Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[Yetos]

I do not believe modern Greeks are largely descended from Mycenaeans, I am not sure about Classical Greeks. We need ancient DNA for that.

I suggest at least read Triantaffilidis book,
all the searches give 2/3 in mtDNA (mother's side) palaiolithic and neolithic continue,
while the known Mycenean and Minoan YDNA is about 20-30%.
and the palaiolithic neolithic YDNA is about 14%
the more Mycenean and Minoan we found the more the numbers raise,

believe it or not,
by just one autosomal, a PC, the continuity is about 60-66%
and the lower autosomal continuity is a local drop in North Greece, is 36%, a kind of HBO

 

[Tutkun Arnaut]

I do not believe modern Greeks are largely descended from Mycenaeans, I am not sure about Classical Greeks. We need ancient DNA for that.

For the debate to make sense some definitions are necessary. Let say who by definition is Greek?
There are two terms present day Greeks use interchangeably, Greek and Helen. Are they equivalent? I would say no. Greek is a much wider term than Helene. Greek includes anyone who is culturally Greek, speaks the language, feels belong in that community, regardless the region where they live, etc.... So as many times we have debated the present day Greek population is minority Helene, since Present day Greece includes Macedonia who spoke different language but were Hellenised, Region of Thracia which were given to Greece without them being anywhere close to Greeks, Most of Albanian inhabited Epirus region, not to mention here large population movements documented by Greek historians. Also Greeks moved from Anatolia to Greece this century were heavily assimilating native Anatolian population.
Now Mysenians were a pre Hellenic people, they had nothing in common with Hellenes so it would be a major wander if present day Greeks are a quarter genetically identical to Mysenians let alone 50% could not be comprehended. Now Rich's lab employs many Greeks and their findings can not be trusted since they have a conflict of interest and they play largely by politics of the day.

 

[Ralphie Boy]

Why are Ashkenazi Jews closer to Mycenaeans than Modern Greeks?

If so it’s because modern Greeks have gained admixture over the many years. Not many people are denying that. The authors of the study said it, that the moderns are a result of their long history and the genetic effects.

Again, modern Greeks’ biggest share of autosomal genetic ancestry comes from early Neolithic farmers. They are not alone in this, nor are they the only people with farmer ancestry. This does not mean that they are the closest of living peoples to Mycenaeans, but simply that they and Mycenaeans are primarily descended from the farmers.

We don’t need genetic studies to see many modern Greeks look “Greek,” like they have indigenous ancestry based on the southeastern European climate.

Science at this point presents evidence contrary to those who wish to strip away Greeks’ ancestral heritage.

 

[Angela]

For the debate to make sense some definitions are necessary. Let say who by definition is Greek?
There are two terms present day Greeks use interchangeably, Greek and Helen. Are they equivalent? I would say no. Greek is a much wider term than Helene. Greek includes anyone who is culturally Greek, speaks the language, feels belong in that community, regardless the region where they live, etc.... So as many times we have debated the present day Greek population is minority Helene, since Present day Greece includes Macedonia who spoke different language but were Hellenised, Region of Thracia which were given to Greece without them being anywhere close to Greeks, Most of Albanian inhabited Epirus region, not to mention here large population movements documented by Greek historians. Also Greeks moved from Anatolia to Greece this century were heavily assimilating native Anatolian population.
Now Mysenians were a pre Hellenic people, they had nothing in common with Hellenes so it would be a major wander if present day Greeks are a quarter genetically identical to Mysenians let alone 50% could not be comprehended. Now Rich's lab employs many Greeks and their findings can not be trusted since they have a conflict of interest and they play largely by politics of the day.

READ THE PAPER. If it's wrong, show how it's wrong mathematically, scientifically, whatever. If you can't do it, stop parading your prejudices and agendas.

How very typical: An Albanian and a Turk spouting their propaganda but without the intellectual wherewithal to actually debate the authors on substance.

 

[Tutkun Arnaut]

READ THE PAPER. If it's wrong, show how it's wrong mathematically, scientifically, whatever. If you can't do it, stop parading your prejudices and agendas.

How very typical: An Albanian and a Turk spouting their propaganda but without the intellectual wherewithal to actually debate the authors on substance.

