Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder what happened to part of eastern Thrace. There is a part of it close to the Evros river that has a decent amount of Turkic ancestry and then east of that all the way to Constantinople there is none. I wonder if the part where there are none are native Thracians that were islamized or islamized Balkanites from different vilayets.
It's not none. Those grey areas aren't included due to being unsampled. Here is another map by Eupedia, more general.
East-Asian-admixture.gif

 
Turkish people have more Turkic ancestry, in addition to representing many assimilated ethnic groups and not just one. For example, look at the following map that presents the frequencies for East Asian/Eurasian admixture in each (or rather most) Turkish province, as well as certain Greek-Anatolian/Cypriot and Turkic sub-populations in the boxes. For example, you can see that based on this, Greeks in Cyprus have a frequency of 0.93%, while the Turkish average would be around 10.88%, and contrary to common belief more concentrated in western Turkey than eastern. This also makes sense by the way, since the original Turkic populations that migrated were nomadic, and they would rationally only stop where they couldn't continue any further, namely the Sea. In addition to that, let's also consider the Anatolian invasion of Timur at the beginning of the 1400s, which could have also contributed to that distribution.
EN0v-Lc-BWs-AAKnji-East-Asian-admixture-Turkey.jpg


Then there is also this paper, even though a little old, http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf, namely "COMPARATIVE ANALYSES FOR THE CENTRAL ASIAN CONTRIBUTION TO ANATOLIAN GENE POOL WITH REFERENCE TO BALKANS (2006)" by Ceren Caner Berkman, that concluded for the Central Asian contribution in Anatolia to be, Y-DNA 13%, mtDNA 22%, alu insertion (autosomal) 15%, and autosomal 22%, with respect to Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uyghur region, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. And again bear in mind that the Balkans were used as comparison, so all the more relevant.

All these would autosomally differentiate most of the Turkish people. I also like the following PCA from "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus (2018)" paper because it is very detailed with both modern and ancient samples (not the Thracian sample unfortunately),
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/05/16/322347.full.pdf (page 26 for additional reference of the color-filled ancient samples seen). First of all we see the Turkish samples being far from the Mediterranean macro-cluster. And second, in relation to what we are discussing about the Mycenaeans; southern Italians, Sicilians, and Ashkenazim Jews all clustering together with the Mycenaean samples (with the exception of one that is more Neolithic-shifted). The orange color-filled triangles looking to the right pertain to Mycenaeans.

PCA.png
the shift you see on that pca couldn't also just be because of inceased iranian farmer/CHG or steppe related ancestry? the filled green triangles on the upper right corner are if i remember correctly iranian farmers or CHG. they and the steppe were not that high in east eurasian ancestry.
the old study you quoted also found that "By that method, for Y-DNA, Alu, mtDNA except Iraq (13%) and Armenia (6%) for females, the Central Asian contribution to the hybrids (Armenia, Georgia, Northern Caucasus, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon) were similar or even higher than to those of Turkey and Azerbaijan."
the "central asian" detected here might not all be real central asian turkic ancestry.
 
the shift you see on that pca couldn't also just be because of inceased iranian farmer/CHG or steppe related ancestry? the filled green triangles on the upper right corner are if i remember correctly iranian farmers or CHG. they and the steppe are not that high in east eurasian ancestry.
the study you quoted also found that "By that method, for Y-DNA, Alu, mtDNA except Iraq (13%) and Armenia (6%) for females, the Central Asian contribution to the hybrids (Armenia, Georgia, Northern Caucasus, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon) were similar or even higher than to those of Turkey and Azerbaijan."
the "central asian" here might not be real "central asian"
There is certainly higher CHG admixture in Turkish people, and this also plays its role, but they also have higher East Eurasian admixture in the mix. Here is the respective Caucasian admixture map by Eupedia. Both Turkey and Cyprus seem to have similar frequency, but Cypriots and Turkish people don't cluster on the PCA above. There are additional factors that differentiate them, such as more eastern influence.
Caucasian-admixture.gif


As for that other paper from 2006. Yeah, it might not be totally accurate in terms of Central Asian influence. I mainly shared it because of the Balkan comparison. Here is some more information on the genetics of Turkish people for those interested,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people#Genetics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people.
 
