Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[Aspar]

You have confused the two papers. Please go back and re-read both of them before commenting further. In fact, perhaps you never read the Mycenaean paper at all, since anyone who had even skimmed it would know they used multiple analytical statistical methods, certainly NOT just the Admixture program.

I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion with you until you understand the differences between the papers and what they did and did NOT say.

@post 1248

I don't understand your aggressive stance, I have only criticized the approach of the scientists.
And no, I didn't confuse anything, my first reply was towards another user, who quoted a PCA from a paper who definitely failed to prove how much "Slavic" modern Greeks are.
I don't know why you felt obligated to reply to me and accuse me for confusion when I mentioned the IBD relation as a better approach when you yourself are doing the exacts same thing few posts earlier with Mytrueancestry.
I've seen you doing the exact same thing here with the Albanians when they criticize the paper or when they write that the modern Greeks are not much ancient by ancestry!

But since you mentioned the paper of the OP and Lazaridis when I replied that the scientists need better approaches, and that they used multiple analytical statistical methods, not that it makes a big difference in determining whether modern Greeks are by large descendants of the Mycenaeans, the f-statistics and other statistical methods the scientists used in the paper are by large used to compare the ancient populations between themselves, not with the modern people, except the extended data of figure 8 where they do symmetry testing of the Mycenaeans with the modern populations and make a conclusion that the modern populations lack alleles shared between the Mycenaeans and the Neolithic populations.
They also use some methods to determine ancestry in modern populations.
We can basically do the same thing with some other tools like nMonte and model ourselves using our own dna data but modeling is all about that, it doesn't mean actual ancestry.

In the paper they also mention that the Greeks, the Albanians and the Italians share most similarity with the Mycenaeans.
Now, this is what I am talking about, because the Albanians are also very similar to Mycenaeans and yet, anyone who knows both Greeks and Albanians, would know thy are very different in terms of phenotype which often goes hand in hand with ancestry!
So, the great similarities of the Albanians with the Mycenaeans doesn't mean that the Albanians are descendants of Mycenaeans but probably they are descendants of populations that are very similar to Mycenaeans in terms of genetics.

So, why can't this be applied to Greeks who very well might just be a mix of Anatolians and Italians which might produce similarity with the Mycenaeans?

That's why imho, y-dna and mt-dna markers are better in determining actual ancestry and we shall see in future that the modern Greeks are way less than around 70% Mycenaean in ancestry!
As I said, all ancient Greeks until now, turned J2a, including the supposed ancient Greek from the classical times Greek colony of Emporion!

[Aspar]

The other issue with Lazaridis paper is that he leaves space for two different scenarios of Mycenaeans ancestry.
One is mix between Anatolian Neolithic with Armenian Chalcolithic to Bronze age populations and the other is a mix between Minoans with Steppe populations.
Mycenaeans can't be a mix of Anatolian Neolithic as Minoans are, simply because they are not a Neolithic population but MLBA.
So they are definitely Minoan-Steppe mix!

[Angela]

There's not much to say to someone who at this late date still thinks uniparentals tell us more about genetic ancestry than autosomal analysis.

When scientists leave two possibilities open, it's for a good reason: all the requisite facts are still unavailable. Clearly, you don't understand that.

Anyone who could write the following knows nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING about population genetics.

"Mycenaeans can't be a mix of Anatolian Neolithic as Minoans are, simply because they are not a Neolithic population but MLBA."

If you don't understand that every population in Europe after the arrival of the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, including modern populations, is the product of a mix which includes such Anatolian Neolithic, then discussing something as complicated as these papers with you is an exercise in futility.

As for IBD analysis, it is extremely RANDOM which bits will survive. It can give you clues that this particular group is part of your ancestry, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT a substitute for other means of analysis.

There's nothing wrong or shameful in being ignorant of a topic. Everyone is ignorant until they learn, but when there is no attempt to learn the topic, and moreover, ignorant opinions are arrogantly and aggressively proclaimed, often because of idiotic agendas, then I draw the line.

Consider yourself ignored. I would suggest other members do likewise.

[Aspar]

Your arrogance is amazing.
Clearly your on something...
You still don't get the point, I know that modern Europeans own much of their ancestry to EEF.
My point is that Mycenaeans are derived from Minoans and Steppe populations because considering their place of origin and time, it's much more logical to be a mix between Minoans than pure preserved Anatolian Neolithic farmers from Neolithic.
You can ignore me and please don't suggest to others what to do, you can be a PHD or a president as much as I care, you still gonna end up dead.
As much morbid as this sounds, I am sure you get the point this time.
Keep on...

[Angela]

WHO THE HELL EVER SAID MYCENAEANS DON"T HAVE STEPPE?????

