Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Fire Haired14 said:
Thessaly: 52.3% Barcin_N, 29.3% Yamnaya, 6.5% WHG, 8.2% CHG/IranNeo, 3.8% Natufian.
Peloponnese: 46.6% Barcin_N, 29.3% Yamnaya, 5% WHG, 11% CHG/IranNeo, 8.2% Natufian.
Macedonia: 48.6% Barcin_N, 30.75% Yamnaya, 3% WHG, 12.2% CHG/IranNeo, 5.4% Natufian.

Minoan: 78% Barcin_N, 18% CHG/IranNeo, 3.2% Natufian.
Mycenean: 68% Barcin_N, 13% Yamnaya, 16% CHG/Iran Neo, 0% Natufian
Click to expand...

Also these were done by you?

Iberia
Cantabria: 48.2% Barcin_N, 21.5% Yamnaya, 22% WHG, 1.1% CHG/IranNeo, 3.6% Natufian, 3.5% Morocco.
Murcia: 44.3% Barcin_N, 21.4% Yamnaya, 18% WHG, 4.4% CHG/IRanNeo, 3.6% Natufian, 8% Morocco.
Portuguese: 44% Barcin_N, 20% Yamnaya, 19% WHG, 3% CHG/IranNeo, 3% Natufian, 11.8% Morocco.
 
Angela said:
I know that Stormfront is down, and Skadi, forumbiodiversity, and theapricity are probably not far behind, but you're not going to import your garbage here and imperil this site, in case I haven't made it sufficiently clear before.
Click to expand...

No Anthrogenica is next. They are racist pigs with an agenda. They banned me then they spread rumours about me that I'm " mentally ill " . I'm not. ****** assholes.
 
Pax Augusta said:
Can you show me the academic curriculum vitae of "geneticist" Polako? In what university did he earn the Ph.D? And in which university does he teach?

Those models were not done by me but by someone who is not less "geneticist" than Polako.
Click to expand...



He graduated summa cum laude from Duke University...wait, I meant David Duke University where he completed his doctoral dissertation on Indo European Übermenschen. He also minored in insecurity.
 
@curiouscat,

I see you've corrected your data and now state that you're Iberian.

Didn't I question you just recently on one of these active threads and ask whether you weren't in fact Iberian and the country flag was a blind? Didn't you say you weren't? I'll have to check that, and if you lied, I'll have to think about the consequences for that.
 
I'd be curious if Polako registered here so we could have a civil discussion. I've no reason to defend or support him, but it's not correct to attack anyone behind his back.
 
davef said:
Quoting Fire Haired:
"Different models can give Greeks different Myceanean percentages. I'm sure some would give them 70% Mycenaean and some much less. It gets confusing when the proposed ancestors share ancestry. Overall Greeks are very similar to Mycenaeans"

So a model can deem some of the genes Dave's run counted as Slavic as Mycenaean and thereby boosting the Mycenaean score from 47 percent to 70? its possible to confuse or manipulate the program so it mislabels Mediterranean DNA as Slavic DNA or vice versa?

And no offense, but being roughly only half Mycenaean doesn't amount to being very similar to them.
Click to expand...

Yep that is what Angela and I were trying to explan for quite some time and told people to be cautios with some calculators and other methods, because they can be manipulated depending on what the maker tries to prove. The results aren't necessary wrong but the conclusions ARE. It's called confirmation bias.

Let me give you an example. ancient Egyptians had something like 8% less SSA admixture. Some media outlets wrote "ancient Egyptians are closer to Europeans than moderns are. And they were slightly closer to neolithic Europeans than to modern Egyptians". These statements in themselves are not incorrect but the last thing you would think off if you saw the data.

Ancient Egyptians being closer to Europeans than modern Egyptians are is a side effect of ancient Egyptians having less SSA admixture and more NEAR EASTERN admixture. So them being little closer to Europeans is a side effect of them being more Near Eastern. And Neolithic Europeans being possibly as close to ancient Egyptians as modern once is not because ancient Egyptians had European ancestry (as some white supremacists youtubers think) but because Neolithic Europeans derive almost entirely from Anatolian_farmers. So it is shared ancestry.