I don't have an agenda. All I want is the truth as it is. I also do not deny the contribution the Hellenic civilization had on the world. I mean Hellenic, not Greek. Its not the same. Can Greeks take pride of their Hellenic past? Of course they are the sole inheritant of that culture. The problem is the Hellenes wrote their history and from what they have written many questions arise. Let say up to 4th century AD Macedonians were speaking their language along with Greek. They ( Greek writers of that time) wrote it. Greeks go KU-KU if you mention to them this fact. So how can Macedonia be Hellenistic when they (Macedonians) distinguished themselves, spoke another language, were another culture? Greeks wrote that Epiriots were barbarians, not worth of being called Greeks, now they call them as heart of Hellenistic world, so an honest person, in pursuit of truth as it is according to documents available has the right to rebel,.
Mycenaeans were a pre Greek civilization and as such can not be Greek, genetically speaking. Now can you make the case that they are indeed genetically Greeks only?
Again a propaganda is when no facts are available, but when facts are different , then its some truth in it.

 

[Angela]

I don't have an agenda. All I want is the truth as it is. I also do not deny the contribution the Hellenic civilization had on the world. I mean Hellenic, not Greek. Its not the same. Can Greeks take pride of their Hellenic past? Of course they are the sole inheritant of that culture. The problem is the Hellenes wrote their history and from what they have written many questions arise. Let say up to 4th century AD Macedonians were speaking their language along with Greek. They ( Greek writers of that time) wrote it. Greeks go KU-KU if you mention to them this fact. So how can Macedonia be Hellenistic when they (Macedonians) distinguished themselves, spoke another language, were another culture? Greeks wrote that Epiriots were barbarians, not worth of being called Greeks, now they call them as heart of Hellenistic world, so an honest person, in pursuit of truth as it is according to documents available has the right to rebel,.
Mycenaeans were a pre Greek civilization and as such can not be Greek, genetically speaking. Now can you make the case that they are indeed genetically Greeks only?
Again a propaganda is when no facts are available, but when facts are different , then its some truth in it.

Meaningless word play and an entire lack of the ability to argue logically. Mycenaeans were the first Greek speakers. How can they not be Greek? Greeks descend geneticallly from Mycenaeans. It's all in the paper, which you are of course unable to refute.

Done.

 

[Tutkun Arnaut]

Meaningless word play and an entire lack of the ability to argue logically. Mycenaeans were the first Greek speakers. How can they not be Greek? Greeks descend geneticallly from Mycenaeans. It's all in the paper, which you are of course unable to refute.

Done.

I don't know if you are aware of Spanish writer Cervantes. His main character is Don Quixote. At the beginning Don Quixote was illiterate, and Rude. But he learned how to read, and became very gentleman afterwards. But the problem was he started to believe everything he was reading. And ended up being ridiculous.
The lessen is don't believe everything you read! Mycenaean were the first Greek speakers? So Hellenes were the second at best?

 

[Tutkun Arnaut]

[h=1]What language did the Ancient Macedonians speak?[/h]








Answer



Follow · 2




Request


































[COLOR=#999999 !important][/COLOR]
























































5 Answers


[FONT=&quot]


[FONT=q_serif]Alan Piersonn, MA Classics, Heidelberg University[/FONT]
Answered Jun 14




[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=q_serif]
[COLOR=#999999 !important][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
"All in all, the language of the Macedonians was a distinct and particular form of Greek, resistant to outside influences and conservative in pronunciation. It remained so until the 4th century BC when it was almost totally submerged by the flood tide of standardized Greek."(Nicholas Hammond, British scholar and expert on Macedon, "A History of Macedonia" Vol. ii, 550-336 BC)
“The Pella curse tablet has been judged to be the most important ancient testimony to substantiate that Macedonian was a north-western Greek and mainly a Doric dialect.” (Roisman, Worthington, 2010, "A Companion to Ancient Macedonia", p. 95)
"In favour of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians is what we know of their language (Doric Greek), their place names, names of the months and many of their personal names especially royal names which are Greek in root and form. This tells us that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca but spoke it as natives, though with a local accent." (Richard Stoneman, Honorary Professor of Greek, Exeter University)
For more read: Ancient Macedonian as a Greek dialect: A critical survey on recent work (Greek, English, French, German text)


[FONT=&quot]1.7k Views · View Upvoters[/FONT]



[/FONT]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=&quot]






Upvote · 39



Share












h


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]



[/FONT]








The above is what most people think about Ancient Macedonia now incorporated in Greece. You want me to believe that this Macedonians of Greece are the same with Mycenians! I don't think so.

 

[ihype02]

READ THE PAPER. If it's wrong, show how it's wrong mathematically, scientifically, whatever. If you can't do it, stop parading your prejudices and agendas.