That's it. I've wasted enough time on this.

[Aspar]

"There's nothing wrong or shameful in being ignorant of a topic. Everyone is ignorant until they learn, but when there is no attempt to learn the topic, and moreover, ignorant opinions are arrogantly and aggressively proclaimed, often because of idiotic agendas, then I draw the line"

Look, ignorant opinions are only those who call others as ignorant just because they don't agree with them.
Ignorant opinion is the one who thinks that uniparental markers are not more or at least just as important as the autosomals are!
As I said earlier, the Albanians are also very similar to the Mycenaeans, are they now descendants of the Mycenaeans??
Uniparental markers on the other hand can be clearly distinguished and make a difference of who you actually descend from and not only who you are similar to.
That's my opinion and I don't push it aggressively as much as you try aggressively to make me ignorant and with agenda.

Plus you clearly don't understand what am I saying and yet, persistently replying to me.

From the paper:
"Could model Mycenaeans as a mixture between Anatolian Neolithic to Chalcolithic and BA populations of Armenia... but also the Mycenaeans can be modeled as a mixture between Minoans and BA Steppe populations.

What is that you don't understand when I am saying that because of the time and place of origin of the Mycenaeans, it's more logical for them to be modeled as a mixture between Minoan and BA Steppe populations rather than as the other option?
I know very well that BA populations of Armenia do have Steppe in them but look carefully, Lazaridis doesn't say Anatolian Neolithic to Chalcolithic populations and BA Steppe populations or Minoans and BA populations of Armenia but Minoans and BA Steppe populations!

Now you can very well ignore me if you don't have an answer to my question whether the autosomal analysis can make a difference between a similarity and a true ancestry as uniparental markers do and stop replying with unnecessary and negative comments about ignorance and agenda just because you don't like my opinion!

[Ralphie Boy]

A lot of modern Greeks have a “Mediterranean” look, and a lot of them don’t. Some look like the people in ancient vases. A lot have dark brown hair and brown eyes. Of course these looks are not limited to just Greeks. A lot or some could be recognized as Greek just by their appearances. So it seems the scientific studies are corroborated by simple phenotypes.

[Angela]

A post of mine from another thread which might be helpful to future readers:

An example of how wrong an over-reliance on both uniparental markers and IBD analysis can be:

I carry mtDna U2e. It stems from the Paleolithic in Europe, the earliest "native" Europeans. Should I go around saying I'm the only true native and all the rest of you aren't European? Do you know where it is most often found in ancient samples so far? It's found in steppe people and Corded Ware and northeastern Europeans and Central Europeans.

However, the salient point is that while it is a clue that I have some of that ancestry, the mtDna itself represents only about 2% of all my genes.

Now, in terms of overall genetic relatedness, the comparison of all my genes to all the genes of these people, the fit is very bad, i.e. probably over 24 or something. That's because that mtDna represents only one of my many ancestors.

Or, let's look at IBD, which someone on another thread considers the be all and end all for studying our ancestors and with whom we "should" be identifying. If mytrueancestry is correct, the only snippet of actual IBD I have with the ancient samples for which they have data is Crete Armenoi, a more "steppe" admixed Minoan sample. I score a 4cm snip with her. Yes, I was happy about that, as I like Minoan civilization very much.

Does that mean I should suddenly stop thinking of myself as Italian and start thinking of myself as being Cretan or even Greek? Of course not. My overall relatedness to that sample is about 22. something. It would be ridiculous. My closest overall relatedness to an ancient sample so far is from a place in Hungary where a lot of Roman burials were found: 3.64.

If people posting on these topics would take the time to review some textbooks on population genetics, or even just the tools and statistics involved, a lot of confusion and contentiousness would ameliorate.

[Dorianfinder]

There's not much to say to someone who at this late date still thinks uniparentals tell us more about genetic ancestry than autosomal analysis.
[/COLOR]

I have decided after a long absence to comment.

Angela, can you explain what you understand by "genetic ancestry"?

I am not sure I understand your comment above and would like to clarify what you mean by 'genetic ancestry' before contributing.

Thanks in advance

[bigsnake49]

A post of mine from another thread which might be helpful to future readers:

An example of how wrong an over-reliance on both uniparental markers and IBD analysis can be:

I carry mtDna U2e. It stems from the Paleolithic in Europe, the earliest "native" Europeans. Should I go around saying I'm the only true native and all the rest of you aren't European? Do you know where it is most often found in ancient samples so far? It's found in steppe people and Corded Ware and northeastern Europeans and Central Europeans.

However, the salient point is that while it is a clue that I have some of that ancestry, the mtDna itself represents only about 2% of all my genes.

