"Northern" elites in Greece and Rome.

[MOESAN]

I don't think R1b are Proto Indo-European or early Indo-Europeans. I mean only a subclade of R1b be as late Indo-Europeans that of R1b-U106 who were Indo-Europeanized in Central Europe where we see the mingling of Bell Beakers and Corded Wares and which group played a role in Indo-Europeanizing Western Europe.

Moreover light pigmentation doesn't originally come from R1 carriers. They are bronze age invaders, firstly R1a from Pontic-Caspian steppes who were West Asian/West Central Asians and Mesolithic European in ancestry and R1b from East Anatolia. It is obvious that through sexual selection( choosing lighter North European females) light pigmentation became frequent among them.

just one of my thoughts:
concerning depigmentation, I believe it can have occurred in Eastern Europe-Western Siberia and not by obligation in Northern Europe - I have no opinion because I have not the smallest proof concerning the pigmentation of the PREVIOUS Y-R1b bearers (before they, maybe, drown their autosomals in "seas" of other groups females, by the bias of elite male domination, proposition of Maciamo) BUT I just recall you that surely a lot of the Y-R1b settled a long time in Eastern Europe or Western Siberia too, as some of the Y-R1a bearers (not by force in the same places at the same times, of course) -
if we concentrate only around pigmentation, it is almost sure that Romans and other Italic patricians (nobles) was very mixed in pigmentation, showing even some red haired people even if rarest than among Celts, the recordmen for that (and not the Germanics) -I recall that there is not something as a simple opposition more and more light vs more and more dark, but different genes coding different lightness or darkness, and several ligneages, no simplistic binary opposition -
COON, Gods save his soul, said that among the Roman nobility he remarked dolicho 'mediterraneans' (too imprecise), dolicho 'nordics', brachy 'dinarics' - I add that surely brachy 'alpines' was present, as they was dominant in Pompei under the ashes nad are today the firts element among modern Italians as a whole (not in Sardinia, sure!!!)... Even if COON is not my gooroo, I have some confidence in these affirmations: Italic, after separation from Celts, stayed I believe longer in central Europe as say someones here, I suppose between SE-Austria, S-Hungary and N-Croatia: it makes sense according to linguistics and archeology... so the 'dinaric' element is not surprising - I add this phenotype whatever the Y-HGs attached to it, was present in N-E and E-Italy since the 2000 BC (bronze), came from the Balkans by land (what culture, these first ones? I-E yet??? ) what is sure is that they was not parto of the first ligneages of the pre-Ligurians of N-W Italy-
maybe these first 'dinarics' (mixed with others in a mixture that was typicla to central Balkans) was accointed to some ancestors of the I-E Dorians Greeks?

 

[MOESAN]

here are some pigmentation data about modern romans

Men from Ridolfo Livi - Antropometria militare

hair: blond 6,4% , red 0,8% , black 32% , brown 60,8
eyes: blue 8,3% , gray (and green) 17,9% , black 9% , brown 73,8%

Women from Maria Montessori - Caratteri fisici delle giovani donne del Lazio

hair: blond 13% ,brown 37% , black 50%
eyes: dark 85% light 15%

IMO ancient romans weren't much lighter or darker than moderns

I do not disagree too much: even if I believe first patricians was a bit lighter than modern days Romans or Lazzio people - (the 13% of blond females in Lazzio seams to me too high, indeed -today Lazzio people are a bit darker than the italian mean but you know a whole country mean is always very uncertain: surveys are not taking in count the density of population by regions: I found 8% of blond hairs among Italians, for the North is more populated than the South nowadays -
just a detail (technical) Livi was very close to truth about light pigmentation, and his regional %s are very good - but he failed to discrimine among middle and "light" dark pigmentation, for eyes like for hair - just a detail -
all the way, I think Maciamo want to show that first Italic elites was different enough from the present day Southern Italians (the most of the outwards emigrees, gaving an "Epinal" false image of all Italians that are far of being all on the same model) -

 

[Cato]