When Greeks colonized Sicily, there were native Siculi people as well as Phoenicians. So therefore Sicily must have been around 50% to 60% Greek at most.

There also some Roman colonists who settled there later, some few Goths, Albanians and Arabs. However all this non Greek admixture in Sicily did not stop Sicilians and even Jews to overlap with Mycenaeans, genetically in PCA. And, if for example modern Greeks are more pushed away from Mycenaeans than the Jews, it translates that they are not largely descended from them. Common sense.

PS. Maths is my strength.

 

[davef]

What language did the Ancient Macedonians speak?










Answer



Follow · 2




Request


































[COLOR=#999999 !important][/COLOR]
























































5 Answers





[FONT=q_serif]Alan Piersonn, MA Classics, Heidelberg University
Answered Jun 14




[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
[COLOR=#999999 !important][/FONT][FONT=q_serif]
"All in all, the language of the Macedonians was a distinct and particular form of Greek, resistant to outside influences and conservative in pronunciation. It remained so until the 4th century BC when it was almost totally submerged by the flood tide of standardized Greek."(Nicholas Hammond, British scholar and expert on Macedon, "A History of Macedonia" Vol. ii, 550-336 BC)
“The Pella curse tablet has been judged to be the most important ancient testimony to substantiate that Macedonian was a north-western Greek and mainly a Doric dialect.” (Roisman, Worthington, 2010, "A Companion to Ancient Macedonia", p. 95)
"In favour of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians is what we know of their language (Doric Greek), their place names, names of the months and many of their personal names especially royal names which are Greek in root and form. This tells us that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca but spoke it as natives, though with a local accent." (Richard Stoneman, Honorary Professor of Greek, Exeter University)
For more read: Ancient Macedonian as a Greek dialect: A critical survey on recent work (Greek, English, French, German text)


1.7k Views · View Upvoters





[/FONT][/COLOR]







Upvote · 39



Share












h
















The above is what most people think about Ancient Macedonia now incorporated in Greece. You want me to believe that this Macedonians of Greece are the same with Mycenians! I don't think so.

The Macedonians are not the same at all as Mycenaeans. Mycenaeans are more Southern. However, Macedonians do have ancestry from them. A half Greek half Chinese has ancestry from Greece and China but is not similar to either. Northern Greeks and southern Greeks/islanders have Mycenaean ancestry, and its higher in the south/islands.

 

[Ygorcs]

Why are Ashkenazi Jews closer to Mycenaeans than Modern Greeks?

IMHO that could be easily explained if Ashkenazi Jews are actually a mixture of mainly Late_Iron Age Levantines + Late_Iron Age Southern Europeans (and maybe more Greek or South Italian than other Southern Europeans). The Ashkenazi would've absorbed the genetic makeup of Greeks or Greek-related people from 15000-2000 years ago, whereas the Modern Greeks, even if they are still strongly descended from Classical Greeks, were slightly shifted apart because of Northern/Northeastern European input during the Middle Ages (and maybe even some minor Turkic one in the same time and particularly the Early Modern Era). When people say that modern Greeks are direct descendants of the Mycenaeans and probably even more directly from Classical Greeks, they aren't saying they are exactly the same people, totally intact from posterior genetic contribution by foreigners. What they mean is that there was a high level of genetic continuity (e.g. 60%, 70% etc.).

 

[Ygorcs]

I don't have an agenda. All I want is the truth as it is. I also do not deny the contribution the Hellenic civilization had on the world. I mean Hellenic, not Greek. Its not the same. Can Greeks take pride of their Hellenic past? Of course they are the sole inheritant of that culture. The problem is the Hellenes wrote their history and from what they have written many questions arise. Let say up to 4th century AD Macedonians were speaking their language along with Greek. They ( Greek writers of that time) wrote it. Greeks go KU-KU if you mention to them this fact. So how can Macedonia be Hellenistic when they (Macedonians) distinguished themselves, spoke another language, were another culture? Greeks wrote that Epiriots were barbarians, not worth of being called Greeks, now they call them as heart of Hellenistic world, so an honest person, in pursuit of truth as it is according to documents available has the right to rebel,.
Mycenaeans were a pre Greek civilization and as such can not be Greek, genetically speaking. Now can you make the case that they are indeed genetically Greeks only?
Again a propaganda is when no facts are available, but when facts are different , then its some truth in it.

How are Mycenaeans PRE-Greek civilization if they spoke Ancient Greek dialects? Early Greek, Early Hellenic, Proto-Hellenic, anything is acceptable, but PRE-Greek does not make sense.

