Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[blevins13]

Of course I understand the difference, what is revealing is your hard headed comprehension of what I am saying. I advise you to watch yourself here.

I am not sure what you are saying, or why Albanians were brought in the game, i only agreed with Taleb about the Anatolian origin of the Mycenaean, and from there Albanians become a subset of Greeks, but it seems that that does not work for Lebanon.

In addition I have a hard headed comprehension.
What do you mean by watch yourself? In what sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Jovialis]

It means watch your attitude. I suggest we move on from this frivolous argument, and get back on topic. Starting with the very next post in this thread.


Also, discussing an Eastern or Northern model origin theory in relation to the Mycenaeans is perfectly fine, since it is relevant to the conversion.

[Jovialis]

Here is why the Eastern Model may be viable imo:

An excerpt from David Reich's book:

[Ailchu]

Hold on, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth now:

i don't think so. comparing genetic similarities is not the same as trying to creat groups based on them.

I am merely correcting you, by saying they are closest to Anatolian_N, a source population. Again, Steppe is merely a component of Europe, it is also a component of non-Europeans. Anatolian_N is important to both Europeans, and Non-europeans too.

i don't see how that is ruling out that ancient greeks who created greek high culture were more similar to bronze age levant than to "aryan"-steppe.

[Jovialis]

^^Honestly, who cares, other than people trying to make a point of claiming them? What truly defines the levant is absent in Greeks, despite their similarities. It is like saying Dominicans are similar to Spaniards because they both share Iberian DNA. I have already made my points back thread if people want to read them. I am moving on from this.

[Demetrios]

Jovialis, Reich's mention assumes a PIE homeland in Transcaucasia. Doesn't really have to do with later stages of IE, which even in that Transcaucasian PIE model, you would need a migration north in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, where branches other than the Anatolian (which seems to be the first that diverged) would later evolve and expand with a steppe component. As you can see above the segment that is underlined, he associates that hypothesis with the absence of steppe ancestry in Anatolia, which is actually one of the reasons that makes the eastern model look far less likely. Mycenaeans in contrast to all the Anatolian samples that have been studied, do have that steppe ancestry. So does the Eurobe_LNBA which is included in the model that shares the most drift with Mycenaeans. That other image is not something new by the way, it's how we began this discussion in the past if i recall correctly.

[Ailchu]

^^Honestly, who cares, other than people trying to make a point of claiming them? What truly defines the levant is absent in Greeks, despite their similarities. It is like saying Dominicans are similar to Spaniards because they both share Iberian DNA. I have already made my points back thread if people want to read them. I am moving on from this.

you mean the Natufian? even if it is absent in Greeks, the Natufian in BA_Levantines doesn't seem to have made them more different from Greeks than steppe was. the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either.

It is like saying Dominicans are similar to Spaniards because they both share Iberian DNA.

and why wouldn't that make sense? simply looking at the absence or presence of certain ancestry components doesn't make much sense here. what if a difference of a certain ancestry from 10-20% is similar to a difference from 0-10% of the same or different ancestry? in the end the overall genetic similarity matters unless you value certain ancestries more or less than others.
and again i don't see why saying this should be laying claim on ancient Greeks. it questiones the genetic grouping certain people make, in this case white supremacists, it doesn't create new ones.

[Jovialis]

you mean the Natufian? even if it is absent in Greeks, the Natufian in BA_Levantines doesn't seem to have made them more different from Greeks than steppe was. the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either.


and why wouldn't that make sense? simply looking at the absence or presence of certain ancestry components doesn't make much sense here. what if a difference of a certain ancestry from 10-20% is similar to a difference from 0-10% of the same or different ancestry? in the end the overall genetic similarity matters unless you value certain ancestries more than others.
and again i don't see why saying this should be laying claim on ancient Greeks. it questiones the genetic grouping certain people make, in this case white supremacists, it doesn't create new ones.

How does this make any sense for you to say? Pointing out that people are different determines preference? That's quite inflammatory, and uncalled for.

"the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either."

Of course, well, the Ancient Greeks did have some steppe ancestry though.

[Leopoldo Leone]

This discussion has degenereated in a politically driven digression: Taleb is as much a talented mathematician as he is a delusional would be "Greek", and his talking about "aryan" is building up a strawman that no one endorses (not even the neonazis that have an ounce of knowledge about genetics).