I do not disagree too much: even if I believe first patricians was a bit lighter than modern days Romans or Lazzio people - (the 13% of blond females in Lazzio seams to me too high, indeed -today Lazzio people are a bit darker than the italian mean but you know a whole country mean is always very uncertain: surveys are not taking in count the density of population by regions: I found 8% of blond hairs among Italians, for the North is more populated than the South nowadays -
just a detail (technical) Livi was very close to truth about light pigmentation, and his regional %s are very good - but he failed to discrimine among middle and "light" dark pigmentation, for eyes like for hair - just a detail -
all the way, I think Maciamo want to show that first Italic elites was different enough from the present day Southern Italians (the most of the outwards emigrees, gaving an "Epinal" false image of all Italians that are far of being all on the same model) -

probably early italics were lighter before they mixed with the indigenous population considering that they were a north alpine folk most were of light or intermediate pigmentation with a minority of dark individuals (as today "middle-danubian" people like Austrians,Hungarians etc.) , anyway are we sure that the patrician class was composed only by the indoeuropean-urnfield invaders ? or by both indoeuropean and "indoeuropeizated"-indigenous , i'm saying this because when the urnfield culture (called proto-villanovan) appeared in Latium replacing the Apennine culture at first there wasn't much social stratification , it appear later as the distinction between patricians and plebeians , the patricians were merely the original inhabitants of Rome founded in the VIII century b.C. (about three-four century after the latin immigration south of the alps) and the original inhabitants of Rome were very probably both "urnfields" and "apennine" people.

ps. regarding the % of dark eyes among men ,73,8% include the 9% of "black eyed"-individuals ..so summarizing light eyes 26,2% , dark eyes 73,8% . As other studies show generally in Europe women are more light-haired than men but at the same time more dark-eyed.

 

[Cato]

I have some confidence in these affirmations: Italic, after separation from Celts, stayed I believe longer in central Europe as say someones here, I suppose between SE-Austria, S-Hungary and N-Croatia: it makes sense according to linguistics and archeology...

according to Marija Gimbutas : "In the middle-Danube area , in northern Yugoslavia , Hungary , Austria , western Slovakia and southern Moravia , this is the Caka or early Velatice phase of the middle Danube group . In it we find the the largest numbers of best parallels for all the bronzes found in Greece , Italy , and east Mediterranean" (Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe )

Even the Dorian migration is linked with expansion of this particular urnfield group...my guess is that the Dorians were originally not-Greeks , rather Illyrians or similar to Italics.

 

[Yetos]

according to Marija Gimbutas : "In the middle-Danube area , in northern Yugoslavia , Hungary , Austria , western Slovakia and southern Moravia , this is the Caka or early Velatice phase of the middle Danube group . In it we find the the largest numbers of best parallels for all the bronzes found in Greece , Italy , and east Mediterranean" (Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe )

Even the Dorian migration is linked with expansion of this particular urnfield group...my guess is that the Dorians were originally not-Greeks , rather Illyrians or similar to Italics.

That is the problem

1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper,
Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.

2) The dorians,
the geometrical features as also the black painting existed in Greece much before dorians,
Dorians are considered to enter from Danube or Illyria,
their origin is Trikke Δωριεις Τριχακες,
Trikke exist in Greece in land of Graioi (Greeks) in Dacia in Baltic,
The dorians is connected with iron age, that is why is put 1100 900 BCE and especially a kind of more flexible iron,
if you read the post about χαλυβες iron age exist in Greece from 1150 BC and entered from Lydia not from Danube,

Gibutas theory although fits in North does not fit in Greece, low Balkans (Thracians-Illyricum) and west parts of Minor Asia,

the only possible migration from Central Europe is the R1a that happened at about 3500 BC and still this is under discuss cause Balkans might be the starting point of R1a due to high diversity, althoiugh diversity might be from many migrations, remnants in a sink.

Mt Pelion (Old mountain in translation) has maybe the oldest iron mines in area,

Mt Aimos still is one of the most iron deposits in the world.

 

[zanipolo]

That is the problem

1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper,
Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.

2) The dorians,
the geometrical features as also the black painting existed in Greece much before dorians,
Dorians are considered to enter from Danube or Illyria,
their origin is Trikke Δωριεις Τριχακες,
Trikke exist in Greece in land of Graioi (Greeks) in Dacia in Baltic,
The dorians is connected with iron age, that is why is put 1100 900 BCE and especially a kind of more flexible iron,
if you read the post about χαλυβες iron age exist in Greece from 1150 BC and entered from Lydia not from Danube,

Gibutas theory although fits in North does not fit in Greece, low Balkans (Thracians-Illyricum) and west parts of Minor Asia,

the only possible migration from Central Europe is the R1a that happened at about 3500 BC and still this is under discuss cause Balkans might be the starting point of R1a due to high diversity, althoiugh diversity might be from many migrations, remnants in a sink.

Mt Pelion (Old mountain in translation) has maybe the oldest iron mines in area,

Mt Aimos still is one of the most iron deposits in the world.

