Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Thanks for the links. The reason I suspected it might not be Palaic is because the ware originally came for the NW. So either all Anatolians came from the NW (which I know is a popular theory) and/or the Palaics were a later wave of Anatolian migration from the NW. Bogazkoy is really close to Alaca (which, you will recall, is the site of early 2300 BCE Indo-European tombs, which Macqueen asserts are not Hittite). To me, it sounds like Macqueen was suggesting that somebody went from NW (probably from Europe originally?) into central Anatolia, and then backtracked closer to Lydia. Then again, these could all be waves of different people migrating and not necessarily connected to one another directly. I was theorizing that Greeks or Phrygians would be a good fit for this migration, theoretically, but not knowing how the wares are connected to later wares (like ceramics found in Crete) makes this difficult.
 
I don't understand what Reich really believes. So my view is pre-PIE in a culture like Chatalhoyuk, late PIE in a culture like Cucuteni-Tripolye. I don't think that is necassarily correct, but for pre-PIE works better than the 'South of Caucasus' theory. South of Caucasus, where?

To my understanding, Reich believes that Pre-PIE were located in modern Armenia or northern Iran (this region, with Georgia and Azerbaijan, is called the South Caucasus). From there, some of the Pre-PIE moved directly west and became the Anatolians (i.e. Hittites, Luwians, etc) and others moved north into the Steppes, where they mixed with EEHGs, and became Yamnaya (PIE).

The Kelti in Strabo are presented as a population familar with agriculture, making cheese from milk etc., and the 'men of Britain' as partly similar, partly more 'simple' and 'barbaric'.

According to the account of Dionysius of Halikarnassus, Tyrrhenians took their name for being the first to build 'high wooden palisades resembling towers' in Italy and he compares these structures to those Mossynoeci were making in Anatolia.

I don't think that agriculturalists were making stilt houses. Did 'steppe pastoralists' do? We certainly know that in Central Europe they existed, afaik, from 5000 BC.

Houses on stilts could be constructed because they live close to a flood plain (I'm not saying that any of these populations lived on the coast, I'm just speculating).

Lemnian was spoken on Lemnos in the Aegean. Perhaps the Tyrrhenians came from the east originally, and/or the Mossynoeci were a Tyrrhenian tribe who stayed behind and/or ventured further east.
 
To get back to the paper, Davidski just keeps on keeping on with the disinformation and blatant and perhaps wilful ignorance of the findings of academic papers when they don't agree with his agenda.

"Minoans derive from a later stream of Anatolian ancestry than EEF does, with more CHG and Levant-related input, that's why they're so different from LBK, Iberian farmers, etc. Take a look at any decent PCA of West Eurasia."

NO, THAT IS ALL INCORRECT.

I don't know who this person is from anthrogenica who responded to set the record straight, but at least he or she reads papers and reports their findings honestly.

"EEF was admixed with WHG making it different from Barcin farmers. Minoans were a mix of Anatolian farmers and something Caucasus rich. No Levantine admixture was detected as for the original paper.


We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region (Extended Data Fig. 7). [...] Other proposed migrations, such as settlement by Egyptian or Phoenician colonists, are not discernible in our data, as there is no measurable Levantine or African influence in the Minoans and Mycenaeans, thus rejecting the hypothesis that the cultures of the Aegean were seeded by migrants from the old civilizations of these regions.

[...]

The Mycenaeans settled all of mainland Greece up to Thessaly, and throughout the Aegean islands. There is evidence of extensive Mycenaean acculturation in Western Anatolia, Italy and Cyprus and trading relations with Egypt and the Near East. The Mycenaeans were literate and used for accounting purposes a syllabic script, Linear B, written in an early form of the Greek. They introduced this script into Crete after they occupied the island."


It's going to be fascinating when they decipher the Minoan scripts. Any guesses about what they might find?
 
''No Levant admixture would be detected in the first paper.'' The original Levantines/North Africans were similar to the original Anatolians like pre historic Anatolians.

And it's only that the origins of E3b actually comes from the Levant not North Africa that people come to that conclusion.
 