The same with these Greek results. There is naturally shared ancestry between Slavs and Greeks too. And Slavs too have Iran_Neo/CHG and Anatolian_Neo ancestry. So you could argue that this shared ancestry came to Greeks after Bronze Age via Slavs or you can argue that little ancient Steppe andmixture meeting Neolithic farmers and creating a pseudo Slavic admixture appearance. To me it makes more sense the Greeks are 75% Mycenean derived + something like 15% Slavic admixture. than Greeks being almost as much Mycenean (thought to be their linguistic ancestors) derived as Slavic admixed. Can you imagine 30% real Slavic admixture in Greeks? Like Every third freakn Greek is descend of some kind of Slav?
 
Angela said:
These are the actual percentages. The totals are very small, nothing like has been thrown around by some "amateurs".

Northern Europeans:
Twilight 4.4
IIa3 Young 3.5
Tomenable/Polish: 8.4
Carl Graham 2.2
Olov 0
Northener 4.9
Appalachian 2.3
Bix 2%
AHA 3%

Italians:
Me 3.4
Regio’s family approximately 8%
Stuvane 7.1

Greek:
Matadworf 5.5

Bulgarian
Valerius 6.9

Albanian
Dibran 5.4

Basque-Arbaso 3%

We would need a lot more samples, but my hunch is that northwestern Italians will tend to have less of this than north eastern Italians because there was additional input from the Balkans and Greece into eastern areas of Italy before subsequent changes to the Greek and Balkan genomes. It only needs to be added that I'm one-quarter far Northwest Tuscan (the Lunigiana), and one-quarter Eastern Ligurian (La Spezia). You would think I'd have a bit of "Etruscan".

Now, this isn't a thread on Italian genetics. I shouldn't have let this continue for so long

Let's get back on topic.
Click to expand...

Interesting that Northeast Europeans get more extra Iran_Neo/CHG than other. There seems to be something ancient going on? Or might it be Indo_Iranian like ancestry hiding?
 
Assuming we take consider geography and historical migrations, Slavic admixture seems present in Greece, maybe not as great as 30-40% but it's there, even just based on Y-dna haplogroups. Around 1/4 of the Greek male y-dna belongs to North Eastern European lineages, which can't be anything but a signal of Slavic related ancestry. (Maybe not extacly recent from Russians but shared lineage with those groups)

If we use modern slavic samples then the Myceanean will decrease, compared to Myceaneans even Peloponnese can be like extra 50% Bulgarian like or 30% Polish like. Some people won't like it, but I don't see the point other than chauvinism. It's not a disease to have East European ancestry.

This map shows the East European related Y-dna in Greece

13770535_690365121117806_5102015285444749814_n.jpg



North-East-European based on MDLP World 22 VS Near Eastern one (peaks in Bedouins)

Greeks:

Northern Greece: 25.37 North-East European VS 14.79 Near Eastern
Southern Greeks: 24.93 North-East European VS 15.85 Near Eastern
Central Greeks: 21.36 North-East European VS 15.97 Near Eastern
Cretan Greeks: 13.11 North-East European VS 21.42 Near Eastern
Cypriot Greeks: 4.11 North-East European VS 27.56 Near Eastern


Bulgarians: 38.44 North-East European VS 10.21 Near Eastern

So Mainland Greeks are about 20-25% North-East European. That's quite significant and definitely shows up in admixture tests.

Another map which uses other methods to measure admixture:


d91ecfec87eeac5aa85d92ac940cf689.jpg
 
curiouscat said:
I'd be curious if Polako registered here so we could have a civil discussion. I've no reason to defend or support him, but it's not correct to attack anyone behind his back.
Click to expand...

He is registered here. And I had Polako invited on his blog to a civil discussion here, because I felt like it was easier to have a fair discussion on neutral ground, which he didn't respond to. He is very good at using tools for genetic data, which I am not taking away from him. Respect should be given where it is deserved. But his conclusions/theories are often schoolboy level and have allot of holes in them + confirmation bias is there. And if you point out these holes or try to explain him why it makes archeological not much sense. He can get quite angry.
 