If the dorians came in the iron age and we know the mycenians where in the bronze age, where does the ionians and aetolians fit in?
BTW , what haplogroup where the Mycenians and dorians ........this would be interesting

 

[Yetos]

If the dorians came in the iron age and we know the mycenians where in the bronze age, where does the ionians and aetolians fit in?
BTW , what haplogroup where the Mycenians and dorians ........this would be interesting

It is not for me to decide,
Archaiologists prove that,
Dorians came after the destruction of Mycenae by sea peoples,

Dorians is an exonyme given to them by the city of Doris,

their arrival is mainly placed at 911 BC according the archaological data,
the story of Dorians is mentioned also the RETURN OF TEMENIDES.
in Sparta the head capital of Dorians we see that, 2 Kings from 2 different generations,

Now Aeolians and Dorians seems to be what was called Γραιοι or thettalians in forum
Achaians seems to be the remnants of Myceneans since we see a movement of the last to North and west,
Ionians is considered the mix of Greek+Pelasgians

Trikke is modern Trikkala, city next to Aigae from where also Makedonians origin
that is why I believe that Dorians and Aeolians probably were R1a and myceneans and Ionians R1b

the Dorian descend marks 3 things
1) the advanced iron Metallurgy
2) the return to geometrical forms and black pottery (painted)
3) the start of what we call archaic Greek, the end of Homeric which is considered closer to Greco-Aryan (LPIE)

besides parallel of the descend of Dorians we also see the Aeolian expansion to Pelasgian argos

and 2 centuries later the back road of Karamos to Makedonia

Dorian invasion is after Troyan war and at least 700 years after the proto-Myceneans

What i want to say is wrong to claim Dorian invasion in Kurgan hypothesis since centuries before IE existed in Greece with proves.


we might go off topic if I expand more.

Ionians are connected with the non Minoan Greco-Pelasgian lands the middle zone in Aegean
Dorians also occupied the Minoan-Pelasgian zone,
While Aeolians try to take the North part of Pelasgians until Troy
Achaians shrunk to peloponese and moved to colonies mainly S Italy

Remember that the Northern part of what we call Greek tribes is Ellimians, and north of them Bryges, Ellimians become 2 centuries later the Makedonians

 

[Maciamo]

1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper,
Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.

The Chalcolithic (Copper Age) is not the same as the Bronze Age. The Chalcolithic is usually associated to the late Neolithic.

The oldest known Bronze Age culture is the Maykop culture in the North Caucasus, which started circa 3700 BCE. The second oldest is the Yamna culture in the Pontic steppes, starting around 3500 BCE. In contrast, the Bronze Age only started from 3100 BCE in Egypt, 2900 BCE in Mesopotamia, and 2500 BCE in Anatolia (Hattians). By that time the Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2950-2500 BCE) had already spread all the way to northern Russia, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland.

The situation in Greece is less clear-cut. The earliest Greek bronze age culture was the Cycladic civilization, which started around 3000 BCE, but, as its name suggests, was confined to the islands, not mainland Greece. Even so, the Aegean Bronze Age began only around 2700 BCE in Minoan Crete.

 

[Boss]

You guys have deviated too much from the original topic (re-read OP!).

Anyways, thanks for the info (especially Maciamo for his sig and discussion). I have much reading to do before I can get a clear picture of genetics (I didn't even know what autosomal DNA was until very recently).

 

[Yetos]

The Chalcolithic (Copper Age) is not the same as the Bronze Age. The Chalcolithic is usually associated to the late Neolithic.

The oldest known Bronze Age culture is the Maykop culture in the North Caucasus, which started circa 3700 BCE. The second oldest is the Yamna culture in the Pontic steppes, starting around 3500 BCE. In contrast, the Bronze Age only started from 3100 BCE in Egypt, 2900 BCE in Mesopotamia, and 2500 BCE in Anatolia (Hattians). By that time the Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2950-2500 BCE) had already spread all the way to northern Russia, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland.

The situation in Greece is less clear-cut. The earliest Greek bronze age culture was the Cycladic civilization, which started around 3000 BCE, but, as its name suggests, was confined to the islands, not mainland Greece. Even so, the Aegean Bronze Age began only around 2700 BCE in Minoan Crete.