There is certainly higher CHG admixture in Turkish people, and this also plays its role, but they also have higher East Eurasian admixture in the mix. Here is the respective Caucasian admixture map by Eupedia. Both Turkey and Cyprus seem to have similar frequency, but Cypriots and Turkish people don't cluster on the PCA above. There are additional factors that differentiate them, such as more eastern influence.
Caucasian-admixture.gif


As for that other paper from 2006. Yeah, it might not be totally accurate in terms of Central Asian influence. I mainly shared it because of the Balkan comparison. Here is some more information on the genetics of Turkish people for those interested,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people#Genetics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people.

this "caucasian admixture" is certainly not all ancestry related to "CHG". brits and scandis do not just have 0-5% of this ancestry for example.
 
the shift you see on that pca couldn't also just be because of inceased iranian farmer/CHG or steppe related ancestry? the filled green triangles on the upper right corner are if i remember correctly iranian farmers or CHG. they and the steppe were not that high in east eurasian ancestry.
the old study you quoted also found that "By that method, for Y-DNA, Alu, mtDNA except Iraq (13%) and Armenia (6%) for females, the Central Asian contribution to the hybrids (Armenia, Georgia, Northern Caucasus, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon) were similar or even higher than to those of Turkey and Azerbaijan."
the "central asian" detected here might not all be real central asian turkic ancestry.
Also, don't know if you noticed but Cypriots are very close to the Anatolian Chalcolithic sample (orange color-filled triangle looking up), if not clustering with it.
 
this "caucasian admixture" is certainly not all ancestry related to "CHG". brits and scandis do not just have 0-5% of this ancestry for example.
Yeah correct. As Eupedia has written pertaining to this map, "The Caucasian admixture was brought to Europe by Near Eastern Neolithic farmers. It wasn't found among Mesolithic European nor among Proto-Indo-European Steppe people.". We know proto-IEs had approximately 50% CHG for example, therefore this doesn't pertain to it, my mistake.
 
Yeah correct. As Eupedia has written pertaining to this map, "The Caucasian admixture was brought to Europe by Near Eastern Neolithic farmers. It wasn't found among Mesolithic European nor among Proto-Indo-European Steppe people.". We know proto-IEs had approximately 50% CHG for example, therefore this doesn't pertain to it.

so what if the steppe/CHG related ancestry in turkey, that was potentially brought by indo-europeans and later with the ottomans, makes the difference between turkey and cyprus in the pca above?
i don't think the east eurasian ancestry is that high in turkey to really affect their position in a PCA that has mostly west eurasian populations in it.
 
so what if the steppe/CHG related ancestry in turkey, that was potentially brought by indo-europeans and later with the ottomans, makes the difference between turkey and cyprus in the pca above?
i don't think the east eurasian ancestry is that high in turkey to really affect their position in a PCA that has mostly west eurasian populations in it.
I don't think so. For example, look at this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748862/pdf/EMS84309.pdf. Namely, "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia (2018)". It includes two Ottoman Anatolian samples from 1500 CE, and they are more shifted towards Central Asia, away from older Anatolian samples. They have more eastern influence, which is also visible in their admixtures.
 
I don't think so. For example, look at this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748862/pdf/EMS84309.pdf. Namely, "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia (2018)". It includes two Ottoman Anatolian samples from 1500 CE, and they are more shifted towards Central Asia, away from older Anatolian samples. They have more eastern influence, which is also visible in their admixtures.

Thanks, Demetrios. Lots of good information here.
 
I don't think so. For example, look at this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748862/pdf/EMS84309.pdf. Namely, "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia (2018)". It includes two Ottoman Anatolian samples from 1500 CE, and they are more shifted towards Central Asia, away from older Anatolian samples. They have more eastern influence, which is also visible in their admixtures.

still, if you look at supplementary table 3 of this paper here:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material
then turkish people have a lower fst with early bronze age steppe0.023/lateBASteppe0.015/CHG0.041/iran_N0.040/iranChl0.010 than the cypriots 0.031/0.02/0.047/0.046/0.012

and the pca is reflecting this. now for me it is more probable that this is because of additional % of these ancestries and not because of additional east eurasian ancestry.
 