Now, in terms of overall genetic relatedness, the comparison of all my genes to all the genes of these people, the fit is very bad, i.e. probably over 24 or something. That's because that mtDna represents only one of my many ancestors.

Or, let's look at IBD, which someone on another thread considers the be all and end all for studying our ancestors and with whom we "should" be identifying. If mytrueancestry is correct, the only snippet of actual IBD I have with the ancient samples for which they have data is Crete Armenoi, a more "steppe" admixed Minoan sample. I score a 4cm snip with her. Yes, I was happy about that, as I like Minoan civilization very much.

Does that mean I should suddenly stop thinking of myself as Italian and start thinking of myself as being Cretan or even Greek? Of course not. My overall relatedness to that sample is about 22. something. It would be ridiculous. My closest overall relatedness to an ancient sample so far is from a place in Hungary where a lot of Roman burials were found: 3.64.

If people posting on these topics would take the time to review some textbooks on population genetics, or even just the tools and statistics involved, a lot of confusion and contentiousness would ameliorate.

Angela, you have to understand that he has an agenda. That agenda is to trash anything that connects Ancient Greek population with Modern Greek ones. It's Fallmeyer all over again. It's the intra Balkan squabble over and over again.

[Aspar]

Angela, you have to understand that he has an agenda. That agenda is to trash anything that connects Ancient Greek population with Modern Greek ones. It's Fallmeyer all over again. It's the intra Balkan squabble over and over again.

Why is that when someone who is from a Balkan ethnic background which I already understand isn't very preferable on this forum, gives his view about something, in this case the Peloponnesian paper which was quoted, that failed to estimate how much "Slavic" modern Greeks are, it's all of a sudden an agenda?
Or that much of the pre-Slavic ancestry of the Greeks might be of Thracian, Illyrian origin or other Balkan people?

All I see is a dictatorship-style of some users here who tend to stifle any different view of their own.

Otherwise, prove me wrong and answer to my questions and contribute something useful here apart of commenting about agendas and bias!

How would you estimate that much of your own genetic legacy is from the Mycenaeans who gave you the language you speak today and not a mish mash of anything and everything which actually was the case during the Roman Empire of the East, which more often then not was resettling people and tribes of any kind into it's territory?

And you know very well that the Roman Empire(read Byzantine) was a multi-ethnic Empire primarily based on the Christianity!

Also, when compering ancient Balkan samples, they were all very similar!

But let's see a different view now, modern Greek's y-dna as per Eupedia:

All Greeks (1038 samples)
I : 15.1
R1a : 12.0
R1b : 16.9
E1b : 21.0
G2 : 6.3
J2 : 20.1
J1 : 4.3
LT : 3.2
*: 1.1

All I see here is such a colorfulness and excuses like "genetic drifts" won't do the job here because there is a big variety of subclades among the Greeks., nor excuses like founder effects!
For example, among the Kosovars there is a predominance of E-V13, however, we already know that is founder effect because of low variety within their E-V13!

None of the other haplogroups was found until now in the Mycenaeans nor in the ancient Greek from the colony of Emporion!
All of them were J2a but one G2 Mycenaean or Minoan, I don't remember correctly!

[Angela]

I guess you missed the part of the paper that said from 25-30% of the ancestry of modern Greeks is not "similar" to Mycenaeans?

Or maybe you have failed to understand that the "steppe" people who brought the Greek language to Greece were probably not "pure" steppe, but had mixed with LN peoples from further north in the Balkans?

See, it's fine to disagree with an academic paper, but first you have to "read" it and "understand" it.

[Ownstyler]

I guess you missed the part of the paper that said from 25-30% of the ancestry of modern Greeks is not "similar" to Mycenaeans?

You mean the Lazaridis paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310? Where does it say that? Can you provide a quote that can be found on the paper?

[Demetrios]

You mean the Lazaridis paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310? Where does it say that? Can you provide a quote that can be found on the paper?

Here is the full paper without a paywall, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/. I read the paper more than a year ago, although i don't recall a specific percentage relating to the difference between modern Greeks and Mycenaeans, but i do recall an interview i had heard from George Stamatoyannopoulos (co-author of the study, now deceased) which also said something about a 15-30% difference. But again, keep in mind that the modern Greek samples are absent of any Peloponnesian one, which based on other studies do in fact cluster close to Sicilians and southern Italians as a population.

[Dianatomia]

Why is that when someone who is from a Balkan ethnic background which I already understand isn't very preferable on this forum, gives his view about something, in this case the Peloponnesian paper which was quoted, that failed to estimate how much "Slavic" modern Greeks are, it's all of a sudden an agenda?
Or that much of the pre-Slavic ancestry of the Greeks might be of Thracian, Illyrian origin or other Balkan people?