That is the BIG DIFFERENCE

1) MAYKOP BRONZE IS AN ARSENIC BRONZE

You are right
Chalkolithic era is early copper
Bronze is when mettalurgy started to mix copper with other metals
Ορειχαλκος In Greek,
(could it mean Ur's copper? or Eri(du)copper?)
(Ερις -δος is the goddess of anger-nerves-hate-and fight)
( or is just ore-oro+copper)

BUT THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE AMONG MAYKOP AND Near East-Balkanic bronze
Maykop uses arsenic to produce Bronze, while in Near east-Balkans tin is used,

so except the burrial customs the metallurgy is different,
We can not combine 'Maykop' bronze with 'Cyprus' bronze

In Serbia we find tin+copper bronze at 3000 BC which is not Maykop bronze,

2) Maykop culture is an Eridu culture

Maykop - Leyla Tepe - Eridu culrures are connected,
Maykop is an expansion - a colony of Eridu
which again sends us to around Kurdistan-Armenia-Akkadia
Ur+Zagros mountains
That again sends Maykop back to Near-middle East origin, and not to steppe


So although Kurgan until today might be correct at tumulus roads, It is not in Bronze roads
cause in Balkans we find Copper+Tin (even British tin is found in Crete)
while in Maykop and steppe we find Arsenic+copper
so bronze technology gives another road.

Besides the archaiological evidences of Leyla-Tepe at 80's are connecting Maykop with Middle east and not with Adygean and Steppe, that means that Maykop could speak IE due to the origin and relativity of Maykop people, that again sends us back to minor asia as Starting point of IE.

 

[Maciamo]

BUT THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE AMONG MAYKOP AND Near East-Balkanic bronze
Maykop uses arsenic to produce Bronze, while in Near east-Balkans tin is used,

The Maykop culture developed the earliest type of bronze, and it was indeed made with arsenic instead of tin, because of the paucity of tin in the North Caucasus. Nevertheless, bronze made of copper and tin was used in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, both descended from the Yamna and probably (at least partially) Maykop cultures. So there is a good chance that it is the same people who also invented tin bronze.

I don't think it is a coincidence that all the ancient tin mining sites in Europe (South Germany, North Italy, and the Atlantic fringe) are now regions where haplogroup R1b is the dominant haplogroup. I have hypothesised since 2008 that the success of the Indo-European expansion from the steppe, and the presence dominance of haplogroups R1b and R1a from Western Europe to South Asia, was due to the fact that they were the first to develop bronze weapons, which were vastly more effective than stone or copper weapons. Another reason was that were also the first to ride horses for military and use them for transport purposes, which was the prehistoric equivalent of having tanks and trucks (as opposed to nothing).

In Serbia we find tin+copper bronze at 3000 BC which is not Maykop bronze

Do you know which site it was, or which culture it belonged to ?

2) Maykop culture is an Eridu culture

Maykop - Leyla Tepe - Eridu culrures are connected,
Maykop is an expansion - a colony of Eridu
which again sends us to around Kurdistan-Armenia-Akkadia
Ur+Zagros mountains
That again sends Maykop back to Near-middle East origin, and not to steppe

It is very possible that the Maykop culture was an expansion of the Caucasian Leyla Tepe culture, and that it itself had originated in Mesopotamia. Actually if your read my older posts on this forum you will see that I have always placed the Mesolithic and early Neolithic origins of R1b in the Middle East. I have even linked the Gedrosian autosomal admixture in Europeans to the Middle Eastern origins of R1b.

The way I see it is that R1b people roamed most of the Middle East as hunter-gatherers until the end of the last Ice Age, then became some of the first people to settle down, make pottery and domesticate animals (especially cows and sheep), and perhaps do some basic agriculture. These R1b people who have migrated to the North Caucasus with their herds in search of pastures, probably mixing with G2a people from the Caucasus on the way, and founding the Maykop culture. They would quickly expand to the north-west and north-east to the Pontic and Caspian steppes, mixing to a limited extend with the indigenous R1a people.

Both groups would remain mostly separate though, R1b occupying especially the north of the Black Sea, then expanding to the Balkans and Central Europe; R1a occupying the forest-steppe from northern Ukraine to the Volga-Ural, then expanding to the Baltic and Central Asia. Both groups, however, had become part of a common, patriarchal and very hierarchical pastoralist culture, sharing one common PIE language, a common pottery style, a common burial style (kurgan/tumulus), and the same widespread use of horses and bronze technology. This was the Yamna culture, the source of the Indo-European culture and languages. The R1a people were indigenous to the region, but the R1b and G2a were not - they had come from the Middle East. This is what many people fail to understand, even some so-called "specialists" of Indo-European migrations and languages and some professional population geneticists.