It is a complete strawman because if you take "aryan" as meaning full-blooded steppe no one in Europe is remotely close to the original yamnaya, and the most yamnaya-like (as far as I know) are northeastern russians and Balts at around 55%, so it is no wonder that ancient Greeks were closer to ancient Levantines than to pure yamnaya, but if we take the FST between modern populations as a proxy for the ancient, and I dare say it is an accurate enough approximation given the amount of genetic continuity shown by the literature in Europe and the near east, then ancient Greeks were almost surely genetically closer to north-central european populations (exception made for the far northener) than to Levantines, https://molmed.biomedcentral.com/art...00094/tables/1

Now, I trust enough in everybody's cognitive abilities to see that it is not an insult towards any ethnicity but it is a mere statement of facts, which I bring up because these discussions about "who has a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical similarities between aryans and semites" are often a waste of time and ill-posed, given that the answer is that it is true that 80% of Europeans do have a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical affinity (if one wants to play according to the rule of the game, I mean), but Europeans aren't "aryan" by any standard if by it one means "yamna-like".

[Angela]

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Lazaridis in the original paper left open the possibility that the Greek speakers came down from the Caucasus, traveled across Anatolia, and reached Greece from that direction.

It's not my preferred hyppothesis, but it's certainly possible.

I also don't see what it would change, other than maybe they picked up a little Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo along the way and didn't enter the Balkans as pure "steppe" people. Maybe the analogy would be like Bell Beaker.

Who cares, other than as a matter of intellectual interest, for God's sake, other than the Albanians, who apparently like to think that would make them more "European" than the Greeks. Just another stick to beat the Greeks over the head with, when Albanians are almost indistinguishable from Northern Greeks. (That includes you, Ailchu.)

[blevins13]

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Lazaridis in the original paper left open the possibility that the Greek speakers came down from the Caucasus, traveled across Anatolia, and reached Greece from that direction.

It's not my preferred hyppothesis, but it's certainly possible.

I also don't see what it would change, other than maybe they picked up a little Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo along the way and didn't enter the Balkans as pure "steppe" people. Maybe the analogy would be like Bell Beaker.

Who cares, other than as a matter of intellectual interest, for God's sake, other than the Albanians, who apparently like to think that would make them more "European" than the Greeks. Just another stick to beat the Greeks over the head with, when Albanians are almost indistinguishable from Northern Greeks. (That includes you, Ailchu.)

Speechless, than who cares about genetic and all this research, we are all Homo sapiens, no need of history, no need to know where different cultures and people came from or how they formed.

You have a negative opinion for the Albanians, I am wondering why.

It seems that our interest of self history, since the Mycenaean history affects us as well as you correctly have confirmed appears as stick to you to beat our neighbors. Can that happen?



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Ailchu]

How does this make any sense for you to say? Pointing out that people are different determines preference? That's quite inflammatory, and uncalled for.

unless we aren't discussing historic population movements presence or absence of ancestry doesn't really matter imo. if it's a difference from 10% WHG-admixture in one population to 20% in the other population, or from 0% Natufian to 20% shouldn't matter if we just look at genetic distances in the end anyway.

"the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either."

Of course, well, the Ancient Greeks did have some steppe ancestry though.

BA_levant had some anatolian neolithic ancestry and some CHG/iran_neo too.

[Ailchu]

(That includes you, Ailchu.)

includes me in which way? i have not said anything about the route of indo european speakers nor did i ever care about someone beeing more or less "european". imo that's not even possible you either live in europe or you don't. and i think noone proposed that here except if you have the theory that for some people steppe="european". then you would give a reason why Taleb has a point. but no he is just one of those near easterners who want to claim greeks.

[Demetrios]

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Lazaridis in the original paper left open the possibility that the Greek speakers came down from the Caucasus, traveled across Anatolia, and reached Greece from that direction.

It's not my preferred hyppothesis, but it's certainly possible.

I also don't see what it would change, other than maybe they picked up a little Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo along the way and didn't enter the Balkans as pure "steppe" people. Maybe the analogy would be like Bell Beaker.

Who cares, other than as a matter of intellectual interest, for God's sake, other than the Albanians, who apparently like to think that would make them more "European" than the Greeks. Just another stick to beat the Greeks over the head with, when Albanians are almost indistinguishable from Northern Greeks. (That includes you, Ailchu.)

You remember correct Angela. It's in the abstract of all places, "However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to either the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe or Armenia". But regardless of that, Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA happens to share the most drift with the Mycenaeans, plus, for the Anatolian route to have had some additional merit we would expect to find some steppe ancestry in the numerous Anatolian samples that have been studied to trace that migration, yet we don't.

[kingjohn]

This discussion has degenereated in a politically driven digression: Taleb is as much a talented mathematician as he is a delusional would be "Greek", and his talking about "aryan" is building up a strawman that no one endorses (not even the neonazis that have an ounce of knowledge about genetics).

It is a complete strawman because if you take "aryan" as meaning full-blooded steppe no one in Europe is remotely close to the original yamnaya, and the most yamnaya-like (as far as I know) are northeastern russians and Balts at around 55%, so it is no wonder that ancient Greeks were closer to ancient Levantines than to pure yamnaya, but if we take the FST between modern populations as a proxy for the ancient, and I dare say it is an accurate enough approximation given the amount of genetic continuity shown by the literature in Europe and the near east, then ancient Greeks were almost surely genetically closer to north-central european populations (exception made for the far northener) than to Levantines, https://molmed.biomedcentral.com/art...00094/tables/1

Now, I trust enough in everybody's cognitive abilities to see that it is not an insult towards any ethnicity but it is a mere statement of facts, which I bring up because these discussions about "who has a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical similarities between aryans and semites" are often a waste of time and ill-posed, given that the answer is that it is true that 80% of Europeans do have a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical affinity (if one wants to play according to the rule of the game, I mean), but Europeans aren't "aryan" by any standard if by it one means "yamna-like".

People don't wont any connection to the
Levant ... like it is an insult to have ancestery from there....
I don't get it..

[Jovialis]

includes me in which way? i have not said anything about the route of indo european speakers nor did i ever care about someone beeing more or less "european". imo that's not even possible you either live in europe or you don't. and i think noone proposed that here except if you have the theory that for some people steppe="european". then you would give a reason why Taleb has a point. but no he is just one of those near easterners who want to claim greeks.

Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of your confusion.

Also, don't think I didn't see your comment before you changed it.

Maybe you should stop PROJECTING the fact that differences makes you uncomfortable, and violates your political leanings.

[Ailchu]

People don't wont any connection to the
Levant ... like it is an insult to have ancestery from there....
I don't get it..

this one here is just ridiculous

If you go back in time, western megalithic culture and BB culture are our genetic roots and have nothing to do with Levantines or Africans either.

[Jovialis]

unless we aren't discussing historic population movements presence or absence of ancestry doesn't really matter imo. if it's a difference from 10% WHG-admixture in one population to 20% in the other population, or from 0% Natufian to 20% shouldn't matter if we just look at genetic distances in the end anyway.



BA_levant had some anatolian neolithic ancestry and some CHG/iran_neo too.

So what?! Obama is half-white, does that make mullatos one in the same as Anglo-Saxons?

[Jovialis]

People don't wont any connection to the
Levant ... like it is an insult to have ancestery from there....
I don't get it..

Oh please! Don't start with that one. Ancient Greeks do not have Levantine ancestry, I don't know how much clearer the paper, or anyone else can make it. Speaking the truth is an insult!?

[kingjohn]

Oh please! Don't start with that one. Ancient Greeks do not have Levantine ancestry, I don't know how much clearer the paper, or anyone else can make it. Speaking the truth is an insult!?

Agree
But sicilians and greek islanders seem to have
It....
They need levant bronze age in mdlp k11 calculator
Do you happen tp know when it got to those areas ?

[Jovialis]

Agree
But sicilians and greek islanders seem to have
It....
They need levant bronze age in mdlp k11 calculator
Do you happen tp know when it got to those areas ?

Must be due to it being a poor calculator. I don't care about what kind of chicanery can be produced by dubious pseudonymous laymen.


Also, as your friend pointed out, Levant_BA are half Anatolian_N/Iran_N.


Flimsy amateur modeling means nothing. The so-called Near Eastern ancestry that comes up, always prefers Anatolian_N & CHG/IN in academic modeling. For Sicilians some preference to Levant_BA could come partly from Moorish contribution. Since Natufian, a major component of Levant_BA, is partly Ancient North African in origin.


Stick to the papers!

[Angela]

includes me in which way? i have not said anything about the route of indo european speakers nor did i ever care about someone beeing more or less "european". imo that's not even possible you either live in europe or you don't. and i think noone proposed that here except if you have the theory that for some people steppe="european". then you would give a reason why Taleb has a point. but no he is just one of those near easterners who want to claim greeks.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what Blevins is talking about for that matter.

Of course I am interested in population genetics, otherwise what have I been doing in this hobby for twelve years.

However, if you are implying that I think it's the amount of "steppe" which makes people "European" then you have not understood anything I've written all these years. Modern "genetic Europeans" didn't exist until the Bronze Age. They are a product of the combination of significant amounts of Anatolian Neolithic like farmers, WHG/EHG, and CHG/Iran Neo, plus some minority ancestry.

Never have I attempted to use the particular percentages of any of those ancestral groups to try to deny "European genetic" status to anyone, but I have seen it done many a time, sometimes against Southern Italians, sometimes Greeks, sometimes Spaniards.

IT ALL HAS TO STOP. It is a misuse of population genetics. Differences in the percentage of these component parts don't confer superiority or inferiority in any group. GOT IT?

Now, I think we should get back to the topic of the genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans and use genetic papers to support our positions, not the rantings of a Lebanese Mathematician who apparently doesn't want people to think he's an Arab, or the politically driven Albanian analysis of Balkan history which would seek to make Greeks somehow "other" to Europe, or amateur analyses based on modern populations.

When are some of you going to get the message that even Eurogenes says his modern calculators aren't reliable? Personally, if they're not reliable I doubt the ones based on ancient samples are reliable either. If they were, the results would correlate with all the ones from numerous academic papers.

[blevins13]

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what Blevins is talking about for that matter.

Of course I am interested in population genetics, otherwise what have I been doing in this hobby for twelve years.

However, if you are implying that I think it's the amount of "steppe" which makes people "European" then you have not understood anything I've written all these years. Modern "genetic Europeans" didn't exist until the Bronze Age. They are a product of the combination of significant amounts of Anatolian Neolithic like farmers, WHG/EHG, and CHG/Iran Neo, plus some minority ancestry.

Never have I attempted to use the particular percentages of any of those ancestral groups to try to deny "European genetic" status to anyone, but I have seen it done many a time, sometimes against Southern Italians, sometimes Greeks, sometimes Spaniards.

IT ALL HAS TO STOP. It is a misuse of population genetics. Differences in the percentage of these component parts don't confer superiority or inferiority in any group. GOT IT?

Now, I think we should get back to the topic of the genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans and use genetic papers to support our positions, not the rantings of a Lebanese Mathematician who apparently doesn't want people to think he's an Arab, or the politically driven Albanian analysis of Balkan history which would seek to make Greeks somehow "other" to Europe, or amateur analyses based on modern populations.

When are some of you going to get the message that even Eurogenes says his modern calculators aren't reliable? Personally, if they're not reliable I doubt the ones based on ancient samples are reliable either. If they were, the results would correlate with all the ones from numerous academic papers.

In 12 years, you have seen from all kinds, about the history of Balkans. Many hypothetical scenarios, and you still believe that all this is driven by politics. I believe is a genuine effort to understand from all the parties involved. As I expressed in the past, I believe that Mycenaean come from Anatolia due to their advanced culture, it will be strange that something like that came from the steppe.
In addition after 2017 low steppe DNa provides additional support to this view.


Use evidence, reason, and logic to contradict my views not what will be my reason to have these views. (it seems Trump has affected all with his way of attacking his opponents).

“Don’t speak about the issue but about your opponents”.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[blevins13]

Here is why the Eastern Model may be viable imo:

An excerpt from David Reich's book:

Thanks for putting this up since I can’t post any photos, it seems that we are still where it began in 2017. No additional evidence to conclude about these models.




Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Ralphie Boy]

The current ancient Greek autosomal genetic “scorecard” has the Mycenaeans and a few Empuries samples (Classical and Hellenistic) that cluster with them, according to Lazaridis.

Thanks to a YouTube link Demetrios previously shared, there are uniparental results from classical Greece that haven’t been published yet, showing one R1b male.

Attachment 12575Attachment 12576