Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Not sure, but it was taken from the PCA you posted. I just labeled the markers for clarity, to compare it to where the Mycenaeans are placed.

Edit:

I think that it would be relatively recent exchanges to bring them so close to one another on the chart.

There was this article about the increase of admixture with other Balkan people in the middle ages. It said there's the difference between the mainland and the islands; who are more like the southern Italians and Sicilians. We see on the PCA chart the original Mycenaean are close to this. I think the Greek islanders are probably very close to the Sicilians, if they were on the PCA. You had mentioned they are mostly from Thessaly on this particular PCA. Nevertheless, It is possible they were getting pulled in that direction, more and more over time, due to the sheer proximity of the populations, at least to a small degree before the middle ages.

Post regarding the article:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rn-Italy/page8?p=512990&viewfull=1#post512990
Given where they plot, I found the small amt of extra "sardinian" found by the gedmatch calculators surprising. But they're notorious for not being all that reliable so its best to not take them all that seriously. This pca was designed by professors at Harvard, I'll trust their readings more than results from an amateur calculator.
 
Etruscans DNA will show no or little Steppe ancestry. Ancient IE Italians will show a significant dose of Steppe. Ancient DNA from Italy and India will confirm Steppe people spread some IE languages.

Anthropologically speaking Etruscans were more "Northern" than IE Romans, Etruscans were much more brachy (like most modern Tuscans and North Italians) than Romans, who were almost totally dolico-mediterraneans till the Republican period, according to Giuseppe Sergi. I know that old anthropology is not always reliable but...

But only Hittite DNA can confirm PIE originated in the Steppe.
True..
 
Anthropologically speaking Etruscans were more "Northern" than IE Romans, Etruscans were much more brachy (like most modern Tuscans and North Italians) than Romans, who were almost totally dolico-mediterraneans till the Republican period, according to Giuseppe Sergi. I know that old anthropology is not always reliable but...

Giuseppe Sergi isn't particularly reliabe.
 
@Maciamo,

Do you have good data on % of various subclades of R1a, R1b, I2 and I1 in modern Greece?
 
Crete_Armenoi in Eurogenes K13:

WE wuz the elite rulers of the ancient Greeks, Boris.
Come on, that's just larping at this point. The authors have clearly stated that the Armenoi sample has a low quality. Not to mention that she's a woman and political intermarriages by sending daughters to foreign courts have pretty much been a tradition since forever.

I wouldn't be so sceptical if it weren't for the other samples that differ quite a bit from her.
 
@Tomenable,

It's actually pretty surprising how much 374f Minoans had. It indicates they had pretty light skin but then there are paintings depicting people with brown skin. Like I've said before there's no super accurate way to determine someone's skin color from DNA.

IMO, ancestral-info makes it clear Steppe-rich groups are the source for the European blonde/blue eye complex but that doesn't mean they're the source for light skin.

And stop ranking people's worth according to color. Everyone can see what you're suggesting.

@Angela,

The female-light skin, male-dark skin thing obviously wasn't meant to reflect reality. Didn't the Egyptians do the same thing?
 
I think with the recent datas, we can have some sort of a picture of the patern of south est europe and somehow indo-european languages. 1: R1b is found in mesolithic moesia so middle balkans and latvia and steppe, coming from, maybe anatolia and middle east or pontic steppe. 2: We've got specific sublades of G2a and various minor haplogroups coming from, somehow anatolia and maybe too greece, wich seems to have puch north R1b but not I2a and C1a2 wich somehow seems to being shown in ancient neolithic contexte. We can call this second part the first neolithic wave into europe. 3: Chalcolithic or maybe late neolithic with a chaclcolithic transition append both north ( in steppe ) R1a,R1b and south ( anatolian, armenian plateaux, north iran ) J2a. But, the steppe chalcolithic shows a genetic link with the south, maybe with J2b coming from south caucasus directly in steppe. However maybe with kura-araxes complexe J2a seems to profuse chalcolithic in west anatolia and greece and south balkans, were it can have mingled with steppe R1b and change cultural traits like ( cremating in jar coming from south caucasus and making is way throught europe ). So about indo-european languages, if it comes from south caucasus with that second chalcolithic wave c.f. kura-araxes. It would mean that Anatolian languages would be coming from armenia, tocharian going through caucasus, steppe, and north china with the wheel and carts coming from south caucasus. And Italo-Celtic would come from the mingle in balkans wich doesn't really have sens. If we assume that etruscians were those J2a coming from kura araxes throught anatolia, balkans, italy. We see some indo-european loan connections... So we can assume that a large substrat of the indo-european loanwords, come from the steppe, but also that it was really influenced, by various wave of demic or cultural migrations.
 