The rival theory is that PIE language and people expanded straight from Neolithic Anatolia to Europe and South Asia, without passing by the steppes. This view is seriously flawed in my eyes because:

1) it fails to explain how IE languages became associated with haplogroup R1a
2) it fails to explain how IE languages spread to Northeast Europe
3) it fails to explain the obvious archaeological dispersal of the Yamna culture to the Baltic and Central Europe (Corded ware), to Central Asia (Andronovo), then to Iran, Pakistan and India, thus also contradicting the Aryan invasion of India described in Hindu texts.
4) a Neolithic dispersal of IE languages is in blatant contradiction with the fact that Neolithic and Chalcolithic Greece and Anatolia were non-IE, then suddenly became IE-speaking from the Mycenaean and Hittite invasions (both of whom had war chariots, first developed in the steppes).
5) the evolutionary tree of Indo-European languages matches far better the theory of a Bronze Age steppe dispersal than one from Neolithic Anatolia with agriculture. How else can we explain that the Baltic-Slavic branch is closer to the Indo-Iranian branch ?

 

[Yetos]

The Maykop culture developed the earliest type of bronze, and it was indeed made with arsenic instead of tin, because of the paucity of tin in the North Caucasus. Nevertheless, bronze made of copper and tin was used in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, both descended from the Yamna and probably (at least partially) Maykop cultures. So there is a good chance that it is the same people who also invented tin bronze.

I don't think it is a coincidence that all the ancient tin mining sites in Europe (South Germany, North Italy, and the Atlantic fringe) are now regions where haplogroup R1b is the dominant haplogroup. I have hypothesised since 2008 that the success of the Indo-European expansion from the steppe, and the presence dominance of haplogroups R1b and R1a from Western Europe to South Asia, was due to the fact that they were the first to develop bronze weapons, which were vastly more effective than stone or copper weapons. Another reason was that were also the first to ride horses for military and use them for transport purposes, which was the prehistoric equivalent of having tanks and trucks (as opposed to nothing).



Do you know which site it was, or which culture it belonged to ?



It is very possible that the Maykop culture was an expansion of the Caucasian Leyla Tepe culture, and that it itself had originated in Mesopotamia. Actually if your read my older posts on this forum you will see that I have always placed the Mesolithic and early Neolithic origins of R1b in the Middle East. I have even linked the Gedrosian autosomal admixture in Europeans to the Middle Eastern origins of R1b.

The way I see it is that R1b people roamed most of the Middle East as hunter-gatherers until the end of the last Ice Age, then became some of the first people to settle down, make pottery and domesticate animals (especially cows and sheep), and perhaps do some basic agriculture. These R1b people who have migrated to the North Caucasus with their herds in search of pastures, probably mixing with G2a people from the Caucasus on the way, and founding the Maykop culture. They would quickly expand to the north-west and north-east to the Pontic and Caspian steppes, mixing to a limited extend with the indigenous R1a people.

Both groups would remain mostly separate though, R1b occupying especially the north of the Black Sea, then expanding to the Balkans and Central Europe; R1a occupying the forest-steppe from northern Ukraine to the Volga-Ural, then expanding to the Baltic and Central Asia. Both groups, however, had become part of a common, patriarchal and very hierarchical pastoralist culture, sharing one common PIE language, a common pottery style, a common burial style (kurgan/tumulus), and the same widespread use of horses and bronze technology. This was the Yamna culture, the source of the Indo-European culture and languages. The R1a people were indigenous to the region, but the R1b and G2a were not - they had come from the Middle East. This is what many people fail to understand, even some so-called "specialists" of Indo-European migrations and languages and some professional population geneticists.

The rival theory is that PIE language and people expanded straight from Neolithic Anatolia to Europe and South Asia, without passing by the steppes. This view is seriously flawed in my eyes because:

1) it fails to explain how IE languages became associated with haplogroup R1a
2) it fails to explain how IE languages spread to Northeast Europe
3) it fails to explain the obvious archaeological dispersal of the Yamna culture to the Baltic and Central Europe (Corded ware), to Central Asia (Andronovo), then to Iran, Pakistan and India, thus also contradicting the Aryan invasion of India described in Hindu texts.
4) a Neolithic dispersal of IE languages is in blatant contradiction with the fact that Neolithic and Chalcolithic Greece and Anatolia were non-IE, then suddenly became IE-speaking from the Mycenaean and Hittite invasions (both of whom had war chariots, first developed in the steppes).
5) the evolutionary tree of Indo-European languages matches far better the theory of a Bronze Age steppe dispersal than one from Neolithic Anatolia with agriculture. How else can we explain that the Baltic-Slavic branch is closer to the Indo-Iranian branch ?