All I see is a dictatorship-style of some users here who tend to stifle any different view of their own.

Otherwise, prove me wrong and answer to my questions and contribute something useful here apart of commenting about agendas and bias!

How would you estimate that much of your own genetic legacy is from the Mycenaeans who gave you the language you speak today and not a mish mash of anything and everything which actually was the case during the Roman Empire of the East, which more often then not was resettling people and tribes of any kind into it's territory?

And you know very well that the Roman Empire(read Byzantine) was a multi-ethnic Empire primarily based on the Christianity!

Also, when compering ancient Balkan samples, they were all very similar!

But let's see a different view now, modern Greek's y-dna as per Eupedia:

All Greeks (1038 samples)
I : 15.1
R1a : 12.0
R1b : 16.9
E1b : 21.0
G2 : 6.3
J2 : 20.1
J1 : 4.3
LT : 3.2
*: 1.1

All I see here is such a colorfulness and excuses like "genetic drifts" won't do the job here because there is a big variety of subclades among the Greeks., nor excuses like founder effects!
For example, among the Kosovars there is a predominance of E-V13, however, we already know that is founder effect because of low variety within their E-V13!

None of the other haplogroups was found until now in the Mycenaeans nor in the ancient Greek from the colony of Emporion!
All of them were J2a but one G2 Mycenaean or Minoan, I don't remember correctly!

Critical analysis is always accepted.

We can answer some of your questions with further evidence, not related to this paper about Mycenaeans. For starters, we know the areas which the Greeks have colonized. Distant areas which have undergone a different historical evolution. There we can find most of the same haplogroups the modern Greeks have. Albeit with lower percentages due to the fact that these peoples are nowadays non-Greek and have intermixed. Most of these colonizations started during the Iron Age and continued to the Classical Age and then the Hellenistic Age.

It is possible that even from the Bronze Age until the Hellenistic Age there have been some population movements. But at the same time we can also argue that these were all Ancient Greeks. The ethnogenesis of the Greeks has been an ongoing process. If a classical Greek had some DNA of someone who did not have Mycenaean ancestors 1300 years before, who are we to judge that he is not an Ancient Greek?

But one way or the other so far all the evidence is pointing towards strong continuity rather than the opposite.

You are also right about the Albanians. Many have different phenotypes from the Greeks. This could be because they are descendants of a 'related' tribe of the Ancient Greeks. But this does not rule out that basic genetic elements of this tribe could also have been part of a wider Ancient Greek genepool. It's just that due to founder effect this particular type multiplied in Albanians and prevailed in particular in Kosovars.

[Aspar]

Critical analysis is always accepted.

We can answer some of your questions with further evidence, not related to this paper about Mycenaeans. For starters, we know the areas which the Greeks have colonized. Distant areas which have undergone a different historical evolution. There we can find most of the same haplogroups the modern Greeks have. Albeit with lower percentages due to the fact that these peoples are nowadays non-Greek and have intermixed. Most of these colonizations started during the Iron Age and continued to the Classical Age and then the Hellenistic Age.

It is possible that even from the Bronze Age until the Hellenistic Age there have been some population movements. But at the same time we can also argue that these were all Ancient Greeks. The ethnogenesis of the Greeks has been an ongoing process. If a classical Greek had some DNA of someone who did not have Mycenaean ancestors 1300 years before, who are we to judge that he is not an Ancient Greek?

But one way or the other so far all the evidence is pointing towards strong continuity rather than the opposite.

You are also right about the Albanians. Many have different phenotypes from the Greeks. This could be because they are descendants of a 'related' tribe of the Ancient Greeks. But this does not rule out that basic genetic elements of this tribe could also have been part of a wider Ancient Greek genepool. It's just that due to founder effect this particular type multiplied in Albanians and prevailed in particular in Kosovars.

Thanks for your reply!

I always value your opinion, either here or on other forums, you seem like a reasonable and smart poster!
You also got my point which the other users and "experts" failed to understand and instead of appreciating my critical and cautious thinking when it comes to the autosomal analysis, I've been called an ignorant, with agenda's and other disrespectful remarks!

Yes, the phenotypes and the uni-parental markers are equally if not more important because if we rely on the autosomal analysis only, we could fail distinguishing many modern day Western Europeans who have a very similar autosomal picture, we would fail distinguishing between Albanians and mainland Greeks or between Jews, Southern Italians and Greeks islanders!

Uni-parental markers can also tell you when exactly some marker had entered in a population based on TMRCA and how important it was in the forming of that nation because as you said,the making of a nation is an ever lasting process.