Must we? If my perceptions of archaeology + linguistics + genetics end up being right, the 7-13% Steppe admixture differentiating Mycenaeans from Minoans and other non-Indo-European peoples in the Aegean right in the first centuries of Indo-European-speaking history in Greece are absolutely expected, and there is no need to turn things upside down because of those results. What's definitely proved is that a Corded Ware-style expansion of IE languages doesn't apply in more populous regions like Southern Europe.

But we have so many historic, documented examples of mixed expansionist peoples causing language shift in a few hundred years without leaving major genetic impact (Turkish in Turkey, Arabic in Lebanon, . In all those cases, the demographic impact of the incoming powerful conquerors wasn't larger than 20% of the population, and that's also what we see here in the case of Mycenaeans if they came from the north Balkans or even from Anatolia. Their 10%-13% Steppe probably mean that their genetics account for 20% to 25% of the BA Greek pool. That's more than enough to trigger language shift.

Until now, in all regions that experienced Indo-Europeanization during the Bronze Age, steppe-like components (and above all EHG admixture) previously absent have been found, even if in small percentages, so there's a clear link between this and Indo-European languages. Remember that Romance languages spread in the Americas through a people (Iberians) with a minor % of steppe admixture and also a low % of Italian-derived ancestry.


the Turkish example is something I can discuss,
The % Turkish in Turkey is a result of 2 tribes, or maybe one,
the how much Turkish % must be search in Seljuk Turk,
Seljuk must score Bigger than 20-25% Turkish,

the difference among Turkish and Latin America is this,
Latins were not simmilar to native Americans, at least as concerns the Genetic pool,
here we see connectivity among Minoans and Myceneans,
which might mean that the7-13% of steppe of myceneans also IEpised Minoans,
which makes it even smaller than 7%
and the rest big Anatolian gene pool (I do not know how much) but surely multiply at least x4 was assimilated by at least 1/5?
the main problem here is that we do not know the language of Minoans,
and we all consider them as non IE,
but imagine the scenario that Minoans spoke IE but another unknown form,
 
"Below are derived allele counts and total numbers of reads for SNPs that have a large effect on phenotype for 19 Minoan, Mycenaean, Neolithic Greek, and Bronze Age Anatolian genomes. Nonzero derived allele counts are highlighted. Note that small derived allele counts may be due to DNA damage:"


https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/phenotype-snps-for-minoans-and-mycenaeans/


At least one the Minoans had brown skin, while all of the Mycenaeans had light skin:


SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin


Sample Population Date BC Derived/Total


I2937 Neolithic Greek 5460–5378 2/3
I9130 Minoan 2900–1900 1/1
I0070 Minoan 2000–1700 7/7
I0071 Minoan 2000–1700 0/36 ---> darker skin
I0073 Minoan 2000–1700 13/13
I0074 Minoan 2000–1700 3/3
I9005 Minoan 2000–1700 13/13
I9010 Mycenaean 1700–1200 4/4
I9041 Mycenaean 1700–1200 5/12
I9033 Mycenaean 1416–1280 2/3
I9006 Mycenaean 1411–1262 9/10
I2499 Bronze Age Anatolian 2836–2472 0/1 ---> darker skin
I2495 Bronze Age Anatolian 2558–2295 12/13
I2683 Bronze Age Anatolian 2500–1800 6/23


And another gene which lightens skin pigmentation:


TYR, rs1042602, lighter skin, absence of freckles


Sample Population Date BC Derived/Total


I2937 Neolithic Greek 5460–5378 0/1 ---> less light skin
I9130 Minoan 2900–1900 0/1 ---> less light skin

I9131 Minoan 2900–1900 1/1
I0070 Minoan 2000–1700 5/5
I0071 Minoan 2000–1700 9/22 ---> a bit less light skin
I9005 Minoan 2000–1700 2/9 ---> a bit less light skin

I9010 Mycenaean 1700–1200 3/3
I9041 Mycenaean 1700–1200 4/5
I9033 Mycenaean 1416–1280 3/3
I9006 Mycenaean 1411–1262 11/11
I2499 Bronze Age Anatolian 2836–2472 0/1 ---> less light skin
I2495 Bronze Age Anatolian 2558–2295 0/1 ---> less light skin
I2683 Bronze Age Anatolian 2500–1800 0/6 ---> less light skin



So the Mycenaeans had - on average - slightly lighter skin than the Minoans.


you little white rat,

all the paleolithic results in Greece gives more than average brown hair and eyes and 2 tones darker skin
and secondary black (shinny black) hair and black eyes with again 2 tones darker today
2 tones darker to some is visual, to others not,
consider how many tones of dark/white or dark/transparrent have human race,