hmmm

to 1) I will not answer now cause R1a is another story, only alone it can be IE

2 and 5 is easy
from Iranian-Persian population,
Scythians and Ros (Varragians) and from later Cyrillic in churches and schools
3) no answer from me yet
4) Myceneans means seed 'muca',
as also my ko no the mu people's city the my and mu = human (mycenae myssia moessia moschoi all connected with mu)
but as 'muca' means farmers-seed gatherers and is simmlar to what we could say minor Asian (Greco-Aryan Greco-Armenian) languages

may i ask one question?
how do explain the existance of common words among Akkadians and Greeks and even more among Akkadians and North west IE
for some it is estimated 16 000 to greek and 8 000 to north-west Europe
while Uraloid words are rare to these languages,
if Ie came from North why they spead so little Uraloid vocabulary?

on the other hand how we can explain the connection among Greek and Sanshqrit if in Both, if IE came from North and not from a common center that connects them to a proto-formation?


Now about the source,

There is a book by an archaiologist Lyritzis Taylor or something like that
that describes the mettalurgy Bronze Balkans and minor Asia was made by Cyprus copper and Serbian cassiterie (tin) estimation even to 3000 -3300 BC
now in Vucedol (Vukovar-Syrmia) we find arsenic Bronze while in lower Morava valley and Vranja we find cassiterian Bronze simmilar to Aegean and early Mycenean,
It seems that Vucedol is the last arsenic bronze culture,
Yet significant is that in Vucedol we find Minoan axes !!!!!!

It would interesting to find the kind of Bronze of Cotofeni and of Vatin

the presence of Minoan axes and the twin culture of Vatin as also that the possible turn from Arsenic to Tin seems to be in that area,
In fact these are the areas with low R1b, south and west of these R1b grow while east of them R1b drops and r1a gets raise

my personal thought is that R1b in basquez is not IE speaking
R1a in Caucas is not IE speaking and huge R1a are not connected with IE
so I tend to believe that Otzi spoke an early agricultural IE while a second wave of IEpeans or semi IE pass and a thrid came at iron age and global small ice age of 1000-600 BC (the reverse road of DNA)
I am confused in that only R1a can explain IE and R1a could not even IE but get IEnised.

I must agree that your thoughts are indeed checked.
But still I am not conviced by Kurgan Hypothesis, mainly due to linguistic.

You may accuse me Greco-anatolian-Centric, I take peals to cure it
but seems all theories have a good and correct point and 1 weak,

I mean if Maykop spoke IE from Zagros mountains or Nort-West Iran and IEnize R1a and R1b? Caucasus and Gedrosian component?
that fits with linguistic of Indo-Hettit theory I think (not certain)

Thank you I spend an evening trying to analyze and combine theories.

 

[spongetaro]

In David Anthony's book, it is nowhere written that:

1) Maykop was Indo European (Actually he thinks that Caucasian borrowings into proto IE occured with the contacts between Maykop and Yamnaya).

2) Maykop took part in the formation of Yamnaya.

3) Maykop people migrated to the Steppe.

 

[Cato]

That is the problem

1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper,
Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.

2) The dorians,
the geometrical features as also the black painting existed in Greece much before dorians,
Dorians are considered to enter from Danube or Illyria,
their origin is Trikke Δωριεις Τριχακες,
Trikke exist in Greece in land of Graioi (Greeks) in Dacia in Baltic,
The dorians is connected with iron age, that is why is put 1100 900 BCE and especially a kind of more flexible iron,
if you read the post about χαλυβες iron age exist in Greece from 1150 BC and entered from Lydia not from Danube,

Gibutas theory although fits in North does not fit in Greece, low Balkans (Thracians-Illyricum) and west parts of Minor Asia,

the only possible migration from Central Europe is the R1a that happened at about 3500 BC and still this is under discuss cause Balkans might be the starting point of R1a due to high diversity, althoiugh diversity might be from many migrations, remnants in a sink.

Mt Pelion (Old mountain in translation) has maybe the oldest iron mines in area,

Mt Aimos still is one of the most iron deposits in the world.

I didn't said that Dorians introduced bronze and iron in Greece but that since 1300-1200 b.C. there was in Greece an increase of swords , fibulas etc. of Central European origin , also of central European origin (Urnfield culture) is the rite of burning the deads. These new features were likely introduced by people who came from the north and may (experts are not 100% sure about this link) these people were the ancestors of the Dorians..

