Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[Yetos]

We can also surmise that only the cities that went to fight for Agamemnon in the trojan war where mycenean cities and they also spoke mycenean
what was the most northern Mycenaean city that went with the greek to troy?

and we can also surmise that Myrmidons were not Myceneans

 

[LATGAL]

"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. "
"Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon. Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++""
I doubt they would have included it at all if it wasn't the best model.

It's not impossible but why are you against a (non-IE) migration from Anatolia leading to the Neolithic-Minoan change then one from the Balkans (maybe not entirely IE but bringing pre-proto-Greek) leading to the Minoan-Mycenaean change. These seem very plausible and are archaeologically supported based on my readings. Is it tied to your general preference for a Transcaucasus IE urheimat?

But yeah I like that they keep their options open on a number of issues, including the date of the arrival of Anatolian to Anatolia.

 

[markoz2]

It's not impossible but why are you against a (non-IE) migration from Anatolia leading to the Neolithic-Minoan change then one from the Balkans (maybe not entirely IE but bringing pre-proto-Greek) leading to the Minoan-Mycenaean change. These seem very plausible and are archaeologically supported based on my readings. Is it tied to your general preference for a Transcaucasus IE urheimat?
But yeah I like that they keep their options open on a number of issues, including the date of the arrival of Anatolian to Anatolia.

I personally don't care. At least as far as the archeology is concerned, the overwhelming bias in favor of one hypothesis isn't justified though.

They have to keep their options open because they couldn't find what they were looking for.

 

[Angela]

"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. "

"Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon. Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++""

I doubt they would have included it at all if it wasn't the best model.

So now you're going to resort to cherry-picking quotes from a paper to support your preference? Are you related to Sikeliot, or Drac, or maybe Joey from italicroots?

The authors emphatically do not propose that that Armenian hypothesis is better, not in this paper, at least. Period.

From the paper:

"Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east; Table S2.2), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia."

There are more quotes, but it's not worth spending the time. Anyone who has read the paper carefully and honestly knows that you are misrepresenting them.

I don't respond to people who engage in such dishonest practices, so consider yourself ignored from here on in.

 

[markoz2]

So now you're going to resort to cherry-picking quotes from a paper to support your preference? Are you related to Sikeliot, or Drac, or maybe Joey from italicroots?

The authors emphatically do not propose that that Armenian hypothesis is better, not in this paper, at least. Period.

From the paper:

"Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east; Table S2.2), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia."

There are more quotes, but it's not worth spending the time. Anyone who has read the paper carefully and honestly knows that you are misrepresenting them.

I don't respond to people who engage in such dishonest practices, so consider yourself ignored from here on in.

It's their best model because it explains both the anti-correlation of the northern and eastern shifts and the general picture of the aDNA. The other models have less explanatory power. I don't think it's dishonest to point this out, but perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by "best model" beforehand. It wasn't my intention to mislead people.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Is thessaloniki the same as thessaly? ..........Neolitihic Thessaly ( NT ) had different markers ( as per other papers ) than this papers stated markers. NT had E-V13 while none where found in minoans.
I am unsure if Angela included thessalonki in her statement, some people think of it as one place and others do not.

No, Thessaloniki is Macedonia, in Italian it's Salonicco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki

 

[Ygorbr]

Linear A was the primary script used in palace and religious writings of the Minoan civilization. It was discovered by archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans. It is the origin of the Linear B script, which was later used by the Mycenaean civilization.

so Linear A is minoan and Linear B is mycenean................A before B ....................myceneans conquered the minoans before the dorians arrived in Greece.
Logically , the myceneans originally spoke something else before Linear B , what did they speak, was it still Greek?

I particularly don't see a good reason to conflate the adoption of a script, a writing device (Linear B), by a previously illiterate people with a hypothetical shift of their language. Mycenaeans didn't speak Linear B. They wrote using it. The language written through Linear B script is very clearly ancient Greek, already clearly distinguishable from [reconstructed] Late PIE dialects.

 

[LATGAL]

I'm sure markoz2 is just Markoz(1) I personally appreciate his attention to the other major hypothesis, though I find it less likely than an intrusion from the north, especially at this point.

 

[Sile]

I particularly don't see a good reason to conflate the adoption of a script, a writing device (Linear B), by a previously illiterate people with a hypothetical shift of their language. Mycenaeans didn't speak Linear B. They wrote using it. The language written through Linear B script is very clearly ancient Greek, already clearly distinguishable from [reconstructed] Late PIE dialects.

but linear B came from linear A ............so we know what minoans spoke , but what did the myceaneans speak before learning or adapting linear A to make linear B ?

 

[Sakattack]

but linear B came from linear A ............so we know what minoans spoke , but what did the myceaneans speak before learning or adapting linear A to make linear B ?

With all the respect, you don't seem to pay attention.

So, as simply as it gets:

The Minoans were speaking their own (unknown) language and were using Linear A to write it.
The Mycenaeans had no alphabet before dealing with the Minoans, no script, no written communication. After meeting them, they adopted their script (Linear A) to write down their language (which was archaic Greek) and eventually they slightly transformed the pattern (Linear B).

They didn't change their language, they just found a way to write it down.

 

[halfalp]

It could be related by a two-way cultural complexe, with yamnaya copper age and R1b expand in romania / central europe first near 4000bc and a later phenomenon coming from somewhere anatolia maybe armenia in early stage ( kura araxes ) bronze age link with J2a maybe others expand throught south est europe and mingled somehow near -2000 with neolithic and steppe peoples. Etruscians can be related with those people coming from the second anatolian wave. The question about indo-european language here is difficult, wich wave bring it, or was it in steppe, Tocharians and afanasievo seems favor the steppe hypothesis, for a late-proto-indo-european for sur.

 

[holderlin]

I'm sure markoz2 is just Markoz(1) I personally appreciate his attention to the other major hypothesis, though I find it less likely than an intrusion from the north, especially at this point.

yeah what is up with "markoz2"

 

[Jovialis]

The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean^{1, 2}, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus³and Iran^{4, 5}. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia^{6, 7, 8}, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe^{1, 6, 9} or Armenia^{4, 9}. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23310.html#tables

Is it possible the language was also influenced by other indo-European and other language speaking people that contributed to genome? Instead of one single-source, perhaps its just a result of people mixing these languages, until it melded together over time. Creating a common language that they spoke, so they could operate as a society. I wonder how much each of these particular groups contributed to the Greek language.

 

[Yetos]

It could be related by a two-way cultural complexe, with yamnaya copper age and R1b expand in romania / central europe first near 4000bc and a later phenomenon coming from somewhere anatolia maybe armenia in early stage ( kura araxes ) bronze age link with J2a maybe others expand throught south est europe and mingled somehow near -2000 with neolithic and steppe peoples. Etruscians can be related with those people coming from the second anatolian wave. The question about indo-european language here is difficult, wich wave bring it, or was it in steppe, Tocharians and afanasievo seems favor the steppe hypothesis, for a late-proto-indo-european for sur.

Tocharian
either steppe, either kurgans,
either Yamnaa
either Anatolian,
either Armenian

is an Anatolian language from area south of today Armenia that moved to steppe

 

[Sile]

With all the respect, you don't seem to pay attention.

So, as simply as it gets:

The Minoans were speaking their own (unknown) language and were using Linear A to write it.
The Mycenaeans had no alphabet before dealing with the Minoans, no script, no written communication. After meeting them, they adopted their script (Linear A) to write down their language (which was archaic Greek) and eventually they slightly transformed the pattern (Linear B).

They didn't change their language, they just found a way to write it down.

link me something that the myceneans spoke archaic greek ..............and , did the minoans speak archiac Greek?


I pay attention, but the answer on what was Mycenean language pre minoan conquest is what I am wanting to know .............you are indicating that minoans and myceneans spoke archaic Greek before linear A was formed

 

[Sile]

No, Thessaloniki is Macedonia, in Italian it's Salonicco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki

i know, angela said thessally and you replied for thessaloniki ...............2 different places

 

[Falco]

i know, angela said thessally and you replied for thessaloniki ...............2 different places

I think the samples in the Lazaridis PCA are largely from Thessaloniki, and the Thessaly sample being referenced is from the Eurogenes PCA (from which study it originally came from I can't say).

 

[Sakattack]

link me something that the myceneans spoke archaic greek ..............and , did the minoans speak archiac Greek?
I pay attention, but the answer on what was Mycenean language pre minoan conquest is what I am wanting to know .............you are indicating that minoans and myceneans spoke archaic Greek before linear A was formed

With no search at all, take this from wiki: "The decipherment of the Mycenaean Linear B script, a writing system adapted for the use of the Greek language of the Late Bronze Age,[11] demonstrated the continuity of Greek speech from the second millennium BC into the eighth century BC when a new script emerged. Moreover, it revealed that the bearers of Mycenaean culture were ethnically connected with the populations that resided in the Greek peninsula after the end of this cultural period"

Also this:
"The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is the assumed last common ancestor of all known varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., Attic, Ionic, Aeolic, Doric, Ancient Macedonian and Arcadocypriot) and, ultimately, Koine, Byzantine and Modern Greek. The unity of Proto-Greek would have ended as Hellenic migrants, who spoke the predecessor of the Mycenaean language, entered the Greek peninsula sometime in the Neolithic or the Bronze Age.[1]"

The Minoan language is still not not deciphered. All the evidence suggest that it was not Greek, not IE, but sth else.

And again, you miss the point. Try to get thing together:

- Minoans -> unknown languange -> Linear A script
- Myceneaens -> archaic Greek language -> no script at first -> Linear B script after the contact with the Minoans and the borrowing of their alphabet.

Clear now?

 

[Lukas]

M472594 I9010 - Mycean (smallest bam)

M866617 I9041 - Mycean (biggest bam)

M740087 I2499 - Anatolia_BA

If somebody check them, above are Sicilan / Jewish shifted.

But Crete Armenoi is different M293012.
Check it in Eurogenes K13, Eutest, Jtest , Gedrosia or Puntdnal. Some North or East Euro element is visible...

 

[davef]

Can someone help an idiot out? I don't understand how (according to this chart) Thessalonikis are like Cypriots with just a small extra spread of red stuff (EHG or steppe or whatever pushes them north) and it looks like Cypriots and Thessalonkikis are closer to one of the Minoan groups (Lashi or whatever it's called). I wonder if that's true for other Greeks. I'll have to read it.
But I'll admit that my interpretation could be far off and I don't understand what the chart is telling us.
https://images.nature.com/full/natu...rent/images_supplementary/nature23310-sf1.jpg