Yes. Thanks. But I'm curious what people here think are the most likely connections to other languages. I'm interested in the personal favorite theories of people here. The Caucasian and Anatolian ancestry makes me suspect it was either an Indo-European language or a Hattic language.
Well that's just relative yes the majority of the IE languages came from Greece the Armenian Anatolia etc and I think you mean Hurranian not Hattic. Also no who came before them ( although it's not European ) is the Phoenicians and before then the ancient Egyptians. There are a few threads online about the common similarities between old Phoenician languages and Ancient Greek similarities the ancient Greeks were the first to use vowels. I am a bit confused as to what you're asking for, do you mean ancient European languages or where they came from or who inspired them?
 
Well that's just relative yes the majority of the IE languages came from Greece the Armenian Anatolia etc and I think you mean Hurranian not Hattic. Also no who came before them ( although it's not European ) is the Phoenicians and before then the ancient Egyptians. There are a few threads online about the common similarities between old Phoenician languages and Ancient Greek similarities the ancient Greeks were the first to use vowels. I am a bit confused as to what you're asking for, do you mean ancient European languages or where they came from or who inspired them?

No, I mean Hattic (not Hittite!)--the pre-Indo-European, pre-Hittite people of Asia Minor. Hurrians were further east in northern Iraq/eastern Asia Minor at that time. Hattians were in what is now central Turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians. The Hittites imposed themselves on the Hattians, and then the Hurrians imposed themselves on the Hittites.

Minoans did not come from the ancient Egyptians.

Phoenician is similar to Greek because the Greeks likely settled in what is now Lebanon (see a few posts back). Philistines were likely of Greco-Mycenaean origin. The Sea Peoples also could have had a Greek component.

What I am asking is what language/language group people in this thread think the Minoan language (Linear A, etc) belonged to. There is speculation it was Anatolian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Semitic, etc.

And no, the majority of Indo-European languages did not come from Greece. Greek, Macedonian, Thracian, and likely Phrygian all had a presence in Greece though early on. There are no theories that suggest that Anatolian languages came from Greece (besides maybe passing through a bit of it). If Reich is correct, then the Anatolians migrated directly from what is now Armenia/northern Iran. Damgaard seems to suggest this too. There is a theory that Armenian passed through Greece too, but I lean more toward the Caucasus route for Armenian migration.
 
Last edited:
in the past year or so, there has been a clear theory that Luwian was the main language in anatolia and it lasted to circa 600BC
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Gobekli_Tepe_on_T-Shaped_Pillar_18_Means_God

Until the Phrygian "Thracian " invasion of anatolia , luwian was not challenged in anatolia

Check the net and in tools select past year...........you will get more info

Yes. The Minoan/Luwian connection was suggested like 60 years ago. But it's controversial and there are problems with it.

We also have no reason to believe that the Phrygians=Thracian. There are some researchers that believe they migrated to Asia Minor from the Steppes. They could have been Thracian, but we have no real, direct evidence of this, and the Phrygian language appears to have been closest to Greek, so make of that what you will. They could have split off from the Greeks in the Balkans or they could have split off from the Greeks in Asia Minor. Other than this, we don't know enough about their language or material culture to be more certain of anything at this time.
 
Yes. The Minoan/Luwian connection was suggested like 60 years ago. But it's controversial and there are problems with it.

We also have no reason to believe that the Phrygians=Thracian. There are some researchers that believe they migrated to Asia Minor from the Steppes. They could have been Thracian, but we have no real, direct evidence of this, and the Phrygian language appears to have been closest to Greek, so make of that what you will. They could have split off from the Greeks in the Balkans or they could have split off from the Greeks in Asia Minor. Other than this, we don't know enough about their language or material culture to be more certain of anything at this time.

next to Palaic language on the west have been thracian tribes since the bronze-age ( not including the Troas lands ) , so a ancient thraki language has been in anatolia for a long time although only a minor group
carian, lydian, lycian etc seem to be all branches of Luwic language tree
 
''No Levant admixture would be detected in the first paper.'' The original Levantines/North Africans were similar to the original Anatolians like pre historic Anatolians.

And it's only that the origins of E3b actually comes from the Levant not North Africa that people come to that conclusion.

Actually, while they shared some ancestry, it's well established that the Levantine Neolithic is quite different from the Anatolian Neolithic, which is likewise different from Iran Neolithic. There was additional admixture later on.
 