 

[Maciamo]

In David Anthony's book, it is nowhere written that:

1) Maykop was Indo European (Actually he thinks that Caucasian borrowings into proto IE occured with the contacts between Maykop and Yamnaya).

2) Maykop took part in the formation of Yamnaya.

3) Maykop people migrated to the Steppe.

That's because the book is about steppe culture, not about Maykop and the North Caucasus. However it does say that there were steppe-style kurgans in Maykop and that the pottery of Maykop and the Dnieper-Don culture were very similar (or was it in another book I read ? Sometimes it's hard to remember where some info comes from).

I admit being the first one linking the Maykop culture to the Indo-Europeans (and haplogroup R1b). I have explained why above.

 

[Yetos]

I didn't said that Dorians introduced bronze and iron in Greece but that since 1300-1200 b.C. there was in Greece an increase of swords , fibulas etc. of Central European origin , also of central European origin (Urnfield culture) is the rite of burning the deads. These new features were likely introduced by people who came from the north and may (experts are not 100% sure about this link) these people were the ancestors of the Dorians..

the Myceneans are much older than Dorians in Greece, Myceneans are connected with Central europe, Cyprus, and south West minor Asia, and are parallel with Minoans, and as achaians we find them from South Italy up to Adriatic sea,

with Dorian simply we find a restart after sea paoples and are not Central European.

 

[Yetos]

That's because the book is about steppe culture, not about Maykop and the North Caucasus. However it does say that there were steppe-style kurgans in Maykop and that the pottery of Maykop and the Dnieper-Don culture were very similar (or was it in another book I read ? Sometimes it's hard to remember where some info comes from).

I admit being the first one linking the Maykop culture to the Indo-Europeans (and haplogroup R1b). I have explained why above.

an interesting argue for that is burial system of North Iran and zoroastrian culture,
Zoroastrians or Zaratustra's don't burry their dead, that custom is brought from India, they live them in top of the mountains.
Also interesting is that in mountain cultures like Kallasha we see that people use coffins but burry them in coffins out in the air and not in the earth,
so I wonder why in west steppe people create Kurgans, and not in the East steppe and India,
If steppe people took Maykop tomb system, or had developed Tomb system, why they spread it at west and not at East to India?

 

[Dianatomia]

Genetics does have a say on this matter. This research indicates that Ancient Greeks had less northern European ancestry compared to modern Greek mainlanders. I don't entirely agree with that assumption, because I think that there was genetic diversity in ancient Greece and it is logical to assume that Northern Greeks, even in ancient times, were more northern european than their southern counterparts.

That said, in evaluating the historical demographics of Greece, it is logical to assume that the modern Greeks, if anything, should be slightly lighter that their ancient counterparts, rather than darker. Slavs, Venetians, Vlachs, Arvanites are lighter than the average Greek. So it is quite probable that the ancient Greeks had less R1a+ R1b+I.

As for the Greek elites being lighter or darker. There is certainly no evidence pointing to that. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary:

-The remains of uncovered tombs of aristocrats or royal Greeks are not different compared to other Greeks. I.e. multiracial.

-Extensive ancient Greek literature does not make any mention of the fact that elites where anthropologically different from the rest of the populations. In fact, literature points to the opposite.

Also, some of you think that Myceneans where R1a or R1b people. Although they probably had some R1*, it is highly unlikely that they resembled northern Europeans. Paintings and art show that they were largerly Mediterranean people, and burials of Royal rombs in 1600 BC show a variety of stature and headform.

http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/hellenes/

Furtermore, it is well known that Atheneans were largely Pelasgian (Pre-Greek). That is what they themselves believed.

Obviously, the indigenous population of Greece was more civilized and advanced compared to the later IE invaders and there is no evidence whatsover that the invaders dominated over the indigenous population. Instead, they mixed and gave Greece an extra genetic and cultural dimension. That which resulted to the Ancient Greek civilization.

In no way however, was Ancient Greece more Northern European than Southern European. As C. Coon says, this is total ignorance of the Greek ethnic character.

 

[Maciamo]

Genetics does have a say on this matter. This research indicates that Ancient Greeks had less northern European ancestry compared to modern Greek mainlanders. I don't entirely agree with that assumption, because I think that there was genetic diversity in ancient Greece and it is logical to assume that Northern Greeks, even in ancient times, were more northern european than their southern counterparts.

That said, in evaluating the historical demographics of Greece, it is logical to assume that the modern Greeks, if anything, should be slightly lighter that their ancient counterparts, rather than darker. Slavs, Venetians, Vlachs, Arvanites are lighter than the average Greek. So it is quite probable that the ancient Greeks had less R1a+ R1b+I.