 

[LABERIA]

IMHO that could be easily explained if Ashkenazi Jews are actually a mixture of mainly Late_Iron Age Levantines + Late_Iron Age Southern Europeans (and maybe more Greek or South Italian than other Southern Europeans). The Ashkenazi would've absorbed the genetic makeup of Greeks or Greek-related people from 15000-2000 years ago, whereas the Modern Greeks, even if they are still strongly descended from Classical Greeks, were slightly shifted apart because of Northern/Northeastern European input during the Middle Ages (and maybe even some minor Turkic one in the same time and particularly the Early Modern Era). When people say that modern Greeks are direct descendants of the Mycenaeans and probably even more directly from Classical Greeks, they aren't saying they are exactly the same people, totally intact from posterior genetic contribution by foreigners. What they mean is that there was a high level of genetic continuity (e.g. 60%, 70% etc.).

60%,70%? Do you really belive this?

 

[Angela]

YES, WE REALLY BELIEVE THIS, because that's what the science shows. JEEZ.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

IMHO that could be easily explained if Ashkenazi Jews are actually a mixture of mainly Late_Iron Age Levantines + Late_Iron Age Southern Europeans (and maybe more Greek or South Italian than other Southern Europeans). The Ashkenazi would've absorbed the genetic makeup of Greeks or Greek-related people from 15000-2000 years ago, whereas the Modern Greeks, even if they are still strongly descended from Classical Greeks, were slightly shifted apart because of Northern/Northeastern European input during the Middle Ages (and maybe even some minor Turkic one in the same time and particularly the Early Modern Era). When people say that modern Greeks are direct descendants of the Mycenaeans and probably even more directly from Classical Greeks, they aren't saying they are exactly the same people, totally intact from posterior genetic contribution by foreigners. What they mean is that there was a high level of genetic continuity (e.g. 60%, 70% etc.).

The idea of Ashkenazim as Levantine-Mediterranean intermediates makes no sense considering the level of red hair - I've said this before (along with some, well crackpot theories (but at least I don't go on crazed fits about Shulaveri-Shomu every two seconds, you know who you are)), but there must be some R1b-like ancestry among Ashkenazim. It would be interesting if this is from the Hittites, or if it's much more ancient (given R1b's potential NW West Asian breeding ground).

Again, I'll mention the Chalcolithic Armenians with red hair, blue eyes and pale skin. I'll also reference the folk-tale of the Hebrews (LIKELY related to Habiru) coming from the Mesopotamia region, probably the Upper Mesopotamian region.

As anecdotal examples, here's an Iraqi Armenian:

A Samaritan:

Two Syrians from Aleppo:

Not to mention potentially Muhammad, Jesus and King David, and DEFINITELY Ramses II:

That's hair dye, but he was an actual red-head.

Anyway, it looks like (from what I've seen at least) that most of this change (which is pretty much mute in the current West Asian gene pool outside of Israel) happened in the Chalcolithic. Which spread from the Balkans and NW West Asia. Which are the most likely candidates for the breeding ground for R1b. Which (kind of) matches up with Reich's origin of pre-proto-Indo-Europeans from West Asia, and potentially explains away some shared lexicon between PIE and Semitic languages. But anyway - it's all speculation for now.

 

[Alyan]

So according to a post on Anthrogenetica, we should get a paper on Classical Greek DNA:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15180-How-genetically-similar-are-Modern-Greeks-to-the-ancient-ones&p=477189&viewfull=1

Originally Posted by Michalis Moriopoulos

Hi, Nikos, I'm a genomics hobbyist and happened to catch your IMBB talk touching on ancient DNA from Amvrakia, medieval Heraklion, etc. Did you get autosomal DNA, too, or just uniparentals? Any idea on when a paper with these samples might be released to the public? As a Greek myself, I can't wait to see some classical and Byzantine era genomes so we can compare them to Lazaridis' Mycenaean paper.

Originally Posted by Nikos Psonis
Hello Mike, we have just started screening the genome of samples from different times and from different places of Greece. The results are promising, but I do not know when we are going to publish them. I hope soon. I will let you know. Thank you for your interest. Nikos

 

[Ygorcs]

60%,70%? Do you really belive this?