Besides, Blondism is not IE mark, rather an old mutation that sprunk around N Europe and Baltics,
BUT white is after Forests, the more the Forest, the more whiter Skin,
and I ask you, DO STEPPES HAVE FORESTS? ARE STEPPE PEOPLE WHITE AS EUROPEANS?

and I will give some photos

Kallash
Kalash-Tribe-in-Kafiristan-group-of-girls-dancing-what-a-beauty.jpg


Afganistan
children-afghanistan.jpg




and since you are good in Genetics and colour skins

WHICH ARE MORE WHITE?
STEPPE PEOPLE OR TAIGA PEOPLE?


even if IE is a steppe language it can not be whiter than the forests of the North,
plz realize that,

IE is a language of white skin North Asian Forests?

and you still own me an answer,
what about Gedrosian component?


and the wplz do your calculations again and tell us which and how much Gedrosian have the 'white North Europe Forest IEans' Hf's
and European does not mean Nordic neither Slav but Nords and Slavs are Europeans
 
In terms if phenotype, the Mycenaens were extremely "Med" looking. I've seen my share of South Italian women who resemble the Mycenaean women in this pic:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4wga1oYBbpY/Uf0W_Ucm_oI/AAAAAAAAHm4/Qj80cqQRqbo/s1600/The+Mycenaeans+C.jpg

In spite of their pale skin, they are super super Med looking.
Meds are pale naturally. We get tanned due to sun exposure.

I posted my photos, see im tanned, but if you see my body parts that get no sun, they are like milk.
 
I think it's interesting to compare this study to this chart that was made for the study on Ancient Egyptian DNA.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

5ywXnsa.jpg


GDmoNp8.png



Most Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of European women who converted to Judaism, possibly around the time of the early Roman empire, concludes a new genetic study that casts doubt on many prevailing theories about the origins of Ashkenazim.
The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, analyzed samples of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down only from the mother, taken from more than 3,500 people throughout the Near East, the Caucasus and Europe, including Ashkenazi Jews. The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans, with four maternal “founders” responsible for 40 percent. Although Jewish men may have migrated into Europe from Israel around 2,000 years ago, they brought few or no wives with them, according to the researchers, who suggest that the men married and converted European women, first along the Mediterranean and later in western and central Europe.
The study was conducted by Martin Richards of the University of Huddersfield in England, who led a team of researchers from Russia, the Czech Republic, Portugal and the United States. They examined mitochondrial DNA, which is contained in the cytoplasm of the egg. “Like Judaism, mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line,” notes the report.
The finding flies in the face of previous research and the commonly accepted wisdom that European Ashkenazim are descended from ancestral mothers of Jews who left Israel and the Middle East some 2,000 years ago, or in later migrations. The study suggests instead that large numbers of European women converted to Judaism and points to the European women and the Jewish community of the early Roman Empire as the possible source of the Ashkenazi ancestors.
“These analyses suggest that the first major wave of assimilation probably took place in Mediterranean Europe, most likely in the Italian peninsula, with substantial further assimilation of minor founders in west/central Europe,” the study concluded.
The discovery also tends to debunk the theory that Ashkenazi Jews descend from the North Caucasus during the time of the Khazar empire, whose rulers turned to Judaism around the 10th century CE. The study found no maternal lineages that could be traced to the North Caucasus.
"These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history," states the report.
“Here we show that all four major founders, about 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus,” said Richards. “Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe."
Many other geneticists have criticized the research questioned the findings. The study is just the latest in a long list of similar research, often with contradictory results, on the question of the origin of Jews in general and Ashkenazi Jews in particular - and whether today's Jews are genetically related.
Such studies have sparked much controversy in recent years since they have political, religious and ideological implications for the Jewish people and their history.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.551825

The Ashkenazi Jews seem to cluster a lot closer to the Mycenaeans than they did to their ancestors in the middle East. Which means they must have heavily assimilated during the Roman times. The same may have been the case with the other Jewish groups within the empire. Note how close the Turkish Jews are as well; which I speculate comes from assimilation during the Byzantine Empire.

What does the Ashkenazi Jewish population's assimilation into Ancient Rome, bringing them closer to the Mycenaeans, tell us about the Romans? Perhaps Romans were close to the Mycenaeans.
 
The Ashkenazi Jews seem to cluster a lot closer to the Mycenaeans than they did to their ancestors in the middle East. Which means they must have heavily assimilated during the Roman times. The same may have been the case with the other Jewish groups within the empire. Note how close the Turkish Jews are as well; which I speculate comes from assimilation during the Byzantine Empire.