What is interesting to me is that I observe clustering of Greek and South Italian y-dna markers when using the very useful new feature by FTDNA which the "Block Tree" is!
A special interest for me is E-V13, probably because I am myself E-V13 and many Greeks as I said form clusters with Italians mainly from the South.
That certainly means a shared ancestry but the question which bothers me is where did it come from?
Is it originally from the Greek or the Italian side?

Mainly because we are yet to find an E-V13 ancient Greek sample!

[Dianatomia]

Thanks for your reply!

I always value your opinion, either here or on other forums, you seem like a reasonable and smart poster!
You also got my point which the other users and "experts" failed to understand and instead of appreciating my critical and cautious thinking when it comes to the autosomal analysis, I've been called an ignorant, with agenda's and other disrespectful remarks!

Yes, the phenotypes and the uni-parental markers are equally if not more important because if we rely on the autosomal analysis only, we could fail distinguishing many modern day Western Europeans who have a very similar autosomal picture, we would fail distinguishing between Albanians and mainland Greeks or between Jews, Southern Italians and Greeks islanders!

Uni-parental markers can also tell you when exactly some marker had entered in a population based on TMRCA and how important it was in the forming of that nation because as you said,the making of a nation is an ever lasting process.

What is interesting to me is that I observe clustering of Greek and South Italian y-dna markers when using the very useful new feature by FTDNA which the "Block Tree" is!
A special interest for me is E-V13, probably because I am myself E-V13 and many Greeks as I said form clusters with Italians mainly from the South.
That certainly means a shared ancestry but the question which bothers me is where did it come from?
Is it originally from the Greek or the Italian side?

Mainly because we are yet to find an E-V13 ancient Greek sample!

Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated.

As for E-V13. It is well spread in all Greek speaking populations and in all regions. So it's old. And there is no known large migration from Italy to Greece. Since it is so well established in Greeks, it must have come at least before the Classical Age. During the Bronze Age the demographic of the Greek peninsula was still such that a new wave of peoples could make a considerable genetic impact. A big city then would number just a few thousand inhabitants. Later on, during the Classical Age or the Roman Age populations were better established though.

My guess is that E-V13 was around there but we simply have very few samples. Also, I think that the migration of the IE tribes into Greece was a slow continuous process. In the Bronze Age, the bulk of the Greek people was set, but it was not completed yet. As Thucydides claims, before the Trojan War (Mycenaean) Greece was mostly barbarian. After the Trojan war there were many population movements in Hellas as he calls it. There was some movement from the North (especially from Thessaly) to the South. In this line of thought it makes sense that Mycenaeans were closer to the original pre-Greek natives, the Minoans (more J2a). But then, some more IE steppe ancestry was added. And this probably came with more E-V13. These are my two cents for now.

In any case, I listened to an interview of Stamatoyianopoulos a year ago. And he said that this DNA research is done with such methods that it leaves little to no room for alternations or second guesses. It is likely that not much can shake the view that the bulk of the modern Greek ancestral dimensions was set during the Bronze Age. We'll see. Would love to get more samples though.

[Cyrus]

Ancient Greek Μυκῆναι ( Mukênai) "Mycenae" is the same as Akkadian Mukania and Avestan Mazainiia (*k>s/z), an ancient land in the north of Iran where the oldest sample of J2a has been found. Almost all elements of ancient Greek culture can be found in this land, there are still many archaic Greek words in Mazani language. It is easy to find them, for examplae the Mazani word for "girl" is korwe.

[Tutkun Arnaut]

Why is that when someone who is from a Balkan ethnic background which I already understand isn't very preferable on this forum, gives his view about something, in this case the Peloponnesian paper which was quoted, that failed to estimate how much "Slavic" modern Greeks are, it's all of a sudden an agenda?
Or that much of the pre-Slavic ancestry of the Greeks might be of Thracian, Illyrian origin or other Balkan people?

All I see is a dictatorship-style of some users here who tend to stifle any different view of their own.

Otherwise, prove me wrong and answer to my questions and contribute something useful here apart of commenting about agendas and bias!

How would you estimate that much of your own genetic legacy is from the Mycenaeans who gave you the language you speak today and not a mish mash of anything and everything which actually was the case during the Roman Empire of the East, which more often then not was resettling people and tribes of any kind into it's territory?

And you know very well that the Roman Empire(read Byzantine) was a multi-ethnic Empire primarily based on the Christianity!

Also, when compering ancient Balkan samples, they were all very similar!

But let's see a different view now, modern Greek's y-dna as per Eupedia:

All Greeks (1038 samples)
I : 15.1
R1a : 12.0
R1b : 16.9
E1b : 21.0
G2 : 6.3
J2 : 20.1
J1 : 4.3
LT : 3.2
*: 1.1

All I see here is such a colorfulness and excuses like "genetic drifts" won't do the job here because there is a big variety of subclades among the Greeks., nor excuses like founder effects!
For example, among the Kosovars there is a predominance of E-V13, however, we already know that is founder effect because of low variety within their E-V13!

