Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Yeah, but Phocaea itself was founded by Phocian Greeks from central Greece, under the leadership of Athenians. Identity wise they can prove to be a mess, bearing in mind that the original Phocians were Dorians, but Phocaea of Asia Minor was Ionic-speaking. And above all that, Phocaea was essentially within the Aeolic region (of Asia Minor), or at the very least on the borders of it. As for the rest, we all agree, we are desperate for Classical Greek samples from a number of regions, and some more Mycenaeans shouldn't be out of the equation.

It seems possible that Ionian Greeks may have been more EEF than mainland Greeks in the first place. I am not saying this purely on speculation. In the Mycenaean study there is evidence that Western Bronze Age Anatolians were shifted somewhat towards the Near East compared to Mycenaeans. Even compared to Minoans. So if Dorians of Phocaea settled there, they could only have shifted Western Anatolians towards the Mycenaeans if the Dorians themselves were more Steppe. Provided there was intermixture ofcourse. But given the fact that the Phocaeans spoke Ionian and not Doric, there most certainly was.

My guess is that Doric tribes carried more Steppe admixture, representing the proto-Greeks prior to the fact that they intermixed with the local pre-Greeks. The Mycenaeans already intermixed with the pre-Greeks and are therefore not a good representation of the proto-Greek language barriers. Just like the people of Phocaea (Asia Minor) are not good representatives of the Dorians.
 
It seems possible that Ionian Greeks may have been more EEF than mainland Greeks in the first place. I am not saying this purely on speculation. In the Mycenaean study there is evidence that Western Bronze Age Anatolians were shifted somewhat towards the Near East compared to Mycenaeans. Even compared to Minoans. So if Dorians of Phocaea settled there, they could only have shifted Western Anatolians towards the Mycenaeans if the Dorians themselves were more Steppe. Provided there was intermixture ofcourse. But given the fact that the Phocaeans spoke Ionian and not Doric, there most certainly was.

My guess is that Doric tribes carried more Steppe admixture, representing the proto-Greeks prior to the fact that they intermixed with the local pre-Greeks. The Mycenaeans already intermixed with the pre-Greeks and are therefore not a good representation of the proto-Greek language barriers. Just like the Phocaeans are not good representatives of the Dorians.
Yeah, i hypothesize Dorians having more steppe ancestry as well, due to the fact that they descended from the proto-Greek region of north-western Greece, and also because they spoke the most conservative of all the ancient Greek dialects (read this https://smerdaleos.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/%ce%b7-%ce%b1%cf%81%cf%87%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bb%ce%b7%ce%bd%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ae-%ce%b4%ce%b9%ce%b1%ce%bb%ce%b5%ce%ba%cf%84%ce%bf%ce%b3%ce%ad%ce%bd%ce%b5%cf%83%ce%b7-3/). Nonetheless take note that even Dorians were heavily intermixed with pre-Greeks, otherwise we wouldn't be speaking of Greek, which as a language has a pre-Greek substrate. What i am trying to say is that even proto-Greeks didn't resemble their Pontic-Caspian steppe Indo-European cousins by the time they diverged from Graeco-Phrygian.
 
Nonetheless take note that even Dorians were heavily intermixed with pre-Greeks, otherwise we wouldn't be speaking of Greek, which as a language has a pre-Greek substrate. What i am trying to say is that even proto-Greeks didn't resemble their Pontic-Caspian steppe Indo-European cousins by the time they diverged from Graeco-Phrygian.

I agree completely. The pre-Greeks dominated in the Southern Balkans and the proto-Greek speakers mixed with them very early on. But given the fact that they formed in Thessaly/Epirus it would seem likely that they carried more Steppe admixture at one point, being that they may have been one of the source populations which brought this Steppe admixture in that region. So if the Mycenaeans had 12% steppe admixture, and that specific area was already populated by a people who had no Steppe admixture at all, then provided there was some intermixture, the source population who gave Mycenaeans Steppe admixture must have had more of it. Given the fact that the homeland of the proto-Greeks is in North-Western Greece, it is fair to speculate that that region must have had more Steppe admixture. And as Dorians were moving South, the invasion must have elevated Steppe admixture somewhat more.
 
IMO...in the ancient world, Thessallians would be the most northern of Greek people on the aegean side......macedonians seem to be a mixed race of Greeks, Paeonians and Thracians .................there is no slav
Peloponesos to central Bulgaria would have formed a linguistic continuum and another continuum would have later evolved from central Bulgaria to central Anatolia from the descend of Phrygians.
The Indoeuropean clan that settled in that region would have descended in different waves southwards over a 1500 years period and would mingled with the respective local populations of the area they settled, forming the different greek civilazations.
As such there is no singular ancient greek population. There were many ancient Greek populations and the Northern you went , the ''purer'' greeks got .
Historical events of the next 3000 years mixed the Greek populations and created a relative uniformity, except in the Greek populations of Pontus and Cyprus that in isolation maintained a profile closer to the respective populations they originated from.
 