No, I mean Hattic (not Hittite!)--the pre-Indo-European, pre-Hittite people of Asia Minor. Hurrians were further east in northern Iraq/eastern Asia Minor at that time. Hattians were in what is now central Turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians. The Hittites imposed themselves on the Hattians, and then the Hurrians imposed themselves on the Hittites.

Minoans did not come from the ancient Egyptians.

Phoenician is similar to Greek because the Greeks likely settled in what is now Lebanon (see a few posts back). Philistines were likely of Greco-Mycenaean origin. The Sea Peoples also could have had a Greek component.

What I am asking is what language/language group people in this thread think the Minoan language (Linear A, etc) belonged to. There is speculation it was Anatolian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Semitic, etc.

And no, the majority of Indo-European languages did not come from Greece. Greek, Macedonian, Thracian, and likely Phrygian all had a presence in Greece though early on. There are no theories that suggest that Anatolian languages came from Greece (besides maybe passing through a bit of it). If Reich is correct, then the Anatolians migrated directly from what is now Armenia/northern Iran. Damgaard seems to suggest this too. There is a theory that Armenian passed through Greece too, but I lean more toward the Caucasus route for Armenian migration.

Hurranians were in Armenian Anatolia that's it. Hittities were more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians I have heard of Hattian but i don't know who they were or what they did.

I am talking about how the ancient Greek alphabet was a offshoot of the Phoenician one. It has nothing to do with the ancient Lebanese Syrians Palestinians or modern ones who have various mixes according to settlement. The original people of the Levant were Anatolians, the are literally the original Anatolian in the racial sense just think ''native Near Eastern''. The Greek and Roman genetic impact came later although the Greek genetic impact to the Levant post dating the Anatolian impact isn't that far behind.

And I didn't say that the Indo European languages only came from Greece either. I am talking about the early alphabets including vowels coming supposedly from the ancient Greeks likely Minoans Mycenaean etc. Before then it was the Phoenicians before then the Egyptians probably the Incas Indo is just a Greek word meaning ''Native to'' so Indo European can either mean native to Europe racially or linguistically. There is a language tree online, see if you can find it.

And no certainly they were not the only people to speak the Indo European languages Armenians Indians Persians etc all spoke Indo languages.
 
next to Palaic language on the west have been thracian tribes since the bronze-age ( not including the Troas lands ) , so a ancient thraki language has been in anatolia for a long time although only a minor group
carian, lydian, lycian etc seem to be all branches of Luwic language tree

You're right. Bithynia. But we still don't know if Phrygian was Thracian or from which direction they migrated from. Again, modern consensus seems to support a Greek-Phrygian relationship.

Lydian was likely not Luwic, but the rest you mentioned probably were.
 
Hurranians were in Armenian Anatolia that's it. Hittities were more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians I have heard of Hattian but i don't know who they were or what they did.

I am talking about how the ancient Greek alphabet was a offshoot of the Phoenician one. It has nothing to do with the ancient Lebanese Syrians Palestinians or modern ones who have various mixes according to settlement. The original people of the Levant were Anatolians, the are literally the original Anatolian in the racial sense just think ''native Near Eastern''. The Greek and Roman genetic impact came later although the Greek genetic impact to the Levant post dating the Anatolian impact isn't that far behind.

And I didn't say that the Indo European languages only came from Greece either. I am talking about the early alphabets including vowels coming supposedly from the ancient Greeks likely Minoans Mycenaean etc. Before then it was the Phoenicians before then the Egyptians probably the Incas Indo is just a Greek word meaning ''Native to'' so Indo European can either mean native to Europe racially or linguistically. There is a language tree online, see if you can find it.

And no certainly they were not the only people to speak the Indo European languages Armenians Indians Persians etc all spoke Indo languages.

I'm sorry, you seem to be really confused. Firstly, I don't know what you mean by Hittites being more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians. They had contacts with Semitic speakers, yes. And yes, they expanded into central, southern, and maybe even eastern Turkey, at the height of their empire (they had the largest Anatolian IE domain).

