Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[Yetos]

ΘΟΥΚΙΔΙΔΗΣ Ο ΑΛΙΜΟΥΣΙΟΣ

Thoykidides was Born and Belong to the Athenian tribe of Alimos ΑΛΙΜΟΣ,
He was Athenean citizen and general,
His Father was named Oloros ΟΛΟΡΟΣ.
the only Connection is that this name is also Found In some Thracian Kings,

Thoykidides confess that was owner of one mine and responsible for all the other Athenian mines in the area, near the city Σκαπτη Υλη
Σκαπτη Υλη is not The later Makedonian mines of Philippoi, the Paggaion mountains, were Spartan try to occupy and take command
but rather more east around today Χαλκερο,
The Atheneans knew from Thasians about that mines, from the times of Peisistratos,
but they took command and excavate the times of Athenean Thoukidides and Spartan Brasidas

all the rest are inaccurate,
and Fantasy,
He died at Σκαπτη Υλη.

the first attempt by Athenians to take command of the mines
were the times of ΛΕΑΓΡΟΣ and ΣΩΦΡΟΝΙΟΣ

the old city of Kavala Καβαλα might be the Σκαπτη Υλη,
since even the times of Byzantium was named ΣΚΑΒΑΛΑ (compare word Σκυβαλα,)

Σκυβαλον = what ever remains in the sieve

Skavala was a colony of Eretria, in the land of Thracian Ηδωνες Edones

 

[Angela]

The problem is that Dupidh thinks that Mycenaeans and Classical Greeks can not be referred to as Hellenes, which is erroneous for many reasons. Other than the fact that the rest of his arguments don't add up historically.

@Angela


If Greeks from the South somewhere in the Bronze Age or even later, colonized other areas and Hellenized them, then Classical Greeks simply had a somewhat different make up than the Mycenaean Greeks. It doesn't make them any less Ancient Greek. We have no norm for Greeks biologically. So Greekness redefines itself as it goes.

Simply said, Minoans mixed blood and culture with IE newcomers to the South of Greece. This created the Mycenaean Hellenes. And whoever was living further North may have had the same process before as well as later. But the bulk of people further North may have not been Minoan, but something else. Perhaps not too different, but different. This does not disqualify them of becoming classical Hellenes, no more than it disqualified the Minoans in becoming Mycenaean Hellenes. Simply said, the process of Hellenization may have been slow, but since the classical Greeks postdate the Mycenaeans by a thousand years, they were probably more heterogenous than their ancestors. Makes sense doesn't it.

Now, if you think that islanders are closer to Ancient Greeks. This is possible, perhaps even likely. But we would need more data to understand everything. Maybe islanders may have less Slavic ancestry. This we can not deny. But at the same time, mainland Greeks may share some other ancestral dimensions which were absorbed right before the classical age, or were further North during the Bronze Age. Or perhaps both. We have yet to see about that.

I agree with virtually every word. I'm glad someone understands the timelines and the history. "Hellene" meant different things in different time periods.

I don't know what the Classical Greeks were like. They probably were at least somewhat different. I can't wait to find out.

@Milan, ihype, Yetos,
You're straying off topic.

 

[Angela]

Why, Angela? I'm not sure I understood your point. When I mentioned "40% to 50% ethnic Indo-European ancestry", I meant that each of those hypothetical peoples would've descend 40% to 50% from their immediate IE-speaking ancestor tribe, though each of them was progressively more EEF/CHG-mixed and less steppe-like as the historic stages from Chalcolithic Ukraine to Middle-Late Bronze Age Greece went by. What's wrong about it? When I say "ethnic", I mean the cultural package, not the genetic steppe ancestry.

"Ethnicity" is determined by autosomal genetics. An "ethnic" Indo-European is very different from any of the succeeding cultures in Europe. They were a mix of EHG and Caucasus/Iran Chl, somewhere around perhaps 55/45 as an average. Even Corded Ware was an "Indo-Europeanized" group rather than actually Indo-European, imo, although I realize that's contentious. They may be the closest among the first wave to hit Europe in that component, however, and look how different they are to modern Southern Europeans.

By the time they reached Greece and Italy and Iberia, they were extremely mixed genetically, and they were also probably entering much more densely populated territory.

Culture is different. Did the Mycenaeans have an Indo-European culture? Yes, they did. In fact, in some ways it was always held to be the Indo-European culture "standard". The irony is how little actual Indo-European ancestry they carried. Of course, their culture also owed a great deal to the culture of the preceding inhabitants. It's off topic and too long to get into here, but you can see it in the religion as well as other things. The language was affected as well.

The way you are using "Indo-European" is more culture than genetics. The term becomes meaningless. Every European becomes Indo-European because we speak Indo-European languages and our cultures contain Indo-European elements.

 

[MOESAN]

Angela, I don't share your definition of 'ethnicity' - it's not defined only by genetics - it's rather (for me at least) a badly defined thing where play genetics and cultures, and "saga" too (traditions, myths, self-evaluation) the result being that ethnicity exists as long as exists enough differences made by the addition of these different elements: sometimes genetics and aspect have the first role, sometime language and habits have it. At least it's my thought. Maybe outhers can have other views?

 

[Angela]

Anyone can have any view they choose, of course. I only gave mine. We're in a very subjective area here. No hard data for this kind of discussion, unlike much of what we've been discussing.

Without a certain autosomal genetic mix, imo, you don't have an "ethnicity", although of course that ethnic group also has a certain history and culture.

Just as one example, we now have African and Chinese or Southeast Asian Italians. They are Italian citizens just as much as I am, and should have all the same rights, but they're not "ethnically" Italian. Of course, they may change what is "ethnically" Italian a few hundred years down the line.

 

[Milan.M]

I just said the quoted historian's origin cause might have different view on history cause his origin and gave opinion on the topic.
Nobody denies he was Athenian and Athenian citizen,but his more deep backround is Thracian.Herodotus confirm this that he is connected to Thracian royalty,also the name Olorus or Orolus is pure Thracian,not Greek.

https://books.google.mk/books?id=aJ...AKHVAHANgQ6AEIaDAI#v=onepage&q=orolus&f=false

By linguist is connected to "orel" meaning eagle.

What is next the mythic Orpheus is also Greek? no,enough "barbarians" also had learned people because they spoke a lingua franca of that time and belonged to that culture, but were of "barbarian" backround.

Sitalces for example a Thracian king was hounoured citizen in Athens in Thucydides time cause they were on same sides.

 

[Yetos]

@ Milan M

its ok,
avoiding further misunderstandings

Ολορος
Thracian king, father in law of Miltiades of Marathon battle

Oloros
Athenean citizen Father of Thoukidides

not the same person


Orpheus was either Thracian, either Brygian, either Makedonian
possible from the tribe Pierioi,
among and nearby the Makedonians and the Brygians
Ευριδικη is a common Makedonian name.

we know leveithra at Olympos
and we estimate the land of Kikkones in Thrace
as we know the tribe Pierioi, who moved from Olympos to Paggaion.

 

[Ygorcs]

"Ethnicity" is determined by autosomal genetics. An "ethnic" Indo-European is very different from any of the succeeding cultures in Europe. They were a mix of EHG and Caucasus/Iran Chl, somewhere around perhaps 55/45 as an average. Even Corded Ware was an "Indo-Europeanized" group rather than actually Indo-European, imo, although I realize that's contentious. They may be the closest among the first wave to hit Europe in that component, however, and look how different they are to modern Southern Europeans.

You're right; I definitely get what you mean, especially since "ethnicity" become such a politically charged and even technically equivocal word in our days, but the way you define the term is certainly more restrictive than what I meant and also what dictionaries traditionally consider: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition" (Oxford); "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" (Thesaurus).

Using that more common sense, my previous post intended to show DuPidh that there is nothing "strange" about, supposedly, Spartans and Latins having such an "Indo-European lifestyle" and "typical Indo-European traits", because if you follow the entire history, with a few intermediary stages, of Indo-Europeans out of the steppes as far as Greece and Italy you'll see more and more of their "blood" diluted even if they were NOT, in fact, a "tiny elite minority".

There is no need to be surprised, doubt the results or even look for those so-called "Near Eastern non-Hellenes" (total nonsense) because a "quintessentially Indo-European society" may end up having only ~10% of Steppe admixture. That doesn't necessarily mean that only 10% of their ancestors were bringing into Greece the IE cultural package.

As my previous post tried to demonstrate: even if there were a large scale migration of people with steppe admixture into Greece (e.g. even if the Indo-European Proto-Greeks had been as much as 40% of their ancestors), it is perfectly possible that the Steppe admixture would end up becoming a minor % of the Greeks' autosomal DNA, because those Proto-Greeks were already admixed a bit more admixed than the Pre-Proto-Greeks, and these were also a bit more admixed than the actual Late PIE people before the big migrations.

 

[Angela]

You're right; I definitely get what you mean, especially since "ethnicity" become such a politically charged and even technically equivocal word in our days, but the way you define the term is certainly more restrictive than what I meant and also what dictionaries traditionally consider: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition" (Oxford); "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" (Thesaurus).

Using that more common sense, my previous post intended to show DuPidh that there is nothing "strange" about, supposedly, Spartans and Latins having such an "Indo-European lifestyle" and "typical Indo-European traits", because if you follow the entire history, with a few intermediary stages, of Indo-Europeans out of the steppes as far as Greece and Italy you'll see more and more of their "blood" diluted even if they were NOT, in fact, a "tiny elite minority".

There is no need to be surprised, doubt the results or even look for those so-called "Near Eastern non-Hellenes" (total nonsense) because a "quintessentially Indo-European society" may end up having only ~10% of Steppe admixture. That doesn't necessarily mean that only 10% of their ancestors were bringing into Greece the IE cultural package.

As my previous post tried to demonstrate: even if there were a large scale migration of people with steppe admixture into Greece (e.g. even if the Indo-European Proto-Greeks had been as much as 40% of their ancestors), it is perfectly possible that the Steppe admixture would end up becoming a minor % of the Greeks' autosomal DNA, because those Proto-Greeks were already admixed a bit more admixed than the Pre-Proto-Greeks, and these were also a bit more admixed than the actual Late PIE people before the big migrations.

Completely agree with paragraphs two, three, and four, which is the gist of your argument.

I still don't agree with that dictionary definition of "ethnicity". By that standard Nigerian Italians are "ethnic" Italians. No offense to them whatsoever, or taking anything away from them as Italian legally, culturally, linguistically, etc. but they're not. If we believed they were, we on this Board should get a new hobby. Genetics counts in these things, even if it changes. You just have to realize it's time dependent. The ethnic Italians of today may not be the ethnic Italians of tomorrow.

That's just my personal opinion, of course. I can see how people might disagree.

 

[Pratt]

I'll admit, anthrogenica is kinda dull and boring, it's like a glorified test results (from gedmatch, DNA land) repository.

Anthrogenica is full of users with an agenda who tries to act like they were super experts and unbiased and some of them are very obsessed with the Italians, especially those who state to have 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 Italian ancestry. Even more funny is that they only speak about this tiny portion of Italian admixture, and at the same time they show complete disinterest for the rest of their ancestry.

 

[Pratt]

I'm not sure I understand your objection to using the Mycenaeans for the Greeks, at least. That is the most proximate ancient sample we have for them so far, yes?

I suppose they're using it for Italians as a stand in for a broader Southern European population that might have been already impacted by populations like the Anatolia Chalcolithic, but not yet by more northern steppe admixed groups? I wonder if anyone has tried to model Italians as something like Anatolia Chalcolithic/Otzi-Remedello/Unetice-Bell Beaker.

The models have different levels of fit. Which had the best fit in your modeling for the various groups?

I was not objecting to the use of Mycenaeans for Greeks, I was objecting to the use of Roman Outlier for anyone. Who uses Roman Outlier (not an ancestral population to anyone) in these models and takes the results seriously has an obvious agenda. As I have shown, not only the Italians, but also the Greeks and even the Iberians can get Roman Outlier.

In inglese non te lo so spiegare come si deve. Ma mi è molto chiaro il motivo per cui è stato usato Roman Outlier e non è un motivo molto edificante e non è neanche un vero motivo scientifico.

Spanish_Extremadura

Unetice 57.8
Mycenaean 28.9
England_Roman_outlier 13.3


Spanish_Galicia

Unetice 57.2
Mycenaean 29.9
England_Roman_outlier 12.8

I think what Davidski was trying to do with Roman outlier was to show some sort of Levant like admixture in Italians dating from the Roman era, from slaves, etc. Whether that happened or not I don't know. Strange, though, if that's the case, that Greeks can wind up with 15% of it. More Levant like alleles might have been part of Bronze Age movements for all we know right now, depending on the composition of the precise group that moved into southeastern Europe.

That's the problem with all of this. We may not yet have the precise, proximate ancient samples to figure this all out.

Yes, it smells like a typical nordicist agenda.

 

[Pratt]

Please stop basing your conclusions totally on PCAs, even if they are easier for non-statisticians to understand. That is only one tool. READ THE PAPER and supplement carefully please. Also, just generally, how seriously one is to take these analyses depends very much on who created it and what their reputation is for massaging the data to show what they want it to show.