Last edited:
this "caucasian admixture" is certainly not all ancestry related to "CHG". brits and scandis do not just have 0-5% of this ancestry for example.

It is more of an indication of higher levels of Iran_N-like ancestry, which exists across the board in West Eurasians.

I6ZWkwE.png
 
It is more of an indication of higher levels of Iran_N-like ancestry, which exists across the board in West Eurasians.

I6ZWkwE.png

i know. just wanted to point out that his graphic does certainly not show the real relation between modern Cypriots/Anatolians and Iran_N/CHG based on the fact that it fails to do so in many other places.

i really don't think that the east eurasian ancestry explains enough variation among all west eurasian populations to be really relevant in such a PCA. to me it looks like european HG ancestry eventhough actually very little on average(so to say the biggest peanuts among peanuts) in most populations and iranian farmer/CHG differences are the most influential components here. so the little east eurasian in turkish people makes almost no difference here.
 
still, if you look at supplementary table 3 of this paper here:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material
then turkish people have a lower fst with early bronze age steppe0.023/lateBASteppe0.015/CHG0.041/iran_N0.040/iranChl0.010 than the cypriots 0.031/0.02/0.047/0.046/0.012

and the pca is reflecting this. now for me it is more probable that this is because of additional % of these ancestries and not because of additional east eurasian ancestry.
These are decimal differences, therefore minor. And it's what i would except anyway. The principal factor of Turkish people differentiating is this eastern influence they have. Look at the following for example, where Turks from the Central provinces of Sivas and Yozgat are included, next to Cappadocian Greeks (originating from the same region more or less).
Credit goes to @Alkaevli (Anthrogenica).
alecopyovf2d.png


Now, Cappadocian Greeks have negligible amounts of that same eastern influence, while the respective Turks pretty much what is shown in the previous East_Eurasian Turkish map i shared (post #2059); 8.44% and 9.72% respectively for those provinces. We can hypothesize that if that eastern influence didn't exist in the respective Turks, they would in fact cluster close to Cypriots and Greek Cappadocians, just like both of the latter do themselves in this following PCA. We would also see them close to Cypriots in many of the other PCAs out there, but we don't.
Credit goes to @Alkaevli (Anthrogenica).
ege2r5e2d.png


A more obvious picture would look like this. You would expect to see Turks within this cline, just like the Greek_Central_Anatolia samples, namely Cappadocian. Instead you find them way more down and interestingly enough, parallel to that cline.
Credit goes to @Michalis Moriopoulos (Anthrogenica).
BV5plcr.png


For the record, here are most of the Turkish provinces included as well, next to other populations; to give you a more complete perspective.
Credit goes to @Alkaevli (Anthrogenica).

hepsit0i0b.png


Anyway, we are diverging from the original subject of this thread. If you want to discuss further we can move to PM.
 
^^ The Myceanean samples in that PCA look so heterogenous.
I have heard that some Cental group of Anatolians clusters with Cypriots who are quite close to Coppadican Greeks. I believe Cappodican Greeks are a good represenation of Central Anatolians without the Turkic Admixture.
 
It is more of an indication of higher levels of Iran_N-like ancestry, which exists across the board in West Eurasians.

I6ZWkwE.png

I wonder if you get banned on eurogenes' blog if you post this chart? I mean, isn't it still dogma on his site that there's no Iran Neo in any Europeans except Southern Italians/Sicilians? :)
 
^^ The Myceanean samples in that PCA look so heterogenous.
I have heard that some Cental group of Anatolians clusters with Cypriots who are quite close to Coppadican Greeks. I believe Cappodican Greeks are a good represenation of Central Anatolians without the Turkic Admixture.

That's borne out in the K12b where people get matches of 10-11 to the northernmost sample, and are quite far indeed to some of the others, yes?
 
I wonder if you get banned on eurogenes' blog if you post this chart? I mean, isn't it still dogma on his site that there's no Iran Neo in any Europeans except Southern Italians/Sicilians? :)

Well played, very well played. "I miei complimenti"
 
It's not none. Those grey areas aren't included due to being unsampled. Here is another map by Eupedia, more general.
East-Asian-admixture.gif


I'd say there's actually a bit more East Asian in these populations than what Dodecad shows:

cKG1UoH.png
 

This thread has been viewed 1158621 times.

Back
Top