Do you know what e.g. means? Exempli gratia. Meaning: "for example". It's an example of what high genetic continuity means for me. But, yes, I think it is very possible that 60-70% of the Modern Greek genetic makeup will be found to still be closely related to (not necessarily the same) the Classical Greeks. Of course I do not mean that they descend necessarily and directly from the same Classical Greeks that lived in that very same land where the modern people live, but that they may easily derive much (60% or more) of their ancestry from people who were Classical Greeks or very closely related to them (especially after Hellenization of so many peoples surrounding Classical Greece).

 

[Ygorcs]

The idea of Ashkenazim as Levantine-Mediterranean intermediates makes no sense considering the level of red hair - I've said this before (along with some, well crackpot theories (but at least I don't go on crazed fits about Shulaveri-Shomu every two seconds, you know who you are)), but there must be some R1b-like ancestry among Ashkenazim. It would be interesting if this is from the Hittites, or if it's much more ancient (given R1b's potential NW West Asian breeding ground).

Again, I'll mention the Chalcolithic Armenians with red hair, blue eyes and pale skin. I'll also reference the folk-tale of the Hebrews (LIKELY related to Habiru) coming from the Mesopotamia region, probably the Upper Mesopotamian region.

As anecdotal examples, here's an Iraqi Armenian:

A Samaritan:

Two Syrians from Aleppo:

Not to mention potentially Muhammad, Jesus and King David, and DEFINITELY Ramses II:

That's hair dye, but he was an actual red-head.

Anyway, it looks like (from what I've seen at least) that most of this change (which is pretty much mute in the current West Asian gene pool outside of Israel) happened in the Chalcolithic. Which spread from the Balkans and NW West Asia. Which are the most likely candidates for the breeding ground for R1b. Which (kind of) matches up with Reich's origin of pre-proto-Indo-Europeans from West Asia, and potentially explains away some shared lexicon between PIE and Semitic languages. But anyway - it's all speculation for now.

We have had this conversation before, but as I said before, and as the ~49% blue-eyed Chalcolithic Levantines should've suggested to us all indirectly, there is no reason at all to believe that red hair should be linked to just one population and, even worse, one specific Y-DNA haplogroup in the past, or that these "modern European-like" features were not found in the Levant in ancient times. Ashkenazi are modeled as Levantines + South European + Some North/Eastern European not because of a few genes or some phenotypic characteristics, but because of high-resolution genome-wide analyses. It's also important to remeber that Ashkenazi are not descendants of Neolithic Levantines, but Bronze Age Levantines, already with much more Iranian/Caucasian as well as Anatolian input. Honestly there is no way a higher frequency of a gene that causes red hair will change the results given by autosomal DNA, it's one gene among millions. An initially small population with a genetic makeup 99% identical to that of black-haired Levantines could easily have picked up red hair from some ancient forebears and risen it up to higher frequencies.

Besides, there is no evidence (or is there?) to assert that the genes for red hair had not arrived in the Levantine coast ~2000 years ago, when the Ashkenazi ethnogenesis started (or even earlier), and all you've got to have a future higher proportion of red-haired people among the Ashkenazi is a few individuals with that feature passing it on. Considering that the genes for red hair (or for any other characteristic for that matter) may be easily absorbed by a population that along the time becomes autosomally very distinct from the source of that red-hair derived allele, and that the Ashkenazi clearly descend from a very small population and suffered a significant genetic bottleneck in the last 2000 years, I find it totally possible that red hair may have become common in Ashkenazi Jews (it's actualy not that frequent at all, though, let's not get carried away - https://www.judaismandscience.com/ginger-jews/) - even if the original population it came from had a really tiny percentage of red-haired people.

Add a small population (where drift is undeniably accelerated), a genetic bottleneck, founder effects, and genetic drift as a whole, and the trick is done. We do not need to "over-investigate" this small detail, especially if it is done in order to try to derive some totally speculative and improbable association between a gene for hair pigmentation and a specific Y-DNA haplogroup.

 

[LABERIA]

Do you know what e.g. means? Exempli gratia. Meaning: "for example". It's an example of what high genetic continuity means for me. But, yes, I think it is very possible that 60-70% of the Modern Greek genetic makeup will be found to still be closely related to (not necessarily the same) the Classical Greeks. Of course I do not mean that they descend necessarily and directly from the same Classical Greeks that lived in that very same land where the modern people live, but that they may easily derive much (60% or more) of their ancestry from people who were Classical Greeks or very closely related to them (especially after Hellenization of so many peoples surrounding Classical Greece).

I think there is a small difference between you and those people because i see that you include in this your 60% and more many hellenized people.
Do you think that this percentage will be the same after for example 20 years?

 

[holderlin]

Hey guys



.
.

.