There are many threads about the Ashkenazi Jews.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34248-Ashkenazi-Jews-and-the-Balkans-Autosomal-and-Haplogroups
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ace-of-European-Gene-Flow-into-Ashkenazi-Jews


What does the Ashkenazi Jewish population's assimilation into Ancient Rome, bringing them closer to the Mycenaeans, tell us about the Romans? Perhaps Romans were close to the Mycenaeans.

Romans were the citizens of Rome, they could have been very varied. The original Latins of the Latial culture are thought to be an offspring of the Proto-Villanovan culture. They practiced cremation, so, as I understand, we don't have bones or skulls.
 
and I ask you, DO STEPPES HAVE FORESTS? ARE STEPPE PEOPLE WHITE AS EUROPEANS?

and I will give some photos

Kallash
Kalash-Tribe-in-Kafiristan-group-of-girls-dancing-what-a-beauty.jpg


Afganistan
children-afghanistan.jpg




and since you are good in Genetics and colour skins

these pics don't represent IE tribes that were on the steppe 6 - 3 ka
they were repleced by Turkish tribes
 
Romans were the citizens of Rome, they could have been very varied. The original Latins of the Latial culture are thought to be an offspring of the Proto-Villanovan culture. They practiced cremation, so, as I understand, we don't have bones or skulls.

True, in regards to the Latins. I hate to mis-speak in regards to Romans as a legal term, and the original Latins, who founded Rome.

However, wouldn't Ashkenazi Jews moving so close on the PCA to the Mycenaean, from their Middle Eastern origin, indicate something about the population in Italia at large? particularly after 70 AD.

Also, I found this to be interesting, when looking at all of this.

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

It is known more certainly that an embassy was sent later by Simon Maccabeus to Rome to strengthen the alliance with the Romans against the Hellenistic Seleucid kingdom. The ambassadors received a cordial welcome from their coreligionists already established in Rome.
Large numbers of Jews lived in Rome even during the late Roman Republican period. They were largely Greek-speaking and poor. As Rome had increasing contact with and military/trade dealings with the Greek-speaking Levant, during the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, many Greeks, as well as Jews, came to Rome as merchants or were brought there as slaves.
 
True, in regards to the Latins. I hate to mis-speak in regards to Romans as a legal term, and the original Latins, who founded Rome.

According to ancient writers Rome was founded by three tribes: Ramnes, Tities and Luceres. Ramnes (from Romulus) could be a Latin tribe, Tities (from Titus Tatius) a Sabine tribe, and Luceres (from Lucumon or from lucus, "sacred grove") an Etruscan tribe.

However, wouldn't Ashkenazi Jews moving so close on the PCA to the Mycenaean, from their Middle Eastern origin, indicate something about the population in Italia at large? particularly after 70 AD.

It's just a coincidence that Ashkenazi Jews are so close on that PCA to the Mycenaean, due to similar components proportions. I don't even know how much it's really accurate and implies something else.
 
What does the Ashkenazi Jewish population's assimilation into Ancient Rome, bringing them closer to the Mycenaeans, tell us about the Romans? Perhaps Romans were close to the Mycenaeans.

Ashkenazi Jews are a mix of Levantine / MENA and European populations. They plot close to the Mycenaeans because of their mixture proportions, not due to being descended from a Mycenaean-like population. If ancient Italians ancestral to Jews were Mycenaean-like, modern Jews would be plotting halfway between the Levant and the Mycenaeans, rather than close to the latter. European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews is more genetically northern than Mycenaeans.
 
Ashkenazi Jews are a mix of Levantine / MENA and European populations. They plot close to the Mycenaeans because of their mixture proportions, not due to being descended from a Mycenaean-like population. If ancient Italians ancestral to Jews were Mycenaean-like, modern Jews would be plotting halfway between the Levant and the Mycenaeans, rather than close to the latter. European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews is more genetically northern than Mycenaeans.

Exactly, Sicilians have, along side Greek ancestry, received mixtures from both Southern (Phoenician, Arab) as well as Northern populations (Dorians?, Normans, Romans etc) and have as such retained the same North-Southern analogy as the Myceneans. Jews were obviously more Southern and received Northern admixtures to come close to the Myceneans. Western Anatolia has received (among others) Turkic admixture, so Western Turks plot quite far away from Myceneans/Minoans. Mainland Greece has had mainly northern (Dorian? and Slavic) admixture and they plot more Northern. Although we still need more Mycenean samples from different parts of Greece. Because that female example with more northern ancestry raises some question marks.
 

This thread has been viewed 1171262 times.

Back
Top