If you believe that, why did you post a PCA which shows the opposite? Of course the Mycenaeans don't match any modern population. What does that have to do with it? There have been migrations since then. Any definitive answer as to why some Italians are closer to them than the Greeks still requires getting hold of ancient Italian samples. Take the English as an example. Bronze Age people in Britain and Ireland are distinct from modern populations. Are you going to say that there was no continuity in the British Isles from the Bronze Age to the present? There is, in fact, such continuity, even if something like the Danish/Anglo-Saxon invasions account for about 30% of the English genome. Why is it always the southern European countries which have to have no continuity?

This is inconsistent reasoning, which always smells like agenda to me.

That's absolutely nonsensical and illogical. You have a heavily EEF, minority steppe, modern Greek speaking population living in the exact same area as heavily EEF, minority steppe Greek speaking Mycenaneans but there's absolutely no continuity? Where did the Mycenaeans go? Are you going back to the totally discredited idea that there was total population replacement in Greece?

Now, I agree that some of that EEF may have come with subsequent migrants like the Slavic speaking peoples, but for your idea to work those Slavic speakers would have had to have also been in very high proportion EEF to get the levels we see today, and we know that isn't the case.

Now, if what you're trying imperfectly to say is that Southern Italians are not predominantly descended from Mycenaean type people, that's a different kettle of fish. Some input is likely, given the massive Greek migration to southern Italy and Greece, but a lot of it is probably from ancient gene flow from the Balkans to Italy starting with the Neolithic. As I said, other things may become clear with ancient Italian dna.

The PCA is based on a spreadsheet for the Harappa thread, and was already posted.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding, perhaps caused by myself and my bad English and I replied in a hurry.

I only answered to a user who was saying that there are similarities of Mycenaeans with Tuscans, Albanians, and Southern Italians, putting everything in the same bag. If there are such similarities, there are more with the Greeks and South Italians. I am not aware of Mycenaean migrations north of Rome or Albania.

Mycenaean samples don't match exactly any modern population because they have more EEF ancestry I think. At least those uploaded on Gedmatch, but Mycenaean samples on gedmatch have less SNPs evaluated compared to modern people, we can not have the absolute certainty that their results are accurate to 100%.

There is obvious continuity between Mycenaeans and Greeks/Southern Italians (Magna Grecia). Maybe we need more samples and it was a longer process than we think.

On the total population replacement in Greece I do think it's not entirely true. I have shown that even Italian_Bergamo and Italian_Tuscan can be modeled as if they were partially Slavic at levels not dissimilar to the Greeks and we are quite certain that neither Bergamo nor the Tuscans have received Slavic migrations.

I do think the models proposed by Davidski haven't proved anything.

 

[davef]

Anthrogenica is full of users with an agenda who tries to act like they were super experts and unbiased and some of them are very obsessed with the Italians, especially those who state to have 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 Italian ancestry. Even more funny is that they only speak about this tiny portion of Italian admixture, and at the same time they show complete disinterest for the rest of their ancestry.

I'm sure most or all of them are sock accounts of Professor Sikeliot.

 

[Sile]

When people and the internet claim you can have Iberian, balkan or british ethnicity, it is then the time to say there is no such thing as ethnicity and it it used in error by the majority of people.

ethnicity to be used for Geographical, religious or linguistic purposes has to be wrong.

 

[Angela]

@Pratt,
Sorry, there was a misunderstanding. I agree with your analysis as you've explained it and gave you reputation points.

The use of the Roman outlier (ancient Levant like genome) doesn't clarify anything for Italians if Greeks, Spaniards etc. can also be modeled in the same way. It's just Davidski playing his games as usual, and his manipulation of data and gross exaggerations being applauded by the usual group of know-nothing fan boys.

That's not to say that the ancient data when it comes out won't show Levant introgression at some point, it just means that manipulation of data is manipulation of data, whether the actual ancient dna coincidentally supports your conclusion or not. It's the dishonesty to which I object, not necessarily or always the conclusion.

 

[Megalophias]

I was not objecting to the use of Mycenaeans for Greeks, I was objecting to the use of Roman Outlier for anyone. Who uses Roman Outlier (not an ancestral population to anyone) in these models and takes the results seriously has an obvious agenda.

Why? if people like Roman Outlier were common enough in the Roman Empire that he happened to be sampled, why is it unreasonable to think people like him might have contributed something to the modern European post-Roman populations? I do not see how this is biased, in the absence of anything better.

 

[Angela]

^^I am speaking only for myself here, not Pratt, who hasn't been back, apparently. Pardon me if I'm intruding.

The only populations which were initially modeled in this way were the Southern Italian and Sicilian populations, to my knowledge. Eurogenes has been proposing for years that there was a large movement of people from the Levant into southern Italy and Sicily both during the Roman Empire and later with the Moorish invasions. This is why, from his own utterances in the past, these people should be "kicked out of Europe": they're not European. One of his acolytes, Sikelliot, has been saying the same for even longer, while denying that his own Iberian ancestors carry any or at least as much such "tainted" blood. The entire "Atlantic Facade", Storm Front Spaniards who used to post here for years spouted the same stuff.

Now, you may not be aware of any of this, but I've been around for more than seven years, and I read, on the old dna forums, on 23andme, on dienekes, on forumbiodiversity, and here, reams of posts from these people. Some of it is just racist Nordicism, sometimes masquerading as the opposite, and some of it is anti-Semitism.

There was always a refusal to address the fact that there's no mention in historical accounts that all the Levantine slaves went to Southern Italy/Sicily and nowhere else, no explanation for why there isn't a ton more J1 of the Levantine type, or M-81 in southern Italy, why it's in mainland southern Italy when the Moors were barely there, nothing.

This just smells like more of the same. The analysis using the Roman outlier was only used with reference to Southern Italians. It was only later that some people decided to look at other Southern European populations and see if they could also get good fits for them using that sample.

Now, I hasten to add that I would have absolutely no problem with finding out there was indeed a large migration to Southern Italy and Sicily from the Levant during the Empire and the time of the Moorish invasions. I don't suffer from those kinds of prejudices. I generally actually like Middle Easterners on a personal level a lot more than I like the people of certain other groups.

The point is that the people posting this stuff see it as shameful. You may not have known any of this, but now you do.

To go back to your specific point, I can see that perhaps because of the Moorish invasions Southern Italians and Sicilians and most Spaniards can be modeled with an additional small percentage of "Bedouin". Greeks (and Albanians too, if I remember correctly) can also be modeled that way, however. So, how to explain that? There was no "Moorish invasion" in those areas. The Roman Empire again, and slavery? Was there really some unknown area filled with latifundia in Greece and in the mountains of Albania where only Levantine slaves were sent?

I apologize if the sarcasm is a little heavy handed, but I'm weary of the same old thing over and over again. Maybe there's some explanation for Greece and Albania which escapes me, but maybe it's just that Southern Europeans got a little more Levant Neolithic as part of the Bronze Age Migrations. Then these other two events could have added some as well. I honestly don't know, and other than as a topic of intellectual interest, it doesn't matter. Maybe if we ever get to look at ancient dna from Italy things will become clearer.

Oh, and I think I do get to say it wouldn't bother me if there was such a migration to Southern Italy since although I'm not Southern Italian myself that's my husband's ancestry and accounts for half that of my children. So, yeah, it's personal on that level. Like I said, wouldn't bother me a bit.

 

[Jovialis]

Being totally southern Italian myself, I only get 2.4% Levant according to geneplaza. Which is actually the lowest score I've personally seen posted thus far. Not that it matters to me anyway, and It wouldn't bother me either if it was much higher. Everyone should be proud of who they are, no matter where they come from. I too know a lot of great people who are middle eastern, that have a far better character than those racist, inadequate, sorry excuse for human beings.

 

[davef]

Anthrogenica is full of users with an agenda who tries to act like they were super experts and unbiased and some of them are very obsessed with the Italians, especially those who state to have 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 Italian ancestry. Even more funny is that they only speak about this tiny portion of Italian admixture, and at the same time they show complete disinterest for the rest of their ancestry.

Whats annoying is that some users over at anthrogenica seem to always ignore you when you demonstrate how easy it is to maninpulate things using d-stats and other such tools and on top of this, even other groups can be modeled as Roman gladiator but they're "la-la I am not listening, ears closed"!

And for some reason, according to what i read from certain people two months ago, this mysterious group of Levantines always seems to skip over mainland Greece. According to those t-rolls, it went to all the Greek islands, then skipped mainland Greece for some random reason and went straight to Sicily and southern Italy. I'd love to harness their time travel capabilities some day...

@Angela
After reading a while ago about how he used to complain about his high school classmates poking fun at his "east Med" features (as if he went to school in a southern confederate state during the civil war and time traveled), as well as other things, there's something unrealistic about him, apologies in advance if I'm wrong.

And yes whether or not additional middle eastern input did occur during Rome remains to be found through an academic study.

 

[Angela]

^^The models which were posted for Greeks which used the Roman Outlier were, so far as I remember, based on the standard Greek sample for Thessaly, and not on Island Greeks, so wrong on all accounts.