman to break omogenous population was to devaste other populations,
that gives a strong change amore than 25% to be different and more North East and Central European.

as for mtDNA X2.
I am that rare mtDNA:laughing:
but it is possible in Greece to be X2 than to be U,

Jovialis
03-08-17, 21:37
The modern PCA:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png



Then take a look at the PCAs in this section:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature23310_SF5.html

Extended Data Figure 5: Correspondence of qpAdm estimates with PCA.


Perhaps someone handier than I am at this can upload all of them in larger size.

If I'm mistaken, correct me, but the Mycenaeans are smack in the middle of the modern Sicilians, yes? I guess some people haven't read the whole paper yet.

http://i.imgur.com/bbdfbqS.jpg (http://imgur.com/bbdfbqS)

Angela
03-08-17, 21:48
http://i.imgur.com/bbdfbqS.jpg (http://imgur.com/bbdfbqS)

Thank-you.

Listen, I'd love to find that the Myceneaens cluster with my half quasi-Tuscan/Ligurian) maternal side, but I don't think they're near us.

I've had to come to grips with ancient dna too. My father had me convinced when I was young that we were pure Romans and Etruscans. Those Celts were chased back to central Europe and the Germans were limited to benighted areas of the north-east.

You adjust. I'm still Italian.

Other people are going to have to adjust too, not to mention that someone who derives so much of his or her sense of self-worth from ancient migrations 5,000 years ago has a serious psychological and emotional problem imo.

@Yetos,

You're absolutely dead wrong, and particularly about this:
So indeed as Lazarides certified Triantafyllides then we have 11% paleolithic
59% post Glacial
20% Neolithic farmers
only 10 % of we call IE (Yamnaa etc)

Please read the paper, ok?

Trojet
03-08-17, 21:49
More recently I suggested that they also carried E-V13 and J2b lineages and that they may have been related to the Illyrians who invaded the Balkans around the same time.
Which "J2b" do you mean?
J2b2a-L283 found in Bronze Age Dalmatia, or J2b1-M205 found multiple times in Bronze Age Levant (www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34078-J2b-as-an-IE-lineages-of-the-ancient-Illyrians-Mycenaeans/page7?p=511487&viewfull=1#post511487)? Keep also in mind they split from each other ca. 15,900 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M102/), so it's almost like lumping all R1a and R1b into "R1".

davef
03-08-17, 21:53
^ thanks for posting that!

LATGAL
03-08-17, 22:05
Angela, on the non projection-biased PCA by David (check my previous post), the main Mycenaean cluster seems to be a bit closer to farmers than southern (islander?) Greeks and Italians are. Same with Armenoi but compared to more northern (central?) Greeks and Tuscans (and I assume south Albanians). Of course that's only part of the story etc.

I wanna see how the non-projected central-northern Balkan samples we got before plot too when he runs them. Based on their projected position, they seem like they'd plot somewhere close to North Italians/Iberians.

Angela
03-08-17, 22:07
Same old, same old...

So, some amateur, from a racist site like forumbiodiversity no less, does an analysis that purports to show that Greeks from Thessaly are 30% Ukrainian, and the rest Myceneaen means there's no continuity in Greece? Yeah, right.

Next time use a more proximate population too, while you're at it, and use some Peloponnese Greeks while you're at it.

No wonder Sikeliot and all his alter egos talking to each other have found a nest at anthrogenica now. Pathetic.

My days of occasionally reading some ancient dna posts there are over.

When you people are in the ranks of the foremost population geneticists in the world, and even understand the bioinformatics in this paper, bioinformatics produced by people like not only Lazaridis, but people like Nick Patterson, give me a holler.

,

Dianatomia
03-08-17, 22:10
There's a trend only if more ancient dna shows she wasn't an anomaly.

You are right. We need more specimens from Classical and/or Hellenistic Greece to verify such a thing. Perhaps also from Northern parts of Greece in the Mycenean era. But at this point it doesn't really matter. The point has been made, the genetic make-up of the Greeks for the last 5000 years is changing very slowly. At this point, it would seem that the 21st century will have most impact on the genetic pool of the Greek population since the Bronze Age. But this is true for many nations in Europe of course. It's evolution doing its job.

Jovialis
03-08-17, 22:27
Thank-you.

Listen, I'd love to find that the Myceneaens cluster with my half quasi-Tuscan/Ligurian) maternal side, but I don't think they're near us.

I've had to come to grips with ancient dna too. My father had me convinced when I was young that we were pure Romans and Etruscans. Those Celts were chased back to central Europe and the Germans were limited to benighted areas of the north-east.

You adjust. I'm still Italian.

Other people are going to have to adjust too, not to mention that someone who derives so much of his or her sense of self-worth from ancient migrations 5,000 years ago has a serious psychological and emotional problem imo.



I'm a little confused by what you mean, or if you are referring to me. Maybe I confused the article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4)that the modern populations from those areas in Sicily, southern Italy and Albania have a genetic similarity to modern Greeks from the mainland or islands; with them being related to Mycenaean and Minoans. But it's not something I need to comes to grips with. :laughing:

But yes, the ancient populations that lived in those areas could be significantly different, from before the Greeks arrived.

And yea, I do think it's weird that people think populations from 5,000 years ago is essential in measuring their self-worth.

Fustan
03-08-17, 22:27
Which "J2b" do you mean?
J2b2a-L283 found in Bronze Age Dalmatia, or J2b1-M205 found multiple times in Bronze Age Levant (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34078-J2b-as-an-IE-lineages-of-the-ancient-Illyrians-Mycenaeans/page7?p=511487&viewfull=1#post511487)? Keep also in mind they split from each other ca. 15,900 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M102/), so it's almost like lumping all R1a and R1b into "R1".

Didn't we already talk about this with Maciamo.. Why is he doing the same mistake over and over again.. Weird.

Angela
03-08-17, 22:28
Angela, on the non projection-biased PCA by David (check my previous post), the main Mycenaean cluster seems to be a bit closer to farmers than southern (islander?) Greeks and Italians are. Same with Armenoi but compared to more northern (central?) Greeks and Tuscans (and I assume south Albanians). Of course that's only part of the story etc.

I wanna see how the non-projected central-northern Balkan samples we got before plot too when he runs them. Based on their projected position, they seem like they'd plot somewhere close to North Italians/Iberians.

It would certainly be interesting to see all the ancient samples plotted together, especially the ones from not only the Balkans but from Anatolia and southern Italy when we get them.

For now, we do have, on the latest link I provided to the paper, both the actual and simulated Mycenaean plotted with Anatolia Neolithic, Armenia Chalcolithic, Steppe EMBA, Steppe MLBA, and Europe LMBA, and the Mycenaeans are nowhere near the steppe or even Europe LMBA, contrary to the confident prediction by Davidski/Polako from just a few weeks ago that they would be very steppe like. I'm sure that Balkan Bronze Age samples will be closer to Mycenaeans. That's a given imo.

(I'm adding that to my telephone directory sized list of his mistaken predictions.)

As for the rest, we'll see, but I'll tell you what I do know, and that's that the people from the Peloponnese are quite similar to Sicilians and southern Italians, and the authors of the paper who came to that conclusion are also authors here, if you missed it. In fact, the lead author of that paper is a primary contact for this one.

Angela
03-08-17, 22:36
I'm a little confused by what you mean, or if you are referring to me. Maybe I confused the article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4)that the modern populations from those areas in Sicily, southern Italy and Albania have a genetic similarity to modern Greeks from the mainland or islands; with them being related to Mycenaean and Minoans. But it's not something I need to comes to grips with. :laughing:

But yes, the ancient populations that lived in those areas could be significantly different, from before the Greeks arrived.

And yea, I do think it's weird that people think populations from 5,000 years ago is essential in measuring their self-worth.

No, sorry, not to you at all; it was a reaction to the data. Thanks again for uploading the graphic.

No, you don't seem to me to be one of the "complexed" members of the amateur population genetics community. Thank God for it, too; I don't know how many more of them I can take, and that's from all sides of the spectrum. :)

@Sile,
For all your diatribes about the Muslims entering Europe you're just like them. Every time I post a picture where the artist depicted a human being less than fully clothed, you down vote it. I guess you were fine with the Italian government officials' decision to put cloths over our great statues on the Campidoglio so as not to offend the visiting Iranians? Why don't you join the Taliban for goodness' sakes? There's nothing wrong or shameful about the naked human body so long as such depictions aren't meant to degrade people. Have you never taken an art history class? What is wrong with you?

blevins13
03-08-17, 22:56
No, sorry, not to you at all; it was a reaction to the data. Thanks again for uploading the graphic.

No, you don't seem to me to be one of the "complexed" members of the amateur population genetics community. Thank God for it, too; I don't know how many more of them I can take, and that's from all sides of the spectrum. :)

Hi Angela, how you explain IE language of Myceneas...I was not able to understand it from the paper....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Sile
03-08-17, 23:20
No, sorry, not to you at all; it was a reaction to the data. Thanks again for uploading the graphic.
No, you don't seem to me to be one of the "complexed" members of the amateur population genetics community. Thank God for it, too; I don't know how many more of them I can take, and that's from all sides of the spectrum. :)
@Sile,
For all your diatribes about the Muslims entering Europe you're just like them. Every time I post a picture where the artist depicted a human being less than fully clothed, you down vote it. I guess you were fine with the Italian government officials' decision to put cloths over our great statues on the Campidoglio so as not to offend the visiting Iranians? Why don't you joint the Taliban for goodness' sakes. What's wrong with the naked human body. Have you never taken an art history class? What is wrong with you?
what are you talking about........which post ? ....................

I am against every religious institute that promotes gender-racism

Sile
03-08-17, 23:43
Then who does? The Mycenaeans are in the heart of ancient Greece and are the first people we can assert unequivocally spoke the Greek language.

To be sure, I'd like to get a look at the "Dorian" genomes, and most avidly of all, I'd like to see the genomes of the classical Greeks.

IMO, Dorians are proto-epirotes

davef
04-08-17, 00:14
In the grid of PCAs posted by Jovialis, we have Minoans plotting with the Anatolian farmers in half of them, whereas they can be found just slightly south and east of Mycenaeans in the other half....could someone explain this inconsistency?

Yetos
04-08-17, 00:19
Angela

I stay to this

''This model makes geographicalsense, since a population movement from the vicinity of Armenia could have admixed with Anatolian Neolithic-related farmerson either side of the Aegean. However, Mycenaeans can also bemodelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations(Table 1 and Supplementary Information section 2), suggesting that,alternatively, ‘eastern’ ancestry arrived in both Crete and mainlandGreece, followed by about 13–18% admixture with a ‘northern’ steppepopulation in mainland Greece only. Such a scenario is also plausible:first, it provides a genetic correlate for the distribution of shared toponymsin Crete, mainland Greece, and Anatolia discovered in ref. 21;second, it postulates a single migration from the east; third, it proposessome gene flow from geographically contiguous areas to the northwhere steppe ancestry was present since at least the mid-third millenniumbc (refs 6, 9). We validated inferences from qpAdm by treatingsource populations as ‘ghosts’ and re-estimating mixture proportions4,by examining the correspondence between qpAdm estimates and PCA4(Extended Data Fig. 5), and by comparing simulated individuals ofknown ancestry against the Mycenaeans (Extended Data Fig. 6)'''

Lazarides is proposing the plausible scenario that the steppe admixture came from the East and not from North,
the quantity is 13-18% ok how much is difference from about 10% I mention?

and If I accept that they came from minor Asia Caucasos (the 13% stepe (IE))
Then I have to accept this
Gray & Atkinson & Greenhill 2011
proto-Greek first Spoken in Minor Asia- Anatolia with Tocharian and Armenian :thinking:

which is clear the evolution of Anatolian Hypothesis, :thinking:


from their work
The second theory, proposed by the archaeologist Renfrew [26 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049109/#RSTB20100378C26)], holds that Indo-European languages spread, not with marauding horsemen, but with the expansion of agriculture from Anatolia between 8000 and 9500 years ago. Radiocarbon analysis of the earliest Neolithic sites across Europe provides a fairly detailed chronology of agricultural dispersal. This archaeological evidence indicates that agriculture spread from Anatolia, arriving in Greece at some time during the ninth millennium BP and reaching as far as the British Isles by 5500 BP [27 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049109/#RSTB20100378C27)]. Renfrew maintains that the linguistic argument for the Kurgan theory is based only on limited evidence for a few enigmatic Proto-Indo-European word forms. He points out that parallel semantic shifts or wide-spread borrowing can produce similar word forms across different languages without requiring that an ancestral term was present in the proto-language. Renfrew also challenges the idea that Kurgan social structure and technology was sufficiently advanced to allow them to conquer whole continents in a time when even small cities did not exist. Far more credible, he argues, is that Proto-Indo-European spread with the spread of agriculture.


That work is Giving 3 branches
1) Hettit
2) Tocharian Greek and Armenian as one branch (Greco-Aryan)
3) and Albanian with Indoiranian on the other (Albanian is a split of Satem Indoranian language, possibly Scythian or other that enter Europe) (Greco-ARYAN)

if indeed Mycenean stepe admixture is that% and from that area, as the proposed scenario of Lazarides
then we night start to reconsider many,
and not only the Nordisists.

Jovialis
04-08-17, 00:44
No, sorry, not to you at all; it was a reaction to the data. Thanks again for uploading the graphic.

No, you don't seem to me to be one of the "complexed" members of the amateur population genetics community. Thank God for it, too; I don't know how many more of them I can take, and that's from all sides of the spectrum. :)



I strive to be as objective as possible, and always defer to the facts. :)

But I now see what you're saying about the Mycenaean in regards to the data.

The NG test said my first reference population was Greek, and my second was Tuscan. This is pure speculation, but would this be a possibility for where I would placed on this map?

http://i.imgur.com/uKw3x3N.png

Pratt
04-08-17, 01:08
I strive to be as objective as possible, and always defer to the facts. :)

But I now see what you're saying about the Mycenaean in regards to the data.

The NG test said my first reference population was Greek, and my second was Tuscan. This is pure speculation, but would this be a possibility for where I would placed on this map?

http://i.imgur.com/uKw3x3N.png

Your ancestry? Please, post your GEDMatch results. I don't know what the NG test is.

Pratt
04-08-17, 01:11
Pratt, you're right of course but it seems to be closest to Tuscans and mainland Greeks of all populations on a PCA but with some differences to both. David of Eurogenes made one with non-projected samples:

The Armenoi sample seems to be shifted towards the direction of various Beaker and Corded samples relative to the Mycenaean cluster.


Crete Armenoi is, more or less, in this position. Closer to mainland Greeks.

http://i.imgur.com/kqjAev1.png

http://i.imgur.com/H0lwXeD.png

Messier 67
04-08-17, 01:15
tell me where the Mycenian charriots and swords came from, and maybe you've got the answer

and the paper tells in what component the Mycenian genome differs from the Minoan genome

Did Ancient Egypt have them at this time?

Angela
04-08-17, 01:19
what are you talking about........which post ? ....................
I am against every religious institute that promotes gender-racism

Do you always talk in freaking far left mumbo jumbo platitudes? What, did they send you to feminist re-education camp?

Ok, I'll post a naked male body this time. Beautiful...and I'd do serious bodily injury to anyone who dared to cover it up. Happy now?

The Riace bronzes from Calabria...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/72/b1/28/72b12846abc260f89b994b578b1d6166.jpg

Sile
04-08-17, 01:27
Do you always talk in freaking far left mumbo jumbo platitudes? What, did they send you to feminist re-education camp?

Ok, I'll post a naked male body this time. Beautiful...and I'd do serious bodily injury to anyone who dared to cover it up. Happy now?

The Riace bronzes from Calabria...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/72/b1/28/72b12846abc260f89b994b578b1d6166.jpg


I will ask again.....what is the post # that has annoyed you?

And what about these statues...........are they relevant to the thread?

Angela
04-08-17, 01:36
Hi Angela, how you explain IE language of Myceneas...I was not able to understand it from the paper....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.

Jovialis
04-08-17, 01:44
Your ancestry? Please, post your GEDMatch results. I don't know what the NG test is.

I'm Italian, from central Puglia. I spoke about it in more detail here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34084-Mediterranean-migration-layers-in-Sicily-and-southern-Italy/page7?p=512521#post512521). NG, is national geographic. But unfortunately, the Helix version doesn't allow you to download the raw data file yet.

Messier 67
04-08-17, 01:44
IMO, Dorians are proto-epirotes

Homer: "There is a land called Crete, in the midst of the wine-dark sea, a fair, rich land, begirt with water, and therein are many men, past counting, and ninety cities. They have not all the same speech, but their tongues are mixed. There dwell Achaeans, there great-hearted native Cretans, there Cydonians, and Dorians of waving plumes, and goodly Pelasgians."

Where the Dorians came from: "the Pelasgians ... were once neighbors of the people now called Dorians, and at that time inhabited the country which now is called Thessalian." (Herodotus)

J2 were predominately the Minoans so cross them off as Dorians and they did not come from the north. J1 did not come from the North either. Neither did E1b1b.

Northern Greece is 16% I2a and 22.5% total I. It is 13% R1b. And 18% R1a. The homeland of the Dorians, according to Herodotus.

Crete is 5-10% R1b-S28 and 5-10% R1b-ht35. 9% R1a. 7% I2a and 12% total I.

There is a good chance the Dorians were I2a, with their homeland in the north.

A good percentage of R1b-S28 were Celtic POWs turned Roman slaves and freed throughout the centuries. R1b-ht35 is anatolian and did not come from the north. Not many are saying R1a are the Dorians. That leaves I2a.

Angela
04-08-17, 01:47
In the grid of PCAs posted by Jovialis, we have Minoans plotting with the Anatolian farmers in half of them, whereas they can be found just slightly south and east of Mycenaeans in the other half....could someone explain this inconsistency?

It's not an inconsistency. They are showing the different possible models for the Mycenaeans. You have to read the headings for each one carefully. It's just a representation in a PCA of the exhaustive modeling they did with statistics in other parts of the paper.

Some models are better than others, but in all of them the Mycenaeans are nowhere near the steppe or even the European ML Bronze Age.

In that regard, I would be wary of a lot of comments you see on other sites. After two days of pontificating some posters are saying they haven't yet read the paper, never mind the real meat, which is in all the supporting documentation.

That's like a judge writing his/her decisions before he's read the briefs presented by the parties: stupid and unethical. Anyone guilty of it would be impeached.

And then people wonder why I lose my patience.

Angela
04-08-17, 01:57
Your ancestry? Please, post your GEDMatch results. I don't know what the NG test is.

Good grief, Pratt. For a second I got a flash of Sikeliot ******** like mad for Italian gedmatch numbers and results. :)

Just kidding.

@Messier,
Just what we need, more speculation with no genetic data to support it.

Angela
04-08-17, 02:04
I strive to be as objective as possible, and always defer to the facts. :)

But I now see what you're saying about the Mycenaean in regards to the data.

The NG test said my first reference population was Greek, and my second was Tuscan. This is pure speculation, but would this be a possibility for where I would placed on this map?

http://i.imgur.com/uKw3x3N.png

Why do you think you plot there, Jovialis? In every PCA I've ever seen, southern mainland Italians from Puglia, Campania, etc. plot in the gap between Tuscans and Sicilians. There used to be a pretty decent PCA on 23andme where you could see where you and your shares plotted, and the only southerners who plotted anywhere close to that were the ones from the Abruzzi.

Jovialis
04-08-17, 02:07
Why do you think you plot there, Jovialis? In every PCA I've ever seen, southern mainland Italians from Puglia, Campania, etc. plot in the gap between Tuscans and Sicilians. There used to be a pretty decent PCA on 23andme where you could see where you and your shares plotted, and the only southerners who plotted anywhere close to that were the ones from the Abruzzi.

http://i.imgur.com/EaTeNC6.png

I figured I might be placed there due to these autosomal results.

I recall Salento, from Salento in Pugila had these results.


Geno 2 NG Helix Results:
91% Italy & Southern Europe
5% Southwestern Europe
2% Eastern Europe

1st Ref. Pop. Greek
2nd Ref. Pop. Tuscan (Italy)

Angela
04-08-17, 02:12
http://i.imgur.com/EaTeNC6.png

I figured I might be placed there due to these autosomal results.

I haven't taken this test Jovialis, so I may not be the right person to ask, but I don't think you're meant to halve the distance.

The other thing is that NG doesn't have a Southern Italian reference sample. If they did, I'm pretty sure that would be your closest population.

Can NG data be input into Gedmatch? I know it accepts both 23andme and FTDNA. If it can, you'll find out through those calculators how close you are to other southern Italians. If not, I don't know what to suggest.

Sorry...Maybe someone else of southern Italian ancestry who has taken that test could give you some guidance.

Jovialis
04-08-17, 02:35
I haven't taken this test Jovialis, so I may not be the right person to ask, but I don't think you're meant to halve the distance.

The other thing is that NG doesn't have a Southern Italian reference sample. If they did, I'm pretty sure that would be your closest population.

Can NG data be input into Gedmatch? I know it accepts both 23andme and FTDNA. If it can, you'll find out through those calculators how close you are to other southern Italians. If not, I don't know what to suggest.

Sorry...Maybe someone else of southern Italian ancestry who has taken that test could give you some guidance.



https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/faq/about-project/#how-do-i-access-the-raw-analytical-data-generated-from-my-dna-sample

How do I access the raw analytical data generated from my DNA sample?


For Geno 1.0 and Geno 2.0 participants the raw analytical output from your DNA sample is available to you as a CSV file. Go to My Profile, select the My Results tab and scroll down to Expert Options. Because this data is sensitive, you must first agree to the terms and then you will have the option to download the file. A download link will automatically appear under the My Test Results section.


For Geno 2.0 Next Gen Participants (but not Geno 2.0 Next Gen Helix co-branded kits) the raw analytical output from your DNA sample is available for purchase through our partner, Family Tree DNA. Go to My Profile, select the My Results tab and scroll down till you see Transfer my Results on the right hand side. Or you can click here.


For Geno 2.0 Next Gen Helix co-branded kit Participants, we are currently exploring options to be able to make this available to you.


Unfortunately, there hasn't been any update on them considering to release the raw data for the Helix version. I initially choose this brand because of the high-accuracy sequencing process they have. It's a shame I can't get the raw data though.

Would the raw data be compatible? I read that sequencing DNA with their proprietary technology, Exome+, is supposed to be different and more advanced than genotyping.

blevins13
04-08-17, 02:35
There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.

Thanks for your valuable insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

I1a3_Young
04-08-17, 03:12
@Maciamo

Maciamo ti si clear that Doris=ans never inveded Greece,
the one who invade are the Myceneans,

Lazarides just certified Triantafylides,
and allows the open space of Giannopoulos.

the I1 in Greece I doupt it is Germanic,
All genetists in Greece found and are certain that is paliolithic,
Sarakatsans are heavily in I1 and are consider the pre-glacial population of Greece.
in fact at all the palaiolithic congresses that is discussed,
and there is also one Y-Dna that is still kept in a kind of fog.
But I1 of Sarakatsans is considered the most ancient not only in Greece but in a wider area,

So indeed as Lazarides certified Triantafyllides then we have 11% paleolithic
59% post Glacial
20% Neolithic farmers
only 10 % of we call IE (Yamnaa etc)

on the other hand Giannopoulos believed that Descent Of Myceneans (NOTICE MYCENEANS NOT DORIANS as belived at 1928)
was a massive Huge devastation of IE from Vucedol/Vucocar/Vatin who came from Yamnaa and Steppe.
But it seems that Lazarides measures the same % that Triantafyllides claim
the 7-13% of Myceneans is From Vucedol or ProtoCetina,
so I think Lazrides results just certifies and unites the previous olders Triantafyllides and Giannopoulos,

in fact the question now is could 7-10-13% of Vucedol change the language to IE?
or the neolithic 20%, or ...?

the numbers of Lazarides simply certify the previous works done,
and give result in balance with older searches.

I agree that more Mycenean,
as also Thessalian and Makedonian Neolithic and Bronze age would give better results,
but not in very long from these,

as for North Greece
N Greece was Half NW Greeks and Half Thracians.
N Greece ones run out of men who moved by Alexander
N Greece was raided and habitetd by SLavs and enough mark of them is still here.
Gauls entered Greece but moved to North to end at Galateia,
the Gaulish remnants, especially in Kutsuk Vlachs are from Roman legions and Roman citizens.
The EXTRA SLAVIC mark is cause some Vlachs are from Slavic descent (Antes Romanised Slavs)

considering that Makedonia which is main body of N Greece,
was the land of heaven for Aromani Epirotans and Greeks of Balkans (Bulgaria Romania Albania Serbo-Croatia Istria Austria Hungary Alexandreia France Russia)
after 1860,
and the favorite tactic of Ottoman to break omogenous population was to devaste other populations,
that gives a strong change amore than 25% to be different and more North East and Central European.

as for mtDNA X2.
I am that rare mtDNA:laughing:
but it is possible in Greece to be X2 than to be U,
Do you have any sources on the Greek I1. As an I1 I am interested.

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Ygorbr
04-08-17, 08:51
[QUOTE=Angela;516150]Even if the admixture came through the Balkans, rather than from the region around Armenia, we're talking about 13% "steppe", 8% EHG. Big whoops. I wouldn't have thought that was enough for language change but I guess it is.

Hi, Angela! I'm writing here for the first time, but have been reading the discussions here (and above all your posts) with interest for several months. I decided to write here now because I got really excited with the results of this study.

However, as just an amateur with an interest in history, linguistics and population genetics, I'm really in doubt about the likeliness of a scenario I've figured out here, which is the following.

Well, if: 1) the ancient Mycenaeans had 13% "steppe ancestry"; 2) they don't seem to have been established in Greece much before 2,000 BC, i.e. many centuries after the initial dispersal of Yamna-related peoples; and 3) that 13% percentage looks suspiciously low for such a stunning linguistic and cultural change (even though the Turkish precedent in Turkey is very suggestive here); then can we assume that Proto-Greek introgression possibly had a lot more impact than the EHG/"Steppe" numbers indicate, and that in fact they came directly from the mixed EEF+Steppe and a lot nearer Balkans or Carpathians?

Considering the very large populations of SE European cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye by 4,000-3,000 BC, I wouldn't be surprised if later and probably Indo-European cultures (e.g. Cernavoda, Vucedol) nearby were only half steppe-like or even less, and certainly much less than half EHG. If that's the case, then the demographic impact of Mycenaeans could've been reasonably high, at 25%-30%.

What do you think? Your answer would be very appreciated.

kostop
04-08-17, 10:39
These findlings are hardly surprising to anyone who REALLY knows modern Greek culture, customs, folklore and superstitions. This book https://books.google.gr/books/about/Modern_Greek_Folklore_and_Ancient_Greek.html?id=D6 ghAB1AJR8C&redir_esc=y describes the culture of early 19th century rural Greece, which was lost with the rapid urbanisation that followed.
I don't care at all about "purity", "continuity", etc, (as a matter of fact being a scientist I believe in hybrid vigour :rolleyes2:), but I am SO pleased to know that all these closet nordicists are foaming at the moment. Plus, the added bonus of seeing Fallmerayer and his gang of German romanticists with their theories about blond ancient Greeks/Chinese/whatever shot down and crash landing like a giant watermelon.

Maciamo
04-08-17, 10:41
Thus far we have seen:

Lebanese largely share a genetic continuity with Canaanites.

Britons largely shared a genetic continuity with Celts during the Roman Period. Genetics in England changed with the arrival and admixture with groups like the the Anglo-Saxons, and Normans. While the Romans and Vikings only left a marginal genetic impact.

Modern Greeks largely share a genetic continuity with the Mycenaean and Minoans. Moreover, Cyprus, Albania, Sicily, and Southern Italy have similar genetic continuity.

Egyptians retained their genetic continuity throughout the Roman Period. The shift towards more Yoruba admixture occurred during the Middle Ages.

So far it seems to me that the Roman Empire didn’t have a huge impact on changing the genetics of many places it occupied.

As I explained in post #55 above (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page2?p=516173&viewfull=1#post516173), modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like. I estimated that to increase the EHG from 7% to 20%, it actually requires the contribution of 25 to 40% of non-Greek European DNA, depending on the source populations. Based on modern Y-DNA in Greece, it can be deduced that the Slavs contributed the most (21% of Y-DNA in modern Greece), followed by the Germanics (10%) then the Romans and La Tène Celts (8% together). That's 39% on the Y-DNA side, but overall it's likely to be a bit less than that as the paternal line of invaders tends to outweigh the maternal line. It's probably less the case for the Slavs and Goths, who moved as whole families, and indeed whole tribes, but it would be truer for the Romans, who were mostly administrators and soldiers stationed in Greece, with few Roman women settling there.

In summary, it's true that the impact of the Romans on these populations was relatively minor (1 to 5%), but that is to be expected as the Romans did not send a big number of colonists to places like Egypt, Phoenicia or Britain. The places most heavily colonised by the Romans outside Italy were Gaul and Iberia, particularly the southern parts like Provence and Andalusia. It would be much more interesting to see the population shift before and after Roman times in those regions.

Diomedes
04-08-17, 11:27
So, is there a Greek continuity according to you, yes or no?


As I explained in post #55 above (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page2?p=516173&viewfull=1#post516173), modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like.

markoz2
04-08-17, 11:53
afaik charriots and swords appeared in the Carpathian Basin, not the Balkans prior to the appearance of the Myceneans
anyway it is strange that BA Balkan or Carpathian Basin DNA does not appear in the models
No, Aegean swords and chariots are for all intents and purposes carbon-copies of their Anatolian predecessors. This is one of the many reasons the results of the paper shouldn't come as a surprise.

Leandros
04-08-17, 12:00
More accurate for Greeks. (Except for Michael Fassbender: I like him a lot, but ancient Greek?) Of course, they had to darken Gerard Butler's hair, eyes, skin, and probably fiddle with his nose. They couldn't find a Southern European descended actor to bulk up like that? Whatever...

They took, as you imply, a lot of license with the Persians. Some of the troops were also decidedly Middle Eastern looking to me, all those black robes etc. Not that the Persians wouldn't have had a lot of troops from all over their Empire, but there was a lot of signalling going on.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kmgRv2V_7P4/maxresdefault.jpg
300 was a propaganda piece against Persians(iranians) by the Jews of Hollywood.
Simple as that :)

markoz2
04-08-17, 12:33
300 was a propaganda piece against Persians(iranians) by the Jews of Hollywood.
Simple as that :)

Frank Miller is Irish.

MOESAN
04-08-17, 14:03
kind of digest:
8-10% of a warriors elite not organized like Romans has hard work to pass their language to autochtonous pops, I think. But at the time we suppose Mycenians arrived in Greece, I-E whatever its first geographic origin, was spoken in Central Europe by mixed pops; if as I BELIEVE (not KNOW) they arrived through Romania then Central Balkans from the Steppes, they surely had not more than a 40-45% steppic say 25-30% EHG roughly said, rather less. So "Mycenian" # first "Steppic". To complicate things they surely brought with them auDNA already present in Greece and Creta. IBD could help; but EHG were already present there. Finally I think I can guess the Mycenians weighted around 20% or 25% of the total pop.
at the mergin, I have the impression in South, in lands far from the steppes and from the social organization linked to them, the clannic males system didn't function so totally and that the Y-haplos were sometimes mixed, as if there had been passed partnership accords (!) with (well adapted and skilful?) predecessors (this South the Caucasus, Anatolia, or in Southern Europe where pops seemed having stayed more dense and numerous and less easily controlled by steppes newcomers. Just a feeling.

markoz2
04-08-17, 14:23
kind of digest:
8-10% of a warriors elite not organized like Romans has hard work to pass their language to autochtonous pops, I think. But at the time we suppose Mycenians arrived in Greece, I-E whatever its first geographic origin, was spoken in Central Europe by mixed pops
People have thought themselves into a corner. There is no evidence for IE in Central Europe before 500 BC. The later Anatolian samples in this paper on the other hand must have either been speakers of IE or their immediate neighbours.

Some interpretations like those of Rajib and the Sailer crowd are laughable. Steppe immigrants conquering an indigenous population with primitive weapons, inferior numbers and without imparting even trace amounts of their ancestry to the subdued population to boot.

Fustan
04-08-17, 14:38
IMO, Dorians are proto-epirotes

Elaborate please. Because this makes no sense whatsoever.

Jovialis
04-08-17, 14:38
As I explained in post #55 above (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page2?p=516173&viewfull=1#post516173), modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like. I estimated that to increase the EHG from 7% to 20%, it actually requires the contribution of 25 to 40% of non-Greek European DNA, depending on the source populations. Based on modern Y-DNA in Greece, it can be deduced that the Slavs contributed the most (21% of Y-DNA in modern Greece), followed by the Germanics (10%) then the Romans and La Tène Celts (8% together). That's 39% on the Y-DNA side, but overall it's likely to be a bit less than that as the paternal line of invaders tends to outweigh the maternal line. It's probably less the case for the Slavs and Goths, who moved as whole families, and indeed whole tribes, but it would be truer for the Romans, who were mostly administrators and soldiers stationed in Greece, with few Roman women settling there.

In summary, it's true that the impact of the Romans on these populations was relatively minor (1 to 5%), but that is to be expected as the Romans did not send a big number of colonists to places like Egypt, Phoenicia or Britain. The places most heavily colonised by the Romans outside Italy were Gaul and Iberia, particularly the southern parts like Provence and Andalusia. It would be much more interesting to see the population shift before and after Roman times in those regions.

Thank you to you and Angela for clarifying this, I totally see the increase of non-Greek European DNA over time. It is very clear when you see where modern Greeks cluster, closer to Eastern Europeans, than theses Mycenaean samples.

http://i.imgur.com/sX8EyA3.png
http://i.imgur.com/0IopZfg.png

bicicleur
04-08-17, 15:06
No, Aegean swords and chariots are for all intents and purposes carbon-copies of their Anatolian predecessors. This is one of the many reasons the results of the paper shouldn't come as a surprise.

show me the Anatolian predecessors
all what has been produced so far is some bronze bar that might resemble a sword to those whit a vivid imagination

markoz2
04-08-17, 15:29
show me the Anatolian predecessors
all what has been produced so far is some bronze bar that might resemble a sword to those whit a vivid imagination
What? Alaca Höyük is quite conservative with regards to the first swords. There are also Maykop and Arslantepe (there's a whole stash dated to >3k BC). Later swords are found in Syria and Transcaucasia, then the Aegean. Not sure where you got the Carpathian thing from. It's just not true.


Later slashing swords spread in the opposite direction from North Italy.

blevins13
04-08-17, 15:48
There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.

Looking forward to their next paper, maybe that will clarify more about this intriguing topic and Balkan People.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
04-08-17, 15:52
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this Bicicleur; My only excuse is that I totally forgot about it.

Anyway, I think it's questionable that the intrusive element which appeared in Greece proper around 1600 could have brought chariots with them into Greece if they came from the north.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Chariot_spread.png/390px-Chariot_spread.png

As for the bronze swords, in the interest of time, I'll just use Wiki as it accords with everything I've ever read about the subject:

"Before bronze, stone (such as flint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint) and obsidian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian)) was used as the primary material for edged cutting tools and weapons. Stone, however, is very fragile, and therefore not practical to be used for swords. With the introduction of copper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper), and subsequently bronze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze), daggers could be made longer, leading to the sword.Thus, the development of the sword from the dagger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger) was gradual, and in 2004 the first "swords" were claimed for the Early Bronze Age (c. 33rd to 31st centuries), based on finds at Arslantepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arslantepe) by Marcella Frangipane, professor of Prehistory and Protostory of the Near and Middle East at Sapienza University of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapienza_University_of_Rome).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#cite_note-3) A cache of nine swords and daggers was found; they are composed of arsenic-copper alloy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze). Among them, three swords were beautifully inlaid with silver (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver).
These are the weapons of a total length of 45 to 60 cm which could be described as either short swords, long daggers or gladius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius). Some other similar swords have been found in Turkey, and are described by Thomas Zimmermann.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#cite_note-4)
The sword remained extremely rare for another millennium, and became more widespread only with the closing of the 3rd millennium. The "swords" of this later period can still readily be interpreted as daggers, as with the copper specimen from Naxos (dated roughly 2800 to 2300 BC), with a length of just below 36 cm, but individual specimens of the Cycladic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycladic_civilization) "copper swords" of the period around 2300 reach a length up to 60 cm. The first weapons that can be classified as swords without any ambiguity are those found in Minoan Crete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_Crete), dated to about 1700 BC, which reach lengths of more than 100 cm. These are the "type A" swords of the Aegean Bronze Age."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword

Angela
04-08-17, 15:59
Thank you to you and Angela for clarifying this, I totally see the increase of non-Greek European DNA over time. It is very clear when you see where modern Greeks cluster, closer to Eastern Europeans, than theses Mycenaean samples.

http://i.imgur.com/sX8EyA3.png
http://i.imgur.com/0IopZfg.png

My understanding is that the Greeks used for that plot are the Greeks of Thessaly, who are not, in my opinion, representative of all Greeks.

Angela
04-08-17, 16:17
Sometimes the authors of papers must wonder why they bother. I know I sometimes wonder why I bother to quote the papers.

Once again, from the paper and one of my posts at the beginning of this thread:

""Cretan from ArmenoiThis individual has only 42,052 SNPs covered in the HOIll dataset and it belongs to a later period(Late Minoan III A-B ~ 1400-1200 BC) than the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi. It does notform a clade with any single (N=1) population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 0.001). There are several models that fit (p-value for rank=1 > 0.05) for N=2 that agree on this individual having most of its ancestry from Anatolian Neolithic-related population with additional ancestry from eastern European/North Eurasian hunter-gatherers (Table S2.7), as also suggested by the shift of this individual in PCA relative to other Minoans and indeed even the Mycenaeans (Fig. 1b). We acknowledge the possibility that there was geographical structure in the Bronze Age Cretan population (the Armenoi sample comes from northwestern Crete; Fig. 1a), or that population change had occurred between the time of the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi and the time of thisindividual, however, the lack of high quality data does not allow us to test these hypotheses further."

If Nick Patterson signs onto that, then that's the way it is.

Of course, that won't stop some modelers from trying to spin stories from it.

Falco
04-08-17, 16:17
There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.

I think this excerpt from Mathieson et al 2017 could be relevant here:
"One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and that the earliest known diverging branch – Anatolian – was spread into Asia Minor by movements of steppe peoples through the Balkan peninsula during the Copper Age around 4000 BCE, as part of the same incursions from the steppe that coincided with the decline of the tell settlements.

If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of characteristic steppe ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula, and then in Anatolia. However, our genetic data do not support this scenario. While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic.

This pattern is consistent with that seen in northwestern Anatolia and later in Copper Age Anatolia, suggesting continuing migration into Anatolia from the East rather than from Europe.

An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral to many of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family. On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus."

Angela
04-08-17, 16:32
I think this excerpt from Mathieson et al 2017 could be relevant here:
"One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and that the earliest known diverging branch – Anatolian – was spread into Asia Minor by movements of steppe peoples through the Balkan peninsula during the Copper Age around 4000 BCE, as part of the same incursions from the steppe that coincided with the decline of the tell settlements.

If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of characteristic steppe ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula, and then in Anatolia. However, our genetic data do not support this scenario. While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic.

This pattern is consistent with that seen in northwestern Anatolia and later in Copper Age Anatolia, suggesting continuing migration into Anatolia from the East rather than from Europe.

An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral to many of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family. On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus."

It's indeed relevant imo. That's why we need more Balkan area adna, and the adna from the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia as well. The lack of such data is why the authors of the instant paper could not exclude the possibility that a movement from Anatolia, a la Drews, brought the Greek language into Greece.

More generally, as I will address below, if the steppe peoples contributed rather small amounts of ancestry to the people living in the Balkans, those latter people had very little steppe ancestry to pass on.

holderlin
04-08-17, 16:34
It originally appeared on Lazaridis' twitter account as a reply to @PreznitCamacho, @PaIeodeadlift and other two.

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/892931776372498434



Yes, Northwest I think.

Don't forget the involvement of @bronzeagemantis aka Bronze Age Pervert

http://i.imgur.com/6OjjQhZ.png

Pax Augusta
04-08-17, 16:34
My understanding is that the Greeks used for that plot are the Greeks of Thessaly, who are not, in my opinion, representative of all Greeks.
In the newest PCA are Greeks of Thessaloniki (Macedonia), Greek_Coriell, and Greek_Cretan_SGDP (two individuals), and they seem quite similar to the Greeks of the oldest PCAs.

holderlin
04-08-17, 16:59
What? Alaca Höyük is quite conservative with regards to the first swords. There are also Maykop and Arslantepe (there's a whole stash dated to >3k BC). Later swords are found in Syria and Transcaucasia, then the Aegean. Not sure where you got the Carpathian thing from. It's just not true.


Later slashing swords spread in the opposite direction from North Italy.

Yeah this isn't right

Angela
04-08-17, 17:09
In the newest PCA are Greeks of Thessaloniki (Macedonia), Greek_Coriell, and Greek_Cretan_SGDP (two individuals), and they seem quite similar to the Greeks of the oldest PCAs.

Is this the "newest" PCA to which you're referring? If not, whose PCA are we discussing?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Michel_Guinet/publication/259441354/figure/fig3/AS:[email protected]/Figure-2-Principal-Component-Analysis-PCA-on-all-present-day-west-Eurasians-with.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Michel_Guinet/publication/259441354/figure/fig3/AS:[email protected]/Figure-2-Principal-Component-Analysis-PCA-on-all-present-day-west-Eurasians-with.png
Don't mean to be rude, but you got this information from a reputable source?

Assuming all the answers are yes, and given that "north" is to the left of the PCA, and that Mycenaeans are somewhere around Sicilians (I don't think we can say much more than that) then the change from Mycenaens to more southerly Greeks is really a pull to the east, toward ANE/Caucasus. I don't think that's primarily down to Slavic admixture.

Btw, if that furthest blue X near the Cypriots is a Cretan sample, or even the one north of that, so much for the Cretans being indistinguishable from Sicilians.

holderlin
04-08-17, 17:11
Well this is really interesting.

We know Mycenaeans spoke Greek because Linear B is Greek, so there's that. Just to keep the basics in view. The arrival of the Mycenaeans was also archaeologically VERY obvious, so they are a different culture than pre-Greek Aegean. No questions here, even aside from the trajectory of their arrival.

If people are really surprised that Greek speakers in Crete don't look like Srubna or something then they haven't been paying attention. Remember in the SE Europe paper we have a YAMNAYA BURIAL in Bulgaria that's approx. 40% Anatolian neolithic, 40% steppe, and 20% Ukraine mesolithic (Dnieper Donets). So people who are speaking something close to PIE (Anatolian?) are already almost half Anatolian neolithic.

Cato
04-08-17, 17:25
@Cato, that's possible - or some of the Beaker-influenced cultures in the West Balkans. Clever modelling will likely not get us anywhere closer to a solution is my guess but more Y-DNA might.

Yes, likely from North-Western Balkans. Mallory in his book In Search of the Indo-Europeans mentioned two possible urheimat for the Proto-Greeks, a north-western one - the tumulus builder - and a north-eastern one - the Ezero culture. Now we know that Ezero had no steppe admixture...so..

9002

LeBrok
04-08-17, 17:50
No, Aegean swords and chariots are for all intents and purposes carbon-copies of their Anatolian predecessors. This is one of the many reasons the results of the paper shouldn't come as a surprise. Interesting. Do you know what culture and what part of Anatolia is most similar to Mycenaeans technology?

Pax Augusta
04-08-17, 17:55
Is this the "newest" PCA to which you're referring? If not, whose PCA are we discussing?

This one, the latest produced by Lazaridis (Lazaridis et al 2017)
https://s2.postimg.org/d02w8fxyx/Lazaridis_et_al_2017.jpg

To compare with these ones

Lazaridis et al 2016 (Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_SF1.html

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/v536/n7617/images/nature19310-sf1.jpg



Lazaridis et al 2014 (Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/fig_tab/nature13673_F2.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images/nature13673-f2.jpg

Diomedes
04-08-17, 18:05
How about Hittites?


Interesting. Do you know what culture and what part of Anatolia is most similar to Mycenaeans technology?

Fire Haired14
04-08-17, 18:06
Etruscans DNA will show no or little Steppe ancestry. Ancient IE Italians will show a significant dose of Steppe. Ancient DNA from Italy and India will confirm Steppe people spread some IE languages. But only Hittite DNA can confirm PIE originated in the Steppe.

Does anyone really think it's a coincidence Myceneans look like Minoans with a tiny dose of Yamnaya?

Angela
04-08-17, 18:29
This one, the latest produced by Lazaridis (Lazaridis et al 2017)
https://s2.postimg.org/d02w8fxyx/Lazaridis_et_al_2017.jpg

To compare with these ones

Lazaridis et al 2016 (Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_SF1.html

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/v536/n7617/images/nature19310-sf1.jpg



Lazaridis et al 2014 (Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/fig_tab/nature13673_F2.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images/nature13673-f2.jpg

Thanks, Pax. I goofed on that one by not reading the legend carefully and assuming it was still the same. Like Baby's father in "Dirty Dancing"(played by the great Jerry Orbach), "When I'm wrong, I say I was wrong." :)

It's almost as if the Reich group heard our complaints about not knowing the source of those Greek samples.:)

Interesting how close some of the Mycenaeans are to Anatolia Kumtepe.

I wonder if that could possibly mean that the Trojans and the Mycenaeans weren't actually very different from one another? Put this down to a burst of highly speculative license. :) On a personal note, going solely on the personalities drawn by Homer, I'm still team Troy, excepting, of course, for that twit Paris. :)

The Minoans are exactly where they should be, south but not appreciably "east" of the Mycenaeans. The "Levantine" in Crete so beloved of certain agenda obsessed amateurs could partly date from this period, as the 3 way model for Minoans is Anatolian Neolithic (which of course also includes Levant Neolithic) plus "eastern" farmer/Iran Neo like, plus some percent additional "Levantine" admix, which makes sense looking at the geography and archaeology.

My point about modern Crete still stands.

Diomedes
04-08-17, 18:35
Well Trojans are supposed to be relevant to Romans (see Aeneas). Actually, it took so many years for Troy to fall. They should have done the jerb in two years max.


On a personal note, going solely on the personalities drawn by Homer, I'm still team Troy, excepting, of course, that twit Paris. :)

Angela
04-08-17, 18:39
Well Trojans are supposed to be relevant to Romans (see Aeneas). Actually, it took so many years for Troy to fall. They should have done the jerb in two years max.

As I said, I base my preference on the personalities and culture as depicted by Homer. I can't stand Agamemnon what with his sacrificing his daughter, or his brother who can't control his flighty wife and so starts a terrible war because he's a cornuto. Not my idea of heroes. Nor the glory obsessed Achilles either. My favorite ancient Greeks are those from the classical period in, say, Athens.

I'm not shallow enough to base my preferences on some mythical tie to my own heritage. For example, even if some of the Sea Peoples came from Sardinia or other parts of ancient Italy, I would be on team Egypt or Canaan. I'm always on the side of the civilized core. So, likewise, team Crete, not team Mycenaean. No big fan of gladiatorial fights either, and slavery, and on and on, even if we should avoid judging ancient people by modern standards.

davef
04-08-17, 18:49
This one, the latest produced by Lazaridis (Lazaridis et al 2017)
https://s2.postimg.org/d02w8fxyx/Lazaridis_et_al_2017.jpg

To compare with these ones

Lazaridis et al 2016 (Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_SF1.html

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/v536/n7617/images/nature19310-sf1.jpg



Lazaridis et al 2014 (Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/fig_tab/nature13673_F2.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images/nature13673-f2.jpg

Thanks for posting this! This is interesting...two Mycenaens are overlapping Ashkenazim and a Sicilian, another two seem to be very Maltese like. The Minoans overlap various non-Ashkenazim Jewish samples, guess its that extra Iran or east Neolithic.

I1a3_Young
04-08-17, 18:52
1. Anatolian Neolithic base
2. Minoan result of east/Iran/Caucus movement
3. Mycenean result of something else bringing in Steppe
4. Modern Greeks have even more Steppe

In #3, could this be caused by further movement from the East/caucus which by that time had more steppe due to IE expansion? Rather than over land, a Black Sea route could be plausible.

If the Myceneans were part of a conglomeration of sea peoples as depicted by Egyptians, they could have picked up steppe from contact with other Sea Peoples such as from the Black Sea through trade.

What do we know of people living on the Georgia coast and Crimea at the time?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Dianatomia
04-08-17, 18:54
I also disagree with Lazaridis and al. when they say that "Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry". Mycenaeans are much closer to the Minoans than to Modern Greeks. Modern Greeks have 3x more EHG (about 20%) than Mycenaeans (7%), but they also have WHG (3% according to D-stat). This suggests that numerous waves of European invaders (Dorians, Celts, Romans, Goths, Slavs) contributed to a large share of modern Greek DNA. Since obviously no invader to Greece were pure EHG, and none had more than 50% of EHG in average (30-35% might be more realistic as the Romans had comparatively low EHG), to increase from 7% to 20% of EHG, the percentage of post-Mycenaean DNA from European invaders must be comprised between 25% and 40%. Most of it will be blue ENF and pink CHG that won't be identifiable using these relatively simple admixtures. What we see is only the clear increase in EHG, which is only one third to half of the new invaders' DNA.

How do we know that the Myceneans did not arrive with Minoan-like DNA as well?



In other words modern Greeks are nothing like Mycenaean Greeks, and even less Minoan Greeks. Modern Greeks have much more European ancestry. Y-DNA alone suggests 40 to 45% of European lineages (as opposed to Near Eastern), and over 60% if we included E-V13 (E1b1b came from the Near East but E-V13 clearly emerged in Europe). Greeks possess lineages that are clearly Germanic (3.5% of I1, so about 10% of Germanic overall with I2a2-L801, R1b-U106 and R1a-L664), Slavic (11% of R1a, which is overwhelmingly M458 and CTS1211) and Italo-Celtic (about 7% of R1b-U152 and 1% of G2a-L497).

So some of the new invaders, like the Dorians and the Romans may have arrived with Mycenean-like DNA as well as you suggest. How does make the modern Greeks nothing like Myceneans? I would argue that Dorians and Romans were Mycenean-like as well. Or the Myceneans where Roman or Dorian like (take your pick). Just like South-Italians are Greek-like, but certainly not only because of Greek migrations. Assuming ofcourse that what you suggest is the case, which I have no objection to. It doesn't change the fact that modern Greeks are relatively close to Myceneans either way. But "nothing like the Myceneans" seems to me a bit of a stretch. In fact, the modern Greeks are very Mycenean-like and largely descentants of Myceneans. Also, still, in this research we compare the Myceneans with modern Greeks as a whole. But we have no sufficient information on Mycenean Greeks living in areas further North. I am going very deep down the rabbit whole right now, but how do we know that all Myceneans were the same. Perhaps proto-Greeks absorbed different peoples, and the Mycenean era Greeks were mostly represented by those Minoan type Greeks in the South, while further North there may have been Greek speaking tribes in the Mycenean era with a slightly different DNA make up. This however is of not much relevance at this point. Point of this paper however is that the people around the Aegean are essentially of the same melting pot for the last 5000 years or so.

On a side note, what do you suppose the Dorians' genetic make up may have been? Could they have carried R1a as well?

Diomedes
04-08-17, 19:05
No war starts for a woman. This is just the romanticism in the whole story of Iliad. A war always starts for resources and space. If there were a Trojan war, this was because Achaeans wanted to expand.

In fact Menelaus had adopted primal forms of feminism, that he did not have his wife living in a room all day long. Kudos to the Spartan king for being such a nice man.


I can't stand Agamemnon what with his sacrificing his daughter, or his brother who can't control his flighty wife and so starts a terrible war because he's a cornuto. Not my idea of heroes.

Angela
04-08-17, 19:09
No war starts for a woman. This is just the romanticism in the whole story of Iliad. A war always starts for resources and space. If there were a Trojan war, this was because Achaeans wanted to expand.

I agree, but, once again, my whole point was based on the personalities and cultures depicted in the Iliad and the Odyssey. (In this particular case it seems to have been control of the trade routes.)

It also would indeed by ironic if these two groups of people were genetically pretty similar, but then look at the Albanians and Greeks, at least some of them who post on this board. They're genetically similar too.

It must be something in the water around there.

Diomedes
04-08-17, 19:11
Don't go far. How often have principalities in Italy fought against each other?


I agree, but, once again, my whole point was based on the personalities and cultures depicted in the Iliad and the Odyssey. (In this particular case it seems to have been control of the trade routes.)

It also would indeed by ironic if these two groups of people were genetically pretty similar, but then look at the Albanians and Greeks, at least some of them who post on this board. They're genetically similar too.

It must be something in the water around there.

Yetos
04-08-17, 19:28
kind of digest:
8-10% of a warriors elite not organized like Romans has hard work to pass their language to autochtonous pops, I think. But at the time we suppose Mycenians arrived in Greece, I-E whatever its first geographic origin, was spoken in Central Europe by mixed pops; if as I BELIEVE (not KNOW) they arrived through Romania then Central Balkans from the Steppes, they surely had not more than a 40-45% steppic say 25-30% EHG roughly said, rather less. So "Mycenian" # first "Steppic". To complicate things they surely brought with them auDNA already present in Greece and Creta. IBD could help; but EHG were already present there. Finally I think I can guess the Mycenians weighted around 20% or 25% of the total pop.
at the mergin, I have the impression in South, in lands far from the steppes and from the social organization linked to them, the clannic males system didn't function so totally and that the Y-haplos were sometimes mixed, as if there had been passed partnership accords (!) with (well adapted and skilful?) predecessors (this South the Caucasus, Anatolia, or in Southern Europe where pops seemed having stayed more dense and numerous and less easily controlled by steppes newcomers. Just a feeling.


I stay to the bold,

and consider this as came from nearby of Armenian higlands,
that is madness, except if J2 already knew IE, or IE homeland is among Armenia Syria Iran Black sea and kappadokia

Sakattack
04-08-17, 19:29
Troyans had to be pretty similar genetically; Homer does not even mention any differences in language and of course they had been worshiping the same Gods. Half of them were actually backing up the Troyans.

Yetos
04-08-17, 19:31
Etruscans DNA will show no or little Steppe ancestry. Ancient IE Italians will show a significant dose of Steppe. Ancient DNA from Italy and India will confirm Steppe people spread some IE languages. But only Hittite DNA can confirm PIE originated in the Steppe.

Does anyone really think it's a coincidence Myceneans look like Minoans with a tiny dose of Yamnaya?

let me doupt,

in fact I believe that the Linguistic change of equus Ικκος to Hephew Ιππος is a clear mark that Umbria which is connected with Crete and Latio might have same with Myceneans or even less closer to Minoans, % of Steppe.

Angela
04-08-17, 19:40
Ygorbr
Hi, Angela! I'm writing here for the first time, but have been reading the discussions here (and above all your posts) with interest for several months. I decided to write here now because I got really excited with the results of this study.

However, as just an amateur with an interest in history, linguistics and population genetics, I'm really in doubt about the likeliness of a scenario I've figured out here, which is the following.

Well, if: 1) the ancient Mycenaeans had 13% "steppe ancestry"; 2) they don't seem to have been established in Greece much before 2,000 BC, i.e. many centuries after the initial dispersal of Yamna-related peoples; and 3) that 13% percentage looks suspiciously low for such a stunning linguistic and cultural change (even though the Turkish precedent in Turkey is very suggestive here); then can we assume that Proto-Greek introgression possibly had a lot more impact than the EHG/"Steppe" numbers indicate, and that in fact they came directly from the mixed EEF+Steppe and a lot nearer Balkans or Carpathians?

Considering the very large populations of SE European cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye by 4,000-3,000 BC, I wouldn't be surprised if later and probably Indo-European cultures (e.g. Cernavoda, Vucedol) nearby were only half steppe-like or even less, and certainly much less than half EHG. If that's the case, then the demographic impact of Mycenaeans could've been reasonably high, at 25%-30%.

What do you think? Your answer would be very appreciated.

I'll give you the answer from the authors, which is what is really important, how about that?

""The amount of steppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group(“Yamnya/Afnasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA), which is in harmony with our finding of ~7% EHG ancestry in Mycenaeans, as this group has about half of its ancestry from the EHG1,8,16.

The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age(Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher still when the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used as a source, reflecting the fact that these have substantial European/Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry1,8,20 which dilutes their EHG-related ancestry further.

We cannot distinguish which of these populations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe, from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration from central Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/NeolithicBronze Age)."

(Of course, there's also the "Armenian" hypothesis, which they couldn't exclude statistically.)

Furthermore...

""However, we do notice that the model79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA model represents the true history."

Notice, please, all the qualifiers...these are scientists. They either don't yet have or are at present unwilling to tell us of a good proximate source in the Balkans.

So, the amount of actual "admixture", and not, to emphasize, from any simplistic admixture like calculator, but from very sophisticated statistical modeling techniques by people who understand how they work because they created them would probably be around 20% from such a "proximate" source, which would be enough to effectuate linguistic change. I mean, if the "Hungarians" could do it in Hungary with even less genetic input, it could happen in Greece. We have to also keep in mind that like the "Hungarians", this intrusive group adopted much of the culture of the pre-existing population, as well as bringing in some additional elements of their own. Perhaps the effect of the "Turkish" migration to Anatolia might be a reasonably good example as well.

The confusion over this shows why precise definitions are so important, and people need to know them. When the authors wrote about Mycenaeans having 4-16% "steppe", they meant as in actual Yamnaya ancestry.

As to all the n-monte calculations floating around the internet, I take them with a big dose of salt. They're not precise because n-monte is not, imo, a very reliable tool given how dependent it is on the precise mix of populations used. Moreover, we may not have the adna for the "proximate" population, if there indeed was one.

Pax Augusta
04-08-17, 19:42
let me doupt,
in fact I believe that the Linguistic change of equus Ικκος to Hephew Ιππος is a clear mark that Umbria which is connected with Crete and Latio might have same with Myceneans or even less closer to Minoans, % of Steppe.
Equus is Latin, not ancient Umbrian. And Latin Equus is thought to derive from proto-Italic *ekwos, that derives from Proto-Indo-European *h₁éḱwos (“horse”). It's a word connected to all the Indo-European languages. I don't think it can prove a specific connection.

Angela
04-08-17, 19:46
Don't go far. How often have principalities in Italy fought against each other?

How much bigger are the genetic differences between Sicilians/far Southern Italians and Lombards/Venetians/Piemontese, etc. than between most of the countries in the Balkans including Greece? How many Balkan style wars have there been between Northern Italy and Southern Italy in the last hundred years? That was a rhetorical question, of course; the answer is none.

Even six to seven hundred years ago in the Middle Ages we weren't trying to exterminate or ethnically cleanse each other.

Sorry, this is a particularly Balkan mess. You guys have to own it.

Now, this is off-topic, my fault for starting it, so if you wish to discuss it further, pm me. It doesn't belong on this thread.

Yetos
04-08-17, 19:49
well Lazarides is used to make us upset every time he publish.
Last year many were upset by his "Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East".
and this year with this one,

I must admit that his work ''took my pants'' and the soil under my ground,

I was used with the idea of yamnaa steppe IE
but considering his scenario that IE speakers Myceneans came from nearby Armenia highlands with so little Steppe,
I think it is time to reconsider many,
I do not know how even I can change some of my posts,
I feel an idiot,

cause if his scenario is Correct
then this is the map of IE langauges

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corecgi/tileshop/tileshop.fcgi?p=PMC3&id=582017&s=24&r=1&c=1

and not only we might speak of J2 IE speakers,
and the model may expand to Italy to Latio Umbria even maybe Villabruna,
consider the P-Q change in Greek and Celto-Latin then I expect that same 'time' with Myceneans Latio, Umbria and i dare to say Villanova Villabruna might have same % and origin of origin admixture,
than Yamnaa or other Europe

I must admit
I always expected the minor Asia and back and back again,
But I never expected that the steppe % of Myceneans would be so little, and especially their origin

off the record
to push my secret inner thoughts
in fact we might have even a difference among J2a centum West part and J2b satem East part from that area and time.

Sile
04-08-17, 19:57
In the newest PCA are Greeks of Thessaloniki (Macedonia), Greek_Coriell, and Greek_Cretan_SGDP (two individuals), and they seem quite similar to the Greeks of the oldest PCAs.

Is thessaloniki the same as thessaly? ..........Neolitihic Thessaly ( NT ) had different markers ( as per other papers ) than this papers stated markers. NT had E-V13 while none where found in minoans.

I am unsure if Angela included thessalonki in her statement, some people think of it as one place and others do not.

markoz2
04-08-17, 19:57
Etruscans DNA will show no or little Steppe ancestry. Ancient IE Italians will show a significant dose of Steppe. Ancient DNA from Italy and India will confirm Steppe people spread some IE languages. But only Hittite DNA can confirm PIE originated in the Steppe.

Does anyone really think it's a coincidence Myceneans look like Minoans with a tiny dose of Yamnaya?

Wasn't there a PCA showing Etruscans shifted towards Finns rel. to modern Tuscans? This would be what I'd expect considering that North-East Italy was the epicentre of the Urnfield network and the most likely Etruscan homeland.

As for the Mycenaeans - if Lazaridis is right and Armenia is the best proximate source, those Proto-Greeks still would have entered the Peloponnese by way of Bulgaria. So a northern shift is to be expected either way.

Angela
04-08-17, 19:57
well Lazarides is used to make us upset every time he publish.
Last year many were upset by his "Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East".
and this year with this one,

I must admit that his work ''took my pants'' and the soil under my ground,

I was used with the idea of yamnaa steppe IE
but considering his scenario that IE speakers Myceneans came from nearby Armenia highlands with so little Steppe,
I think it is time to reconsider many,
I do not know how even I can change some of my posts,
I feel an idiot,

cause if his scenario is Correct
then this is the map of IE langauges

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corecgi/tileshop/tileshop.fcgi?p=PMC3&id=582017&s=24&r=1&c=1

and not only we might speak of J2 IE speakers,
and the model may expand to Italy to Latio Umbria even maybe Villabruna,


off the record
to push my secret inner thoughts
in fact we might have even a difference among J2a centum West part and J2b satem East part from that area and time.





We don't know yet, Yetos, so I wouldn't give away your pants just yet! :)

Pax Augusta
04-08-17, 19:59
Wasn't there a PCA showing Etruscans shifted towards Finns rel. to modern Tuscans? This would be what I'd expect considering that North-East Italy was the epicentre of the Urnfield network and the most likely Etruscan homeland.

Do you mean this?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg

Angela
04-08-17, 20:04
Wasn't there a PCA showing Etruscans shifted towards Finns rel. to modern Tuscans? This would be what I'd expect considering that North-East Italy was the epicentre of the Urnfield network and the most likely Etruscan homeland.

As for the Mycenaeans - if Lazaridis is right and Armenia is the best proximate source, those Proto-Greeks still would have entered the Peloponnese by way of Bulgaria. So a northern shift is to be expected either way.

Lordy...the authors don't say Armenia is the best proximate source. Please re-read some of the posts here which quote from the paper, at least.

They just haven't been able to statistically exclude it. Who knows what the next paper will say?

If they are the best proximate source, which is a big IF, they wouldn't necessarily have entered by way of any meaningful foray into Bulgaria.

The PCA shows elite Etruscans, since that's all we have, clustering near modern day Iberians, where Northern Italians would be, and one of them slightly northeast of that. So, maybe near some Balkan population? However, I don't know how far to trust a PCA from an unpublished paper. We'll just have to wait for the ancient dna.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg

Sile
04-08-17, 20:09
Well this is really interesting.

We know Mycenaeans spoke Greek because Linear B is Greek, so there's that. Just to keep the basics in view. The arrival of the Mycenaeans was also archaeologically VERY obvious, so they are a different culture than pre-Greek Aegean. No questions here, even aside from the trajectory of their arrival.

If people are really surprised that Greek speakers in Crete don't look like Srubna or something then they haven't been paying attention. Remember in the SE Europe paper we have a YAMNAYA BURIAL in Bulgaria that's approx. 40% Anatolian neolithic, 40% steppe, and 20% Ukraine mesolithic (Dnieper Donets). So people who are speaking something close to PIE (Anatolian?) are already almost half Anatolian neolithic.

Linear A was the primary script used in palace and religious writings of the Minoan civilization. It was discovered by archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans. It is the origin of the Linear B script, which was later used by the Mycenaean civilization.

so Linear A is minoan and Linear B is mycenean................A before B ....................myceneans conquered the minoans before the dorians arrived in Greece.
Logically , the myceneans originally spoke something else before Linear B , what did they speak, was it still Greek?

LeBrok
04-08-17, 20:09
1. Anatolian Neolithic base
2. Minoan result of east/Iran/Caucus movement
3. Mycenean result of something else bringing in Steppe
4. Modern Greeks have even more Steppe

In #3, could this be caused by further movement from the East/caucus which by that time had more steppe due to IE expansion? Rather than over land, a Black Sea route could be plausible.

If the Myceneans were part of a conglomeration of sea peoples as depicted by Egyptians, they could have picked up steppe from contact with other Sea Peoples such as from the Black Sea through trade.

What do we know of people living on the Georgia coast and Crimea at the time?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)


I'm thinking along similar lines.




What do we know of people living on the Georgia coast and Crimea at the time?
In Late Bronze Age we have predominantly Yamnaya/Steppe type people live their in Srubna Culture, and it continues through Iron Age with Sarmatians and Scythians. Quite different genetically from Balkan BA.

We know much less about BA Anatolia genetics, especially the North. We have one sample of low quality Kum4, which shows 50/50 Anatolia Neolithic with Steppe.

markoz2
04-08-17, 20:17
Lordy...the authors don't say Armenia is the best proximate source. Please re-read some of the posts here which quote from the paper, at least.
They just haven't been able to statistically exclude it. Who knows what the next paper will say?
If they are the best proximate source, which is a big IF, they wouldn't necessarily have entered by way of any meaningful foray into Bulgaria.
The PCA shows elite Etruscans, since that's all we have, clustering near modern day Iberians, Northern Italians/Tuscans, and one of them slightly northeast of that. So, maybe near some Balkan population? However, I don't know how far to trust a PCA from an unpublished paper. We'll just have to wait for the ancient dna.

I care more about what the authors data says, though still they clearly state that the northern and eastern shifts are related to the same phenomenon. The best proximate two-way model does involve the Armenian source.

An unsampled Balkan population might provide an even more accurate fit, but for now Armenia is the best proximate source. Period.

Sile
04-08-17, 20:17
Well Trojans are supposed to be relevant to Romans (see Aeneas). Actually, it took so many years for Troy to fall. They should have done the jerb in two years max.
Aeneas was not a trojan. He was a dardanian
besides, the only ancient script they found in Troy was Luwian script which originates in modern SE Turkey...........next, if you read the iliad, you will note that the myceneans already had colonies in turkey near samos and rhodes before the trojan war

LATGAL
04-08-17, 20:21
Yes, likely from North-Western Balkans. Mallory in his book In Search of the Indo-Europeans mentioned two possible urheimat for the Proto-Greeks, a north-western one - the tumulus builder - and a north-eastern one - the Ezero culture. Now we know that Ezero had no steppe admixture...so..

9002

Yeah, those are the two broad scenarios I guess. They cite Sakellariou's 'Les Proto-Grecs' in the paper who from memory overall preferred the second, an early arrival from the Northeast in various directions to the south, even by sea considering the destruction wave, and west then that western reserve leading a bigger wave from northwest Greece to the south but I don't remember his exact argument about the path they took within the Balkans first.

With more extensive sampling and mapping early R1b and R1a subclade migrations in the Balkans people might arrive at a reasonable conclusion. We have R1b-Z2103 in the West and R1a-z93 in the East and Greek has features connecting it with both western and eastern IE languages.

And Dorians hanging out in Epirus in the Bronze Age as sile mentioned isn't too extravagant. That's one area where 'West Greek' has been thought to arrive from and that Northwest Greek-speaking populations inhabited in later times.

Angela
04-08-17, 20:28
I care more about what the authors data says, though still they clearly state that the northern and eastern shifts are related to the same phenomenon. The best proximate two-way model does involve the Armenian source.

An unsampled Balkan population might provide an even more accurate fit, but for now Armenia is the best proximate source. Period.

Yes, indeed, you're more capable of interpreting the data and doing the statistics than the statisticians at Harvard who created the programs. Right, I should have known.:rolleyes2:

Next.

Sile
04-08-17, 20:31
Don't go far. How often have principalities in Italy fought against each other?

We can also surmise that only the cities that went to fight for Agamemnon in the trojan war where mycenean cities and they also spoke mycenean

what was the most northern Mycenaean city that went with the greek to troy?

Diomedes
04-08-17, 20:31
@Angela (post #210)

Savage :)

Diomedes
04-08-17, 20:33
One god knows--it means we are not sure about something,--as we say in Greece.


We can also surmise that only the cities that went to fight for Agamemnon in the trojan war where mycenean cities and they also spoke mycenean

what was the most northern Mycenaean city that went with the greek to troy?

markoz2
04-08-17, 20:38
Yes, indeed, you're more capable of interpreting the data and doing the statistics than the statisticians at Harvard who created the programs. Right, I should have known.:rolleyes2:

Next.

"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. "

"Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon. Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++""

I doubt they would have included it at all if it wasn't the best model.

Yetos
04-08-17, 20:39
Equus is Latin, not ancient Umbrian. And Latin Equus is thought to derive from proto-Italic *ekwos, that derives from Proto-Indo-European *h₁éḱwos (“horse”). It's a word connected to all the Indo-European languages. I don't think it can prove a specific connection.

Mycenean is ικκος eqqos but change to ιππος eppos notice the hephew or hepfew,
the Q-P change must have to do with this

Sakattack
04-08-17, 20:44
so Linear A is minoan and Linear B is mycenean................A before B ....................myceneans conquered the minoans before the dorians arrived in Greece.
Logically , the myceneans originally spoke something else before Linear B , what did they speak, was it still Greek?

Linear B was just the written expression of the archaic Greek AKA Mycenaean language. We can assume that they had no alphabet, so they adopted the Linear (slightly changed from A to B) writing system from the Minoans to write down their language.

Minoan language was different.

Yetos
04-08-17, 20:45
Is thessaloniki the same as thessaly? ..........Neolitihic Thessaly ( NT ) had different markers ( as per other papers ) than this papers stated markers. NT had E-V13 while none where found in minoans.
I am unsure if Angela included thessalonki in her statement, some people think of it as one place and others do not.

what? when V-13 found in Neolithic thessaly?
the oldest possible V-13 found is at iron age Thrace around 5-6th century BC,

the theoritical posibility of exist has nothing to do with found?

Yetos
04-08-17, 20:50
Well Trojans are supposed to be relevant to Romans (see Aeneas). Actually, it took so many years for Troy to fall. They should have done the jerb in two years max.

if that is certain then Carthagenians should also be simmilar to Troyans,

Aeneas bedore Rome went to Africa.

Ygorbr
04-08-17, 20:50
So, the amount of actual "admixture", and not, to emphasize, from any simplistic admixture like calculator, but from very sophisticated statistical modeling techniques by people who understand how they work because they created them would probably be around 20% from such a "proximate" source, which would be enough to effectuate linguistic change. I mean, if the "Hungarians" could do it in Hungary with even less genetic input, it could happen in Greece. We have to also keep in mind that like the "Hungarians", this intrusive group adopted much of the culture of the pre-existing population, as well as bringing in some additional elements of their own. Perhaps the effect of the "Turkish" migration to Anatolia might be a reasonably good example as well.

The confusion over this shows why precise definitions are so important, and people need to know them. When the authors wrote about Mycenaeans having 4-16% "steppe", they meant as in actual Yamnaya ancestry.


Thanks for this enlightening answer. IMHO if we consider that the recent study on West Iberian ancient DNA indicated an introgression of EHG without CHG (probably, I'd guess, accompanied by quite a lot of EEF found between Eastern Europe and beyond the Pyrenees), then I'm starting to assume that the proximate sources (emphasis on the plural) of IE languages/cultures were much more varied than the "simpler" transplantation of Yamna-like people to other regions and subsequent mix with decaying EEF, the "Aryan warriors wiping Old Europe out" stuff.

The scenario looks increasingly complex, pointing to alternative hypotheses that would result in very different admixture outcomes. Some peoples were pretty much Yamna-like, others must've been a relatively even mix between Europe_LN and Yamna-like, others yet mainly indigenous Europe_N under a foreign ruling elite, and even Kurganized EHG+EEF natives - if that CHG-less EHG "invasion" of Iberia really brought the first IE languages (Pre-Lusitanian?) to Iberian. Depending on where the Mycenaeans came, their actual contribution as a whole could've had a wide range.

As a Latino, that situation looks quite plausible: even though Spanish and Portuguese spread almost uniformly throughout a huge continent, the actual European admixture varies widely from as little as 15-20% to as much as 80%. A colonization by Argentines will yield a very different result from one from theri neighbor Bolivians.

Yetos
04-08-17, 20:52
We can also surmise that only the cities that went to fight for Agamemnon in the trojan war where mycenean cities and they also spoke mycenean
what was the most northern Mycenaean city that went with the greek to troy?

and we can also surmise that Myrmidons were not Myceneans

LATGAL
04-08-17, 20:53
"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. "
"Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon. Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++""
I doubt they would have included it at all if it wasn't the best model.

It's not impossible but why are you against a (non-IE) migration from Anatolia leading to the Neolithic-Minoan change then one from the Balkans (maybe not entirely IE but bringing pre-proto-Greek) leading to the Minoan-Mycenaean change. These seem very plausible and are archaeologically supported based on my readings. Is it tied to your general preference for a Transcaucasus IE urheimat?

But yeah I like that they keep their options open on a number of issues, including the date of the arrival of Anatolian to Anatolia.

markoz2
04-08-17, 21:01
It's not impossible but why are you against a (non-IE) migration from Anatolia leading to the Neolithic-Minoan change then one from the Balkans (maybe not entirely IE but bringing pre-proto-Greek) leading to the Minoan-Mycenaean change. These seem very plausible and are archaeologically supported based on my readings. Is it tied to your general preference for a Transcaucasus IE urheimat?
But yeah I like that they keep their options open on a number of issues, including the date of the arrival of Anatolian to Anatolia.

I personally don't care. At least as far as the archeology is concerned, the overwhelming bias in favor of one hypothesis isn't justified though.

They have to keep their options open because they couldn't find what they were looking for.

Angela
04-08-17, 21:10
"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. "

"Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon. Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++""

I doubt they would have included it at all if it wasn't the best model.

So now you're going to resort to cherry-picking quotes from a paper to support your preference? Are you related to Sikeliot, or Drac, or maybe Joey from italicroots?

The authors emphatically do not propose that that Armenian hypothesis is better, not in this paper, at least. Period.

From the paper:

"Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east; Table S2.2), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia."

There are more quotes, but it's not worth spending the time. Anyone who has read the paper carefully and honestly knows that you are misrepresenting them.

I don't respond to people who engage in such dishonest practices, so consider yourself ignored from here on in.

markoz2
04-08-17, 21:33
So now you're going to resort to cherry-picking quotes from a paper to support your preference? Are you related to Sikeliot, or Drac, or maybe Joey from italicroots?

The authors emphatically do not propose that that Armenian hypothesis is better, not in this paper, at least. Period.

From the paper:

"Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east; Table S2.2), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia."

There are more quotes, but it's not worth spending the time. Anyone who has read the paper carefully and honestly knows that you are misrepresenting them.

I don't respond to people who engage in such dishonest practices, so consider yourself ignored from here on in.

It's their best model because it explains both the anti-correlation of the northern and eastern shifts and the general picture of the aDNA. The other models have less explanatory power. I don't think it's dishonest to point this out, but perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by "best model" beforehand. It wasn't my intention to mislead people.

Pax Augusta
04-08-17, 21:35
Is thessaloniki the same as thessaly? ..........Neolitihic Thessaly ( NT ) had different markers ( as per other papers ) than this papers stated markers. NT had E-V13 while none where found in minoans.
I am unsure if Angela included thessalonki in her statement, some people think of it as one place and others do not.

No, Thessaloniki is Macedonia, in Italian it's Salonicco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki

Ygorbr
04-08-17, 21:48
Linear A was the primary script used in palace and religious writings of the Minoan civilization. It was discovered by archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans. It is the origin of the Linear B script, which was later used by the Mycenaean civilization.

so Linear A is minoan and Linear B is mycenean................A before B ....................myceneans conquered the minoans before the dorians arrived in Greece.
Logically , the myceneans originally spoke something else before Linear B , what did they speak, was it still Greek?

I particularly don't see a good reason to conflate the adoption of a script, a writing device (Linear B), by a previously illiterate people with a hypothetical shift of their language. Mycenaeans didn't speak Linear B. They wrote using it. The language written through Linear B script is very clearly ancient Greek, already clearly distinguishable from [reconstructed] Late PIE dialects.

LATGAL
04-08-17, 22:09
I'm sure markoz2 is just Markoz(1) :) I personally appreciate his attention to the other major hypothesis, though I find it less likely than an intrusion from the north, especially at this point.

Sile
04-08-17, 22:43
I particularly don't see a good reason to conflate the adoption of a script, a writing device (Linear B), by a previously illiterate people with a hypothetical shift of their language. Mycenaeans didn't speak Linear B. They wrote using it. The language written through Linear B script is very clearly ancient Greek, already clearly distinguishable from [reconstructed] Late PIE dialects.

but linear B came from linear A ............so we know what minoans spoke , but what did the myceaneans speak before learning or adapting linear A to make linear B ?

Sakattack
04-08-17, 22:56
but linear B came from linear A ............so we know what minoans spoke , but what did the myceaneans speak before learning or adapting linear A to make linear B ?
With all the respect, you don't seem to pay attention.

So, as simply as it gets:

The Minoans were speaking their own (unknown) language and were using Linear A to write it.
The Mycenaeans had no alphabet before dealing with the Minoans, no script, no written communication. After meeting them, they adopted their script (Linear A) to write down their language (which was archaic Greek) and eventually they slightly transformed the pattern (Linear B).

They didn't change their language, they just found a way to write it down.

halfalp
04-08-17, 23:06
It could be related by a two-way cultural complexe, with yamnaya copper age and R1b expand in romania / central europe first near 4000bc and a later phenomenon coming from somewhere anatolia maybe armenia in early stage ( kura araxes ) bronze age link with J2a maybe others expand throught south est europe and mingled somehow near -2000 with neolithic and steppe peoples. Etruscians can be related with those people coming from the second anatolian wave. The question about indo-european language here is difficult, wich wave bring it, or was it in steppe, Tocharians and afanasievo seems favor the steppe hypothesis, for a late-proto-indo-european for sur.

holderlin
04-08-17, 23:20
I'm sure markoz2 is just Markoz(1) :) I personally appreciate his attention to the other major hypothesis, though I find it less likely than an intrusion from the north, especially at this point.

yeah what is up with "markoz2"

Jovialis
04-08-17, 23:26
The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref2), and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref3)and Iran4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 5 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref5). However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref7), 8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref8), introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref1), 6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref6), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9) or Armenia4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref4), 9 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#ref9). Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#tables

Is it possible the language was also influenced by other indo-European and other language speaking people that contributed to genome? Instead of one single-source, perhaps its just a result of people mixing these languages, until it melded together over time. Creating a common language that they spoke, so they could operate as a society. I wonder how much each of these particular groups contributed to the Greek language.

Yetos
04-08-17, 23:27
It could be related by a two-way cultural complexe, with yamnaya copper age and R1b expand in romania / central europe first near 4000bc and a later phenomenon coming from somewhere anatolia maybe armenia in early stage ( kura araxes ) bronze age link with J2a maybe others expand throught south est europe and mingled somehow near -2000 with neolithic and steppe peoples. Etruscians can be related with those people coming from the second anatolian wave. The question about indo-european language here is difficult, wich wave bring it, or was it in steppe, Tocharians and afanasievo seems favor the steppe hypothesis, for a late-proto-indo-european for sur.

Tocharian
either steppe, either kurgans,
either Yamnaa
either Anatolian,
either Armenian

is an Anatolian language from area south of today Armenia that moved to steppe

Sile
05-08-17, 00:58
With all the respect, you don't seem to pay attention.

So, as simply as it gets:

The Minoans were speaking their own (unknown) language and were using Linear A to write it.
The Mycenaeans had no alphabet before dealing with the Minoans, no script, no written communication. After meeting them, they adopted their script (Linear A) to write down their language (which was archaic Greek) and eventually they slightly transformed the pattern (Linear B).

They didn't change their language, they just found a way to write it down.

link me something that the myceneans spoke archaic greek ..............and , did the minoans speak archiac Greek?


I pay attention, but the answer on what was Mycenean language pre minoan conquest is what I am wanting to know .............you are indicating that minoans and myceneans spoke archaic Greek before linear A was formed

Sile
05-08-17, 01:00
No, Thessaloniki is Macedonia, in Italian it's Salonicco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki

i know, angela said thessally and you replied for thessaloniki ...............2 different places

Falco
05-08-17, 01:07
i know, angela said thessally and you replied for thessaloniki ...............2 different places

I think the samples in the Lazaridis PCA are largely from Thessaloniki, and the Thessaly sample being referenced is from the Eurogenes PCA (from which study it originally came from I can't say).

Sakattack
05-08-17, 01:08
link me something that the myceneans spoke archaic greek ..............and , did the minoans speak archiac Greek?
I pay attention, but the answer on what was Mycenean language pre minoan conquest is what I am wanting to know .............you are indicating that minoans and myceneans spoke archaic Greek before linear A was formed

With no search at all, take this from wiki: "The decipherment of the Mycenaean Linear B script, a writing system adapted for the use of the Greek language of the Late Bronze Age,[11] demonstrated the continuity of Greek speech from the second millennium BC into the eighth century BC when a new script emerged. Moreover, it revealed that the bearers of Mycenaean culture were ethnically connected with the populations that resided in the Greek peninsula after the end of this cultural period"

Also this:
"The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is the assumed last common ancestor of all known varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., Attic, Ionic, Aeolic, Doric, Ancient Macedonian and Arcadocypriot) and, ultimately, Koine, Byzantine and Modern Greek. The unity of Proto-Greek would have ended as Hellenic migrants, who spoke the predecessor of the Mycenaean language, entered the Greek peninsula sometime in the Neolithic or the Bronze Age.[1]"

The Minoan language is still not not deciphered. All the evidence suggest that it was not Greek, not IE, but sth else.

And again, you miss the point. Try to get thing together:

- Minoans -> unknown languange -> Linear A script
- Myceneaens -> archaic Greek language -> no script at first -> Linear B script after the contact with the Minoans and the borrowing of their alphabet.

Clear now?

mlukas
05-08-17, 01:17
M472594 I9010 - Mycean (smallest bam)

M866617 I9041 - Mycean (biggest bam)

M740087 I2499 - Anatolia_BA

If somebody check them, above are Sicilan / Jewish shifted.

But Crete Armenoi is different M293012.
Check it in Eurogenes K13, Eutest, Jtest , Gedrosia or Puntdnal. Some North or East Euro element is visible...

davef
05-08-17, 01:36
Can someone help an idiot out? I don't understand how (according to this chart) Thessalonikis are like Cypriots with just a small extra spread of red stuff (EHG or steppe or whatever pushes them north) and it looks like Cypriots and Thessalonkikis are closer to one of the Minoan groups (Lashi or whatever it's called). I wonder if that's true for other Greeks. I'll have to read it.
But I'll admit that my interpretation could be far off and I don't understand what the chart is telling us.
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images_supplementary/nature23310-sf1.jpg

Tomenable
05-08-17, 01:59
Crete_Armenoi in Eurogenes K13:

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

51.1%
Sardinian
+
48.9%
Ukrainian_Lviv
@
14.39


2

56.4%
Sardinian
+
43.6%
Russian_Smolensk
@
14.57


3

54.5%
Sardinian
+
45.5%
Polish
@
14.7


4

56.7%
Sardinian
+
43.3%
Estonian_Polish
@
14.8


5

57.3%
Sardinian
+
42.7%
Belorussian
@
14.81


6

54.3%
Croatian
+
45.7%
Sardinian
@
14.85


7

60%
Sardinian
+
40%
East_Finnish
@
15


8

60%
Sardinian
+
40%
Lithuanian
@
15.01


9

56.2%
Moldavian
+
43.8%
Sardinian
@
15.04


10

56.6%
Sardinian
+
43.4%
Ukrainian_Belgorod
@
15.11



Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Sardinian +50% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 15.480942

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% East_German +25% Moroccan +25% Sardinian @ 14.180481

Using 4 populations approximation:

1 Lithuanian + Moroccan + Sardinian + Southwest_French @ 12.942441
2 Lithuanian + Moroccan + Sardinian + Spanish_Galicia @ 12.974084
3 French_Basque + Lithuanian + Sardinian + Saudi @ 12.988867
4 Moroccan + Russian_Smolensk + Sardinian + Southwest_French @ 13.115956
5 Lithuanian + Moroccan + Sardinian + Spanish_Cantabria @ 13.121005
6 Moroccan + Russian_Smolensk + Sardinian + Spanish_Galicia @ 13.215809
7 Estonian_Polish + Moroccan + Sardinian + Southwest_French @ 13.227383
8 Erzya + Moroccan + Sardinian + Southwest_French @ 13.291509
9 Lithuanian + Moroccan + Sardinian + Spanish_Extremadura @ 13.297136
10 Estonian_Polish + Moroccan + Sardinian + Spanish_Galicia @ 13.321469

Tomenable
05-08-17, 02:03
Crete_Armenoi could be ethnically Dorian.

It postdates Dorian infiltration of Crete.

Sakattack
05-08-17, 02:05
Crete_Armenoi could be ethnically Dorian.

It postdates Dorian infiltration of Crete.

Crete_Armenoi is a low quality sample of a female that does not posdate the Dorian arrive.

davef
05-08-17, 02:06
Interesting. I doubt any modern european group is half and half Sardinian-like and Slavic-like.

Ed: oh right, it's not a good sample.

Tomenable
05-08-17, 02:17
Crete_Armenoi is a low quality sample

It actually has 17547 SNPs utilized by GEDmatch template so it is not so bad.

I have seen even much lower quality samples whose results still make sense.

=====================

It does postdate Dorian invasions.

Tomenable
05-08-17, 02:21
Crete_Armenoi is relatively close to modern Greeks (K36):

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
GR_Central Greek_Peloponnes Albania_Montenegro
24.04430 26.74130 26.88111
Greek_Macedonia Kosovo Askhenazi
26.97979 27.12096 27.20055
Albania_North Ashkenazi_Eastern_Euro
27.25853 27.35450

K36 admixtures:

Population
Amerindian -
Arabian -
Armenian -
Basque 5.52
Central_African -
Central_Euro 9.19
East_African -
East_Asian -
East_Balkan -
East_Central_Asian -
East_Central_Euro 10.35
East_Med 27.46
Eastern_Euro -
Fennoscandian -
French 7.47
Iberian 14.18
Indo-Chinese -
Italian 7.85
Malayan -
Near_Eastern -
North_African 1.82
North_Atlantic -
North_Caucasian -
North_Sea 4.29
Northeast_African -
Oceanian -
Omotic -
Pygmy -
Siberian -
South_Asian -
South_Central_Asian -
South_Chinese -
Volga-Ural -
West_African -
West_Caucasian -
West_Med 11.88

Sakattack
05-08-17, 02:23
http://i.imgur.com/WK6QnI2.png

The so called "Dorian Invasion" (doubtful if it occured at all) was around 1200. In Crete, even a little later. Here Lazaridis is talking about 1300-1400.

So you are only 100-200 years close :P Good effort!

The quality is not the worst, but is by far the worst among the samples, which I don't see you commenting at... There are GEDmatch kits for them too, in case you missed it!

Tomenable
05-08-17, 02:25
Based on my analysis (see above), Crete_Armenoi is close to modern mainland Greeks.

This result is consistent with what their PCA shows. So why do you doubt my analysis?

Tomenable
05-08-17, 02:29
Modeling as a mix of modern populations:

Crete_Armenoi

Population percent

Druze 37.15

IT_Sardinia 23.65

Spain_La-Rioja 16.10
Spain_Valencia 0.10

France_SW 4.05

PL_Sudovia 13.80
PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia 1.10
PL_Mazovia 0.25

Russian_Bryansk 3.80

Sakattack
05-08-17, 02:36
Based on my analysis (see above), Crete_Armenoi is close to modern mainland Greeks.

This result is consistent with what their PCA shows. So why do you doubt my analysis?

Even though its kinda close (24 distance its not that close, but OK), I do not judge according my preferences. Id love to see Minoans, Myceneaeans and Classics indistinguishable from the Greeks, you know!

On the other hand, I can smell agendas and biased opinions: from the 4 samples available at GEDmatch now, you had cherry picked the one that fits you better (even if it is the worst in terms of quality) you mentioned only this on your first post and you dealed only with it: the "Slavic-like" (as you think) ancient Greek individual (according to your analysis which does not include all the other calcs you used, because as you know the results from one to another are not even close ...).

On the top of that, you came with that laughable conclusion that this may be Dorian, even though the Dorians were not even close to Crete by then... and you probably know it.


Go figure...