Hurrians were not only in "Anatolian Armenia". The oldest attestations of Hurrian were from northern Syria (Urkesh) but the language was definitely spoken in Iraq (Mitanni), and also texts have been found in southern (Tell Hariri) and western (Latakia) Syria, and in Babylon. Hurrian may have been spoken even further south too.

I'm not talking about alphabets. I'm talking about languages and cultures. Most European/Middle Eastern alphabets come from the Phoenician alphabet, directly or indirectly.

The rest of what you're saying is confusing to me, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, no offense. We do not seem to be talking about the same things.
 
You're right. Bithynia. But we still don't know if Phrygian was Thracian or from which direction they migrated from. Again, modern consensus seems to support a Greek-Phrygian relationship.

Lydian was likely not Luwic, but the rest you mentioned probably were.

I think these ancient Greeks in the bronze-age had far less lands than what Greece has now...........we know lemnos, samothrace islands where Thracian and it seems that greek thessally was "barbaric" / macedonian or others, greek thrace province today was always ancient thracian lands with their own navies...............not even epirotes and all their 14 tribes in NW greece was not noted as Greek............my point is that we give too much a Greek association in ancient times, basically because they had the main scholars of ancient times in that area.

There is no association of Phrygian people with Greeks .........the last we here about Phyrgians is that they where fighting a long war in anatolia against the lydians circa 500BC
 
Actually, while they shared some ancestry, it's well established that the Levantine Neolithic is quite different from the Anatolian Neolithic, which is likewise different from Iran Neolithic. There was additional admixture later on.
To both populations respectively but in the general sense there is a common Near Eastern impact.
 
I'm sorry, you seem to be really confused. Firstly, I don't know what you mean by Hittites being more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians. They had contacts with Semitic speakers, yes. And yes, they expanded into central, southern, and maybe even eastern Turkey, at the height of their empire (they had the largest Anatolian IE domain).

Hurrians were not only in "Anatolian Armenia". The oldest attestations of Hurrian were from northern Syria (Urkesh) but the language was definitely spoken in Iraq (Mitanni), and also texts have been found in southern (Tell Hariri) and western (Latakia) Syria, and in Babylon. Hurrian may have been spoken even further south too.

I'm not talking about alphabets. I'm talking about languages and cultures. Most European/Middle Eastern alphabets come from the Phoenician alphabet, directly or indirectly.

The rest of what you're saying is confusing to me, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, no offense. We do not seem to be talking about the same things.
Probably Hurrian were in North Syria yes.

Yes and like I told you the ancient Greeks didn't necessarily language but the first alphabet, you said it was just Greeks having the first language and listed people who were similar to Greeks racially no i don't think they had the first IE language it was just the first alphabet ( with vowels )

As for the other stuff those people spoke IE languages. Do you know what a IE language actually means? It means linguistically their language corresponds to what people define as a Indo European language. Nothing to do with race whatsoever. In fact even those ethnicities probably spoke IE languages before the Greeks. Get what I am saying?
 
Don't confuse IE languages with IE or PIE races totally different ballgame.
 
I think these ancient Greeks in the bronze-age had far less lands than what Greece has now...........we know lemnos, samothrace islands where Thracian and it seems that greek thessally was "barbaric" / macedonian or others, greek thrace province today was always ancient thracian lands with their own navies...............not even epirotes and all their 14 tribes in NW greece was not noted as Greek............my point is that we give too much a Greek association in ancient times, basically because they had the main scholars of ancient times in that area.

There is no association of Phrygian people with Greeks .........the last we here about Phyrgians is that they where fighting a long war in anatolia against the lydians circa 500BC


There is no association of Phrygian people with Greeks .........the last we here about Phyrgians is that they where fighting a long war in anatolia against the lydians circa 500BC[/QUOTE]

Lemnos was Etruscan-esque during the Bronze Age.

Macedonian was clearly Greek or closely related to Greek.

There are lexical and grammatical connections between Greek and Phrygian. It was a centum language. Professor Claude Brixhe believes that Greek and Phrygian come from the same branch of Indo-European languages.

https://books.google.com/books?id=J...#v=onepage&q=phrygian brixhe language&f=false

Greeks were already well established by 500 BCE, so I don't really understand the relevance of your point, no offense. Homer was alive, for instance, in the 800s BCE.
 

This thread has been viewed 1158558 times.

Back
Top