Alan said:
Yep that is what Angela and I were trying to explan for quite some time and told people to be cautios with some calculators and other methods, because they can be manipulated depending on what the maker tries to prove. The results aren't necessary wrong but the conclusions ARE. It's called confirmation bias.

Let me give you an example. ancient Egyptians had something like 8% less SSA admixture. Some media outlets wrote "ancient Egyptians are closer to Europeans than moderns are. And they were slightly closer to neolithic Europeans than to modern Egyptians". These statements in themselves are not incorrect but the last thing you would think off if you saw the data.

Ancient Egyptians being closer to Europeans than modern Egyptians are is a side effect of ancient Egyptians having less SSA admixture and more NEAR EASTERN admixture. So them being little closer to Europeans is a side effect of them being more Near Eastern. And Neolithic Europeans being possibly as close to ancient Egyptians as modern once is not because ancient Egyptians had European ancestry (as some white supremacists youtubers think) but because Neolithic Europeans derive almost entirely from Anatolian_farmers. So it is shared ancestry.

The same with these Greek results. There is naturally shared ancestry between Slavs and Greeks too. And Slavs too have Iran_Neo/CHG and Anatolian_Neo ancestry. So you could argue that this shared ancestry came to Greeks after Bronze Age via Slavs or you can argue that little ancient Steppe andmixture meeting Neolithic farmers and creating a pseudo Slavic admixture appearance. To me it makes more sense the Greeks are 75% Mycenean derived + something like 15% Slavic admixture. than Greeks being almost as much Mycenean (thought to be their linguistic ancestors) derived as Slavic admixed. Can you imagine 30% real Slavic admixture in Greeks? Like Every third freakn Greek is descend of some kind of Slav?
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks! And Mycenaeans had a ton of farmer, and maybe some of that extra Slavic is shared Neolithic ancestry. I guess one could add Mycenaean to a German?
 
curiouscat said:
Assuming we take consider geography and historical migrations, Slavic admixture seems present in Greece, maybe not as great as 30-40% but it's there, even just based on Y-dna haplogroups. Around 1/4 of the Greek male y-dna belongs to North Eastern European lineages, which can't be anything but a signal of Slavic related ancestry. (Maybe not extacly recent from Russians but shared lineage with those groups)

If we use modern slavic samples then the Myceanean will decrease, compared to Myceaneans even Peloponnese can be like extra 50% Bulgarian like or 30% Polish like. Some people won't like it, but I don't see the point other than chauvinism. It's not a disease to have East European ancestry.

This map shows the East European related Y-dna in Greece

13770535_690365121117806_5102015285444749814_n.jpg


So North-Eastern Greece has about the same amount of direct East European ancestry as parts of Bulgaria? It seems so. Notice how the Alps as a geographical barrier made the East European ancestry quite insignificant in most parts of Italy.

d91ecfec87eeac5aa85d92ac940cf689.jpg
Click to expand...

If you believe all the R1a lineages in Greece are Slav derived you must be insane. Also as you noted out yourself. They have 1/4 Slav related yDNA. Related and derived are not the same thing. Schoolboy mistakes. Z93 is more Indo_Iranian related. But even z283 (z282) is not Slav exclusive.

Who made that Slavic admixture map? And what is the proxy for "Slavic" admixture here? Is it Northeast Europeans or Balkanians. If Balkanians it's not like Balkan Slavs derive at least 2/3 of their ancestry from pre Slavic Balkanians which shared ancestry with Myceneans already.
 
curiouscat said:
13770535_690365121117806_5102015285444749814_n.jpg
Click to expand...

This map is ridiculous. If its supposed to show paternal ancestry my guess is an amateur foolishly created it attributing all R1a and I2 in Greece to slavs, but perhaps that is even optimistic.

As for Davidski he certainly has his prejudices and a temper. I wouldn't completely disregard him though just because of his favoritism towards slavs and the steppe.
 
A warning to all our members...

Do not post fraudulent ethnicity information, and then come on this site to disrupt discussions and attack other ethnicities, and/or to evade bans that have already been issued. Most particularly, don't lie about it when questioned. It won't be tolerated. The really funny thing is that after denying he was Iberian, he then admitted it. :) Those kinds of shenanigans won't fly here.

See:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ferences-in-income/page3?highlight=curiouscat

As for Eurogenes, I would definitely not wish him to post here, since the last time he did so he personally threatened me.
 
Promenade said:
This map is ridiculous. If its supposed to show paternal ancestry my guess is an amateur foolishly created it attributing all R1a and I2 in Greece to slavs, but perhaps that is even optimistic.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. From everything I've seen, "Slav" type R1a is very insignificant in Greece, and Z93 is rare. Even with I2, only certain types could at all be considered "Slavic".

Alan:If you believe all the R1a lineages in Greece are Slav derived you must be insane. Also as you noted out yourself. They have 1/4 Slav related yDNA. Related and derived are not the same thing. Schoolboy mistakes. Z93 is more Indo_Iranian related. But even z283 (z282) is not Slav exclusive.
Click to expand...

School boy mistake or a deliberate attempt to misinform.
 
nMonte with the same samples from davidski's global 10, and the same kind of models. Greeks are northern Greeks, I've not understood if they are the same used by davidski. These I'm using are already quite northern-shifted. I would like to see also the results for other Greeks and Greek islanders.

Even Italian_Bergamo can be modelled as 42% Slav and Tuscans as 31.4% Slav, but Greeks here get 29.1 which is a percentage closer to reality. I think that Slav indicates more steppe-like ancestry than true Slavic ancestors, whether or not these stats really mean something.


Greek

Anatolia_BA 49.2
Unetice 34.3
Iceman_MN 16.4

Mycenaean 67.15
Unetice 30.10
England_Roman_outlier 2.75

Mycenaean 62.5
Slav_Czech 29.1
Iran_ChL 8.3


____

Italian_Bergamo

Unetice 43.2
Iceman_MN 34.3
Anatolia_BA 22.4

Mycenaean 52.2
Unetice 45.9
England_Roman_outlier 1.9

Mycenaean 57.4
Slav_Czech 42.6
Iran_ChL 0.0


____

Italian_Tuscan

Anatolia_BA 42.4
Unetice 35.5
Iceman_MN 22.1

Mycenaean 52.70
Unetice 37.85
England_Roman_outlier 9.45

Mycenaean 62.4
Slav_Czech 31.4
Iran_ChL 6.2


____

Italian_South

Anatolia_BA 66.5
Iceman_MN 18.1
Unetice 15.4

Mycenaean 46.0
England_Roman_outlier 30.1
Unetice 23.9

Mycenaean 78.8
Iran_ChL 12.2
Slav_Czech 9.0

___

Italian_EastSicilian

Anatolia_BA 62.1
Iceman_MN 22.1
Unetice 15.8

Mycenaean 54.8
England_Roman_outlier 23.3
Unetice 21.9

Mycenaean 81.10
Slav_Czech 10.15
Iran_ChL 8.75

____

Italian_CentralSicilian

Anatolia_BA 63.5
Iceman_MN 21.2
Unetice 15.2

Mycenaean 55.6
England_Roman_outlier 23.4
Unetice 21.1

Mycenaean 80.90
Iran_ChL 9.65
Slav_Czech 9.45

____

Italian_WestSicilian

Anatolia_BA 57.1
Iceman_MN 21.9
Unetice 20.9

Mycenaean 44.9
Unetice 29.2
England_Roman_outlier 25.9

Mycenaean 75.00
Slav_Czech 15.75
Iran_ChL 9.25
 
Angela said:
A warning to all our members...

Do not post fraudulent ethnicity information, and then come on this site to disrupt discussions and attack other ethnicities, and/or to evade bans that have already been issued. Most particularly, don't lie about it when questioned. It won't be tolerated. The really funny thing is that after denying he was Iberian, he then admitted it. :) Those kinds of shenanigans won't fly here.

See:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ferences-in-income/page3?highlight=curiouscat

As for Eurogenes, I would definitely not wish him to post here, since the last time he did so he personally threatened me.
Click to expand...
Did he got permabanned?
 
Alan said:
If you believe all the R1a lineages in Greece are Slav derived you must be insane. Also as you noted out yourself. They have 1/4 Slav related yDNA. Related and derived are not the same thing. Schoolboy mistakes. Z93 is more Indo_Iranian related. But even z283 (z282) is not Slav exclusive.