None of the other haplogroups was found until now in the Mycenaeans nor in the ancient Greek from the colony of Emporion!
All of them were J2a but one G2 Mycenaean or Minoan, I don't remember correctly!

Y dna is very similar to Albanians,, the only difference is j2b2 in Albanians

[Cyrus]

French archeologist André Godard in his great work "The art of Iran", says that ancient artifacts in the north of Iran can be just related to ancient Greek and Etruscan art. For example he talks about this silver cup from Almash (2nd millennium BC):

[Jovialis]

French archeologist André Godard in his great work "The art of Iran", says that ancient artifacts in the north of Iran can be just related to ancient Greek and Etruscan art. For example he talks about this silver cup from Almash (2nd millennium BC):

While I do believe the “eastern” model is probably right, I think it is important not to conflate modern-day Iranians, with the ancient migrants that came from the Caucasus, through Anatolia. Just like every other part of the world, there have been transformative events that have changed human genetics in specific regions. For example, the small but significant increase of SSA in the Middle East, during the Middle Ages, due to African slavery. The chart doesn’t show modern-Iran, but I doubt they’re an exception to the region, given the history of Afro-Iranians. Moreover, there is also the brown-colored component from the Natufians, that the ancient Iranians didn’t have (or had little of); that the modern Iranians surely picked up. That composes almost 1/3^rd of the autosomal make-up, for most modern Middle Eastern countries.

At any rate, this is not a thread about Iran, or the cultural connections through art. This thread is specifically about the paper by Lazaridis. Please get back on topic, or start a different thread.

[Cyrus]

While I do believe the “eastern” model is probably right, I think it is important not to conflate modern-day Iranians, with the ancient migrants that came from the Caucuses, through Anatolia. Just like every other part of the world, there have been transformative events that have changed human genetics in specific regions. For example, the small but significant increase of SSA in the Middle East, during the middle ages, due to African Slavery. The chart doesn’t show modern Iran, but I doubt they’re an exception to the region, given the history of Afro-Iranians. Moreover, there is also the brown-colored component from the Natufians, that the ancient Iranians didn’t have (or had little of); that the modern Iranians surely picked up. That makes up almost 1/3^rd of the autosomal make up, for most these modern-day middle eastern countries.

At any rate, this is not a thread about Iran, or the cultural connections through art. This thread is specifically about the paper by Lazaridis. Please get back on topic, or start a different thread.

I certainly don't talk about modern Iranians or Iranian-speaking people, but ancient people who lived in this land, without any doubt the region between Caspian sea and Persian gulf which is already called Iran was a crossroad of ancient civilizations where different people with different cultures lived there, Mukanians (Mycenaeans) who were mentioned in the ancient Akkadian sources were one of them who lived in the north of Iran. Is it true or not?

[matadworf]

Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated.

As for E-V13. It is well spread in all Greek speaking populations and in all regions. So it's old. And there is no known large migration from Italy to Greece. Since it is so well established in Greeks, it must have come at least before the Classical Age. During the Bronze Age the demographic of the Greek peninsula was still such that a new wave of peoples could make a considerable genetic impact. A big city then would number just a few thousand inhabitants. Later on, during the Classical Age or the Roman Age populations were better established though.

My guess is that E-V13 was around there but we simply have very few samples. Also, I think that the migration of the IE tribes into Greece was a slow continuous process. In the Bronze Age, the bulk of the Greek people was set, but it was not completed yet. As Thucydides claims, before the Trojan War (Mycenaean) Greece was mostly barbarian. After the Trojan war there were many population movements in Hellas as he calls it. There was some movement from the North (especially from Thessaly) to the South. In this line of thought it makes sense that Mycenaeans were closer to the original pre-Greek natives, the Minoans (more J2a). But then, some more IE steppe ancestry was added. And this probably came with more E-V13. These are my two cents for now.

In any case, I listened to an interview of Stamatoyianopoulos a year ago. And he said that this DNA research is done with such methods that it leaves little to no room for alternations or second guesses. It is likely that not much can shake the view that the bulk of the modern Greek ancestral dimensions was set during the Bronze Age. We'll see. Would love to get more samples though.

As a G2a2a Greek whose paternal side is from Messinia, Peloponnese I'm curious as to your insights on the arrival of G's into Greece during the early Neolithic (via Thessaly around 7000 bc). Would they not have preceded J2a's in Crete?

[Demetrios]

You write, "Ancient Greek Μυκῆναι ( Mukênai) "Mycenae" is the same as Akkadian Mukania and Avestan Mazainiia (*k>s/z), an ancient land in the north of Iran where the oldest sample of J2a has been found.".