That is a general phenomenon all over southern and central Europe, due to the Germanic and Slavic migrations. As I pointed out, the ancient Greeks, notably the upper classes depicted in art, looked considerably darker (very "Middle Eastern", almost "Semitic") than modern Greeks. The exception I noted is that of the Mycenaean ruling class, although this is an assumption based on the fact that their culture seemed imported from the steppes, not based on people depicted in Mycenaean art (there are very few people in Mycenaean art, and the traits are usually not realistic enough to judge what they really looked like). Only Mycenaean autosomal DNA could confirm this.

-Extensive ancient Greek literature does not make any mention of the fact that elites where anthropologically different from the rest of the populations. In fact, literature points to the opposite.

Could you provide examples of texts pointing to this opposite ?

Also, some of you think that Myceneans where R1a or R1b people. Although they probably had some R1*, it is highly unlikely that they resembled northern Europeans. Paintings and art show that they were largerly Mediterranean people, and burials of Royal rombs in 1600 BC show a variety of stature and headform.

What painting or art are you referring to ? The only ones I know show white-skinned women with black hair, though there is no way to know if they are indigenous Greeks or part of the foreign Mycenaean elite. Here are some examples:

(The "Lady of Mycenae", 13th century BCE)

(Mycenaean Woman, circa 1300 BCE, from Tiryns, Peloponnese)

The white skin is interesting because Minoan art from the same period often paint people either with white skin or with very dark skin, like this:

("Boxing children", circa 1600-1500 BCE, from Akrotiri in Santorini)

It is also interesting to note that the two dominant haplogroups in Crete nowadays are R1b and J2, so it could very well be that a white-skinned R1b population mixed with an older dark-skinned J2 population around the 2nd millennium BCE. It appears that circa 1500-1300 BCE, the two groups hadn't merged completely yet, and that both types could be found quite distinctly (unlike today).

The boundary between Mycenaean and Minoan art is not always clear though, as the two civilisations co-existed side by side, and it is sometimes impossible to be sure who painted the frescoes, and what ethnic group is being depicted. The Indo-Europeans were mostly male conquerors who took local wives, and the fact that women (mostly dancers) are the ones depicted in the art from this period doesn't tell us much about the male elite. Furthermore, if the Mycenaean rulers did take local wives, their descendants would have looked hybrid, then increasingly Greek. The Mycenaean civilisation spans 800 years. There are very good chances that the Mycenaean elite in 1900 BCE did not look anything like the one from 1100 BCE, or even 1500 BCE. Unfortunately I don't know of any Mycenaean art depicting the male elite from 1900 to 1800 BCE. That would be the most interesting for us.

Obviously, the indigenous population of Greece was more civilized and advanced compared to the later IE invaders and there is no evidence whatsover that the invaders dominated over the indigenous population. Instead, they mixed and gave Greece an extra genetic and cultural dimension. That which resulted to the Ancient Greek civilization.

The Romans were more civilised and advanced than the Germanic and Slavic peoples. That did not prevent them from being conquered.

In no way however, was Ancient Greece more Northern European than Southern European. As C. Coon says, this is total ignorance of the Greek ethnic character.

Who ever said that in this thread ? The Romans maybe, but never the Greeks.

 

[Yetos]

hmmm

O inotice something today a Blog,

About the rulling Elite in Greece,

well from what we see at least in kings class or relatives, they always had a syptom, they always marry a woman from their elite, and mostly a relative,
that keeps an elite character, but also low the chance to take foreign wifes,
so if the majority of myths say that the king was son of god or king, but marry a relative princess then we might have an elite but not a spread of population,

Now about Mycenae
19 skeletons were found in 6 royal tombs
the fantastic is that in tomp No5 a mummy was found,
in the records the mummy was painted, photographed and put in mix of glue and alcool so to stabilize it,
for many this mummy is lost,

the documents of Shleeman even had names, but today the mummy is probably lost of forgotten in a museum,
no matter what,
a Genetist can ask to take cells from the Mycenean skeletons or from Makedonia's royal tomb, or many other tombs,
also in Athens did found skeltons and dentists manage to do a figurine of a small 12 years old girl,.
I don't know what it needs, but is easy to find to find the gennetics of Greeks no matter class cause differences among tombs probably mean class,

But looking at Sindos tombs we do not see class, we see family tombs but all have quantities of gold burried, and we speak about thousands, something that is missing in slave-workers,