No modern population seems to be close to them, because they were of, almost, a pure neolithic farmer ancestry (with a bit of Caucasus and a bit of Yamnaya).

Using G25 scaled averages:

Screenshot-2020-01-10-Vahaduo-JS-19-11-2.png




For comparison, these are the stats for all the modern Greek groups (averages):

Screenshot-2020-01-10-Vahaduo-JS-19-11-2-1.png

Very interesting that the mainland modern Greeks have an Anatolia profile not much unlike the Empuries sample.
 
north-western greece, strong steppe admixture. sounds like they came for northern albania.



Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
north-western greece, strong steppe admixture. sounds like they came for northern albania.



Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
No, strong "steppe" admixture regionally pertains to the actual Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is where the "steppe" IE branch of languages spread from, including Graeco-Phrygian. Whether they passed through the modern geographical location of northern Albania to end up in north-western Greece, or not, is a matter of hypotheses and of minor importance. Could have entered north-western Greece from Thrace or Anatolia instead. Nonetheless, you seem to be making an anachronistic equation by your use of the term Albania, i assume you are trying to be provocative or something. Back then (namely time of entrance around 2500 BCE) there were none of the Palaeo-Balkan IE languages yet formed. Furthermore, steppe admixture is pretty much the same for most of Greeks and Albanians, therefore even from that anachronistic scope your way of thinking is false.
 
Very interesting that the mainland modern Greeks have an Anatolia profile not much unlike the Empuries sample.

Also, Northern Greeks (Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace) as well as the Empuries sample almost have no markers reminiscent to the Iran sample of Ganj Dareh. While the remaining Greeks resemble Mycenaeans and Minoans in that respect.
 
I have no idea why people trust the G25 so much given that the creator has been known to massage data and make strange choices as to which samples he will include.

I no longer pay much attention to the Eurogenes K13 updated. Those Italian samples are from an Italian Nazi. Aside from any games he may be playing, he has 1 Umbria sample, I Corsica sample etc.
 
I have no idea why people trust the G25 so much given that the creator has been known to massage data and make strange choices as to which samples he will include.

I no longer pay much attention to the Eurogenes K13 updated. Those Italian samples are from an Italian Nazi. Aside from any games he may be playing, he has 1 Umbria sample, I Corsica sample etc.
G25 is probably the most accurate calculator that's out for us. All ancient samples and academic samples are included in spreadsheets and can be used http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html. Given the fact that all samples are available, you can pretty much make any calculator/run that you want. The creators personal opinions don't really matter as a result.
 
G25 is probably the most accurate calculator that's out for us. All ancient samples and academic samples are included in spreadsheets and can be used http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html. Given the fact that all samples are available, you can pretty much make any calculator/run that you want. The creators personal opinions don't really matter as a result.

You're assuming all the ancient academic samples are included and further assuming they were prepared honorably. That's a big assumption. He picks and chooses for a reason.

People shouldn't be so gullible.
 
You're assuming all the ancient academic samples are included and further assuming they were prepared honorably. That's a big assumption. He picks and chooses for a reason.

People shouldn't be so gullible.
I mean the spreadsheets are available, you can check. And from what I see all available samples are on the spread sheet, maybe a few are missing. It's also a big assumption to say that he leaves out certain samples due to biases.

Anyways, if he does indeed leave out certain samples, somebody should point out which ones and bring that up to him.
 
Also, Northern Greeks (Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace) as well as the Empuries sample almost have no markers reminiscent to the Iran sample of Ganj Dareh. While the remaining Greeks resemble Mycenaeans and Minoans in that respect.

G 25 is really a questionable calculator for mainland Greeks. As someone of 100% Peloponnesian ancestry I'm oddly much closer to Central Macedonian, Thessalian samples than Peloponnesian one. We really need more samples from this region to take this calc seriously.
 
G 25 is really a questionable calculator for mainland Greeks. As someone of 100% Peloponnesian ancestry I'm oddly much closer to Central Macedonian, Thessalian samples than Peloponnesian one. We really need more samples from this region to take this calc seriously.
Yeah, same for me on that respect by running on Eurogenes K13 Oracle. Fully Peloponnesian (Messenia and Corinthia) and my closest group is Greek Thessalian, since no Greek Peloponnesian is included for comparison.
 
Yeah, same for me on that respect by running on Eurogenes K13 Oracle. Fully Peloponnesian (Messenia and Corinthia) and my closest group is Greek Thessalian, since no Greek Peloponnesian is included for comparison.

This perfectly illustrates my point about his work. There's a paper full of samples from the Peloponnese. Why not use them, or at least a randomly chosen subset of them.

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718

"Subjects were included in the study if all four grandparents originated from the same village or from villages that were <10 kilometers apart. The ages of most participants ranged between 70 and 90 years (the oldest subject was 107 years old); hence their grandparents were born between 1860 and 1880. In the 1861 census the population of Peloponnese was 578 598 individuals. At that time the economy of Peloponnese was exclusively agricultural and over 85% of the population was living in small villages and hamlets. We sampled all the districts of Peloponnese (Figure 1a and Supplementary Table 1) and also focused on two culturally distinct subpopulations, the Tsacones and the Maniots. To compare the Peloponneseans with other populations we analyzed samples from published data sets and data sets generated by our studies (Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 1). Merging genotypes from different sources and quality control were done as described.11

The lead author is deceased, but I'm sure some of the others could be contacted. Or someone could contact Iosif Lazaridis at Harvard and see if he knows whether the BAM files can be accessed, or at least whom to contact. Perhaps they weren't released, but if not, they could be asked to release them.

The same applies, as I said above, to the so called "Grugni" samples for the Italian regions in K13 which I mentioned above. I remembered that paper, and they didn't have samples from most of those areas, so I was immediately skeptical. Finally, I found out they were "collected and prepared" by some Italian Nazi. Instead of a representative sample of Corsicans from the published paper, he uses one sample from God knows where. There's one sample for Umbria. I could go on and on.

This is the problem with "amateur" tools. There's no ability to demand to see all the documentation, and thus no transparency and no accountability.
 
This perfectly illustrates my point about his work. There's a paper full of samples from the Peloponnese. Why not use them, or at least a randomly chosen subset of them.

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718

"Subjects were included in the study if all four grandparents originated from the same village or from villages that were <10 kilometers apart. The ages of most participants ranged between 70 and 90 years (the oldest subject was 107 years old); hence their grandparents were born between 1860 and 1880. In the 1861 census the population of Peloponnese was 578 598 individuals. At that time the economy of Peloponnese was exclusively agricultural and over 85% of the population was living in small villages and hamlets. We sampled all the districts of Peloponnese (Figure 1a and Supplementary Table 1) and also focused on two culturally distinct subpopulations, the Tsacones and the Maniots. To compare the Peloponneseans with other populations we analyzed samples from published data sets and data sets generated by our studies (Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 1). Merging genotypes from different sources and quality control were done as described.11

The lead author is deceased, but I'm sure some of the others could be contacted. Or someone could contact Iosif Lazaridis at Harvard and see if he knows whether the BAM files can be accessed, or at least whom to contact. Perhaps they weren't released, but if not, they could be asked to release them.

The same applies, as I said above, to the so called "Grugni" samples for the Italian regions in K13 which I mentioned above. I remembered that paper, and they didn't have samples from most of those areas, so I was immediately skeptical. Finally, I found out they were "collected and prepared" by some Italian Nazi. Instead of a representative sample of Corsicans from the published paper, he uses one sample from God knows where. There's one sample for Umbria. I could go on and on.

This is the problem with "amateur" tools. There's no ability to demand to see all the documentation, and thus no transparency and no accountability.
I agree with you. Samples certainly exist and surely people such as Eurogenes (David Wesolowski) can easily come in contact with one of the scientists who participated in that paper. For example, Fotis Tsetsos communication details are available here, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5521-846X, and surely Lazaridis can access them as well.
 
The results of a friend. His ancestry being basically a mix of peloponnesian,Western Anatolian Greek and Islander

Code:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: multiheader, align: center"]Target[/TD]
[TD="class: multiheader, colspan: 2, align: center"]Distance[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Anatolia_Barcin_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Yamnaya_RUS_Samara[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: multitargets, align: right"]Chris_scaled[/TD]
[TD="class: multidistance, bgcolor: #777777"]0.02059906[/TD]
[TD="class: nonselectable multidistchart"]•[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #446CA9, align: right"]25.2[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #4783C5, align: right"]39.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #44557E, align: right"]7.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #4371B2, align: right"]28.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: multitargets, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: multidistance, bgcolor: #777777"][/TD]
[TD="class: nonselectable multidistchart"][/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #446CA9, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #4783C5, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #44557E, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #4371B2, align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Code:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: multiheader, align: center"]Target[/TD]
[TD="class: multiheader, colspan: 2, align: center"]Distance[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Anatolia_Barcin_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Baltic_LVA_HG[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]GEO_CHG[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Levant_Natufian[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N[/TD]
[TD="class: multisources"]Yamnaya_RUS_Samara[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: multitargets, align: right"]Chris_scaled[/TD]
[TD="class: multidistance, bgcolor: #777777"]0.02059906[/TD]
[TD="class: nonselectable multidistchart"]•[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #446CA9, align: right"]25.2[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #4783C5, align: right"]39.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #444455, align: right"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #444455, align: right"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #44557E, align: right"]7.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #444455, align: right"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #444455, align: right"]0.0[/TD]
[TD="class: multiresult, bgcolor: #4371B2, align: right"]28.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Last edited:
Yeah, same for me on that respect by running on Eurogenes K13 Oracle. Fully Peloponnesian (Messenia and Corinthia) and my closest group is Greek Thessalian, since no Greek Peloponnesian is included for comparison.

I've asked several people about the Peloponnesian samples used on G25 and most responses are vague. Yeah we really don't even know where they come from and if they're truly indigenous to the region (at least prior to the early 20th c. population exchanges). The other thing I thought was odd is how mainland shifted the Smyrna sample is on G25.
 
This perfectly illustrates my point about his work. There's a paper full of samples from the Peloponnese. Why not use them, or at least a randomly chosen subset of them.

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718

"Subjects were included in the study if all four grandparents originated from the same village or from villages that were <10 kilometers apart. The ages of most participants ranged between 70 and 90 years (the oldest subject was 107 years old); hence their grandparents were born between 1860 and 1880. In the 1861 census the population of Peloponnese was 578 598 individuals. At that time the economy of Peloponnese was exclusively agricultural and over 85% of the population was living in small villages and hamlets. We sampled all the districts of Peloponnese (Figure 1a and Supplementary Table 1) and also focused on two culturally distinct subpopulations, the Tsacones and the Maniots. To compare the Peloponneseans with other populations we analyzed samples from published data sets and data sets generated by our studies (Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 1). Merging genotypes from different sources and quality control were done as described.11

The lead author is deceased, but I'm sure some of the others could be contacted. Or someone could contact Iosif Lazaridis at Harvard and see if he knows whether the BAM files can be accessed, or at least whom to contact. Perhaps they weren't released, but if not, they could be asked to release them.

The same applies, as I said above, to the so called "Grugni" samples for the Italian regions in K13 which I mentioned above. I remembered that paper, and they didn't have samples from most of those areas, so I was immediately skeptical. Finally, I found out they were "collected and prepared" by some Italian Nazi. Instead of a representative sample of Corsicans from the published paper, he uses one sample from God knows where. There's one sample for Umbria. I could go on and on.

This is the problem with "amateur" tools. There's no ability to demand to see all the documentation, and thus no transparency and no accountability.

I agree 100% with you. Everyone acts like the G25 is godsend compared to the other "old/antiquated" gedmatch calculators but to me it seems to have some "holes" with modern populations. It's seems to work better with ancient samples.
 
I agree 100% with you. Everyone acts like the G25 is godsend compared to the other "old/antiquated" gedmatch calculators but to me it seems to have some "holes" with modern populations. It's seems to work better with ancient samples.

There are "holes" in a lot of these calculators. I don't work with the G25 but I'm pretty familiar now with the Eurogenes K13 and K15. There are three Parma Beaker samples: two with varying amounts of steppe, and one with almost no steppe. Whoever put together the K13 Ancient put in two samples: the one with no steppe, which, no surprise, is closest to Sardinians, and the one with the most steppe. I never got a match with either one. Now I have a calculator which includes all three, and I have a "decent" match to that third sample. Now, perhaps there's something wrong with that sample; I don't know. There's nothing wonky with the results, though; they make perfect sense in terms of the cline within Southern Europeans.

Or, let's talk about the Mycenaeans and Minoans. In all of K13, there's room for a Vietnamese Neolithic sample, but no room for any Mycenaeans, and only one Minoan??? Why? It doesn't really make sense.

K15 does have three Minoans, but only two Mycenaeans. Again, why?

So, when you run these calculators for yourself don't assume they have exactly the same set of samples, or that all published samples are included, because they don't, and they're not.

Maybe all that is cleared up in the G25. I don't know. If so, great. I just think people need to look at that and other calculators carefully to see not only what's there, but what isn't there.

Oh, weirdly, the K15 includes the North Italian HGDP sample, which clearly shouldn't be there.
 

This thread has been viewed 1161769 times.

Back
Top