First of all, do you mean the Mazandaran Province of Iran, when you refer to "an ancient land"? In general i see these as Indo-European similarities, not that the name "Mycenae" came from the Mazandarani region, but rather that both names originally stem from a common IE ancestor. By the way, the Mycenaean (as in Linear B form), of ancient Greek (Attic) and Ionic "Μυκῆναι ( Mukênai)", is "Mu-ka-nai", therefore more similar. The Doric form would also be "Μυκᾶναι (Mukânai)". And also take into account that the "ai" at the end of all signifies plurality. The singular form would be "Mukêne" (Attic/Ionic), "Mukâna" (Doric), and "Mu-ka-na" (Linear B). Last, the word "Mycenae" simply refers to a powerful citadel/region in north-eastern Peloponnese, neither the capital city of what we have contemporarily termed Mycenaean civilization, nor a historical collective ethnonym. Mycenaean citadels/regions were all independent from each other, while real collective ethnonyms for the Mycenaeans, as preserved through the Homeric Epics, the Hittite records, and the Egyptian records, were the ethnonyms "Achaeans", "Danaans", and "Argives". And besides that, Mycenaeans, which were comprised of what we would call in the Archaic/Classical periods the Aeolians, Achaeans, and Ionians, were not the only Greeks in existence. Dorians were also Greeks, but not originally part of the Mycenaean civilization, since they lived in the Pindus mountain range as pastoralists.

Second, J2a's oldest sample found, which was dated to the Late Mesolithic (7,876-7,510 BCE) using a molar tooth, belongs to the individual from the "Kotias Klde" cave in the Transcaucasian region of Georgia. Furthermore, an even older sample, found in the "Satsurblia" cave (again in the Georgian region), and dating to the Upper Palaeolithic (11,361-11,113 BCE) using a right temporal bone, belonged to haplogroup J1. Here is a map presenting both caves.

2E7F0D2A00000578-3320218-image-a-5_1447681391144.jpg

These two aforementioned samples are also the ones that universally represent the CHG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer) autosomal component. In any case, Iran does fall within the broader CHG Neolithic region, and Neolithic samples from Iran have shown to be very high in CHG. Here is the approximate autosomal situation of 7000 BCE, namely the Neolithic Age.

A7000-BC-gene-map-s.jpg

My personal studies have shown that both atDNA CHG and Y-DNA J2a have had an integral part in the formation of PIE and subsequent Indo-European migrations. In general, Indo-European ancestral indications, such atDNA CHG, and Y-DNAs J2a, R1a, and R1b all seem to have originated from the broader region of eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia. I can elaborate more on the Y-DNAs if anyone is interested. But autosomally, it is pretty well known that some 50% of the Yamnaya autosomal profile is comprised of the CHG component. Here is how it approximately expanded in the Chalcolithic Age and the Bronze Age.

4000-BC-gene-map.jpg

(By Iran/EHG hybrid, they essentially refer to CHG/EHG hybrid, not Iran as Iranian. "CHG" and "Iran" can be used interchangeably because they both had a lot of the CHG autosomal component in the ancient Palaeolithic/Mesolithic and Neolithic respective samples that were tested.).

C3000-BC-gene-map-s.jpg

D2000-BC-gene-map-s-1.jpg

You write, "Almost all elements of ancient Greek culture can be found in this land, there are still many archaic Greek words in Mazani language. It is easy to find them, for examplae the Mazani word for "girl" is korwe.".

A lot of ancient Greek similarities can be found in the Bronze Age cultures of the Transcaucasian region, which i am pretty sure is where they originally stem from for both Mycenaean and Mazandarani (which i am totally ignorant of, just assuming) cultures. Don't forget that the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" genetic study, here without a paywall, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/, concluded that "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, and most of the remainder from ancient populations like those of the Caucasus and Iran. 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.". These in regards to the genetic results.