Who made that Slavic admixture map? And what is the proxy for "Slavic" admixture here? Is it Northeast Europeans or Balkanians. If Balkanians it's not like Balkan Slavs derive at least 2/3 of their ancestry from pre Slavic Balkanians which shared ancestry with Myceneans already.
Click to expand...
Proto-Slavs were diverse:

  1. 3,800 BCE : Dobrovody (Ukraine) => I2a2, E1b1b , G2a and J2
  2. 3,700 BCE : Talianki (Ukraine) => I2a2, E1b1b , G2a and J2
  3. 3,700 BCE : Maydanets (Ukraine) => I2a2, E1b1b , G2a and J2
  4. 3,250 BCE : Kasenovka (Ukraine) => I2a2, E1b1b , G2a and J2
 
Pratt said:
nMonte with the same samples from davidski's global 10, and the same kind of models. Greeks are northern Greeks, I've not understood if they are the same used by davidski. These are already quite northern-shifted. I would like to see also the results for other Greeks and Greek islanders.

Even Italian_Bergamo can be modelled as 42% Slav and Tuscans as 31.4% Slav, but Greeks here get 29.1 which is a percentage closer to reality. I think that Slav indicates more steppe-like ancestry than true Slavic ancestors, whether or not these stats really mean something.


Greek

Anatolia_BA 49.2
Unetice 34.3
Iceman_MN 16.4

Mycenaean 67.15
Unetice 30.10
England_Roman_outlier 2.75

Mycenaean 62.5
Slav_Czech 29.1
Iran_ChL 8.3


____

Italian_Bergamo

Unetice 43.2
Iceman_MN 34.3
Anatolia_BA 22.4

Mycenaean 52.2
Unetice 45.9
England_Roman_outlier 1.9

Mycenaean 57.4
Slav_Czech 42.6
Iran_ChL 0.0


____

Italian_Tuscan

Anatolia_BA 42.4
Unetice 35.5
Iceman_MN 22.1

Mycenaean 52.70
Unetice 37.85
England_Roman_outlier 9.45

Mycenaean 62.4
Slav_Czech 31.4
Iran_ChL 6.2


____

Italian_South

Anatolia_BA 66.5
Iceman_MN 18.1
Unetice 15.4

Mycenaean 46.0
England_Roman_outlier 30.1
Unetice 23.9

Mycenaean 78.8
Iran_ChL 12.2
Slav_Czech 9.0

___

Italian_EastSicilian

Anatolia_BA 62.1
Iceman_MN 22.1
Unetice 15.8

Mycenaean 54.8
England_Roman_outlier 23.3
Unetice 21.9

Mycenaean 81.10
Slav_Czech 10.15
Iran_ChL 8.75

____

Italian_CentralSicilian

Anatolia_BA 63.5
Iceman_MN 21.2
Unetice 15.2

Mycenaean 55.6
England_Roman_outlier 23.4
Unetice 21.1

Mycenaean 80.90
Iran_ChL 9.65
Slav_Czech 9.45

____

Italian_WestSicilian

Anatolia_BA 57.1
Iceman_MN 21.9
Unetice 20.9

Mycenaean 44.9
Unetice 29.2
England_Roman_outlier 25.9

Mycenaean 75.00
Slav_Czech 15.75
Iran_ChL 9.25
Click to expand...

Like I said, it all depends what populations you feed into it. Plus, none of these are proximate populations. We need a little patience, people.
 
Pratt said:
Yes, that's right.
Click to expand...

Btw, why did you use Anatolia BA, instead of something like Barcin*, and see what happens, or why Otzi instead of Remedello?

I get why Unetice, although for western Sicily wouldn't Bell Beaker be better, or even for a Tuscan from around Lucca?

There, see, now I'm doing it, but doing it straight. :)

The closest match to Barcin is Tuscans: .827. It's not bad for East Sicilians, either: .822

See:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/first-look-at-ancient-genome-from.html

ED. One of the usual suspects absolutely doesn't get what you showed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 1167797 times.

Back
Top