But if we observe from an archaeological scope, we can certainly isolate the hypotheses and the geographical origin of this "eastern" influence upon both the Minoans (CHG) and Mycenaeans (CHG+EHG). The CHG component that appears in both the Mycenaeans and the Minoans, seems to be associated in part or wholly, to the arrival of metallurgy in the Aegean, very likely directly from the Caucasus. Have a look at these following articles as well, namely "The Maikop Copper Tools and Their Relationship to Cretan Metallurgy" by Philip P. Betancourt here, https://www.jstor.org/stable/503131 (you need to have a free account), as well as "Indications of Aegean-Caucasian relations during the third millennium BC" by Lorenz Rahmstorf here, https://www.academia.edu/1491114/Ind..._millennium_BC. I also found an interesting segment that relates in the following, namely "In search of the origins of metallurgy – An overview of South Caucasian evidence" (real origins of metallurgy can be traced to the central Balkans such as modern Serbia, not south Caucasus, but let's read on) by Mikheil Abramishvili here, https://www.academia.edu/3023029/Mik...asian_evidence. Specifically we read, "The second and the third phases of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture show exceptionally close relations with the Aegean and therefore deserve special emphasis. Although it is not a subject of this paper, I still want to emphasize that, besides archaeological facts, there are also linguistic data and mythological tales, which make it obvious that relations between South Caucasia and the Aegean existed in one way or another well before the Classical Period, and which reflect a historical reality. There should be no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted with South Caucasia since ancient times. The myth of the Argonauts, which describes the journey of Jason and other Greek heroes to the land of Colchis (a country rich in gold, according to Apollonius of Rhodes) and the myth of Prometheus, who was chained in the Caucasus Mountains by Hephaestus, the patron of smiths, would be sufficient to pose for historical consideration the question of South Caucasian-Aegean relations, in which metals apparently played a pre-eminent role. Although the Bronze Age period in the Black Sea area of western Georgia is fairly well-known, no material evidence has been discovered that proves there were contacts between this region and the Aegean. On the other hand, as I already mentioned, the Trialeti culture, which is spread throughout South Caucasia, demonstrates relations with this remote area. Therefore, I suggest that these relations were realized not along the Black Sea routes, but through eastern Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean. Interconnections between these regions coincide with the second and the third phases of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture, the end of the Middle Minoan period in the Aegean and the beginning of the Mycenaean Age on mainland Greece. The existence of ca. 1 m-long thrusting bronze swords with high midribs, so-called rapiers, in South Caucasia (Fig. 2,15) and the Aegean is the most striking evidence for relations between the two regions. The rapiers of South Caucasia come from contexts of artefacts that belong to the second phase of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture, thus predating even the earliest (A-type) longswords of the Aegean that we know from the ruins of the first palace of Mallia, thus ascribing them either to the end of Middle Minoan II or to the beginning of Middle Minoan IIIB. Furthermore, South Caucasian rapiers have their prototype in the first phase of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture. The sword from Saduga Kurgan 2 in East Georgia has similar morphological characteristics (except for its length) and is considered as a prototype of South Caucasian rapiers.". This is just a sample, if you read the others as well you understand of these relations between the Caucasus and the Aegean possibly going as far back as 3,000 BCE, and even earlier.

As you also read above, we don't just have archaeological hints, but mythological as well that suggest of early and very strong Caucasian-Aegean relations. Caucasus plays a central role in Greek mythology. We know of Prometheus who was chained there by Hephaestus (patron of metallurgy), to have his liver eaten daily by an eagle as punishment for defying Zeus' wish to keep the "secret of fire" from humans. The "secret of fire" we can interpret as wisdom, technology, and knowledge metaphorically, certainly of metallurgical/mining nature. Furthermore, we know of the Minyan Jason and his Minyan Argonauts, who travelled to the Caucasus to steal and bring back the "Golden Fleece" (which by the way before ending up in Colchis, it was situated in Greece), which has included countless of interpretations over the years. I cannot resist to point out the interesting onomatological similarity between the "Minoans" and the proto-Mycenaean tribe of "Minyans", as well as their similarity to the words "mineral", "mines", "miners", "mining", etc.., which even though not official i must confess, all seem to be stemming from the same root word.

As for the Greek "κόρη (kórē)" and Mazandarani "korwe" (if true, i am not familiar with the language) similarity, this is most certainly traced within a broader Indo-European context. The Indo-European root word "kar/ker/kor" has given rise to many related words throughout the Indo-European family. Go read the related Indo-European root words that are listed in the The American Heritage Dictionary, found here https://ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html.

[Demetrios]

As a G2a2a Greek whose paternal side is from Messinia, Peloponnese I'm curious as to your insights on the arrival of G's into Greece during the early Neolithic (via Thessaly around 7000 bc). Would they not have preceded J2a's in Crete?

Surely. J2a came later in Greece, during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages, although it was probably present in extremely low frequencies from earlier. The same for Anatolia, since J2a was largely isolated in the Transcaucasian region during the Neolithic Age and before. G2a is associated with the "Early European Farmers" (EEF) which in a European context first settled Thessaly (archaeological site of Sesklo) at approximately 7,510 BCE, and then expanded from there throughout much of Europe. The by far most prevalent Y-DNA haplogroup of the "Early European Farmers" (EEF) was G2a, namely some 61% of the total samples that have been tested till now. J2 has a frequency of 1.5%. You may read further frequencies for the rest of the mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups here, https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml.