Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 65 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 1613

Thread: Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

  1. #151
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,802
    Points
    88,500
    Level
    92
    Points: 88,500, Level: 92
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 850
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Why do you think you plot there, Jovialis? In every PCA I've ever seen, southern mainland Italians from Puglia, Campania, etc. plot in the gap between Tuscans and Sicilians. There used to be a pretty decent PCA on 23andme where you could see where you and your shares plotted, and the only southerners who plotted anywhere close to that were the ones from the Abruzzi.


    I figured I might be placed there due to these autosomal results.

    I recall Salento, from Salento in Pugila had these results.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salento View Post
    Geno 2 NG Helix Results:
    91% Italy & Southern Europe
    5% Southwestern Europe
    2% Eastern Europe

    1st Ref. Pop. Greek
    2nd Ref. Pop. Tuscan (Italy)

  2. #152
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post


    I figured I might be placed there due to these autosomal results.
    I haven't taken this test Jovialis, so I may not be the right person to ask, but I don't think you're meant to halve the distance.

    The other thing is that NG doesn't have a Southern Italian reference sample. If they did, I'm pretty sure that would be your closest population.

    Can NG data be input into Gedmatch? I know it accepts both 23andme and FTDNA. If it can, you'll find out through those calculators how close you are to other southern Italians. If not, I don't know what to suggest.

    Sorry...Maybe someone else of southern Italian ancestry who has taken that test could give you some guidance.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #153
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,802
    Points
    88,500
    Level
    92
    Points: 88,500, Level: 92
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 850
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I haven't taken this test Jovialis, so I may not be the right person to ask, but I don't think you're meant to halve the distance.

    The other thing is that NG doesn't have a Southern Italian reference sample. If they did, I'm pretty sure that would be your closest population.

    Can NG data be input into Gedmatch? I know it accepts both 23andme and FTDNA. If it can, you'll find out through those calculators how close you are to other southern Italians. If not, I don't know what to suggest.

    Sorry...Maybe someone else of southern Italian ancestry who has taken that test could give you some guidance.
    https://genographic.nationalgeograph...-my-dna-sample

    How do I access the raw analytical data generated from my DNA sample?


    For Geno 1.0 and Geno 2.0 participants the raw analytical output from your DNA sample is available to you as a CSV file. Go to My Profile, select the My Results tab and scroll down to Expert Options. Because this data is sensitive, you must first agree to the terms and then you will have the option to download the file. A download link will automatically appear under the My Test Results section.


    For Geno 2.0 Next Gen Participants (but not Geno 2.0 Next Gen Helix co-branded kits) the raw analytical output from your DNA sample is available for purchase through our partner, Family Tree DNA. Go to My Profile, select the My Results tab and scroll down till you see Transfer my Results on the right hand side. Or you can click here.


    For Geno 2.0 Next Gen Helix co-branded kit Participants, we are currently exploring options to be able to make this available to you.
    Unfortunately, there hasn't been any update on them considering to release the raw data for the Helix version. I initially choose this brand because of the high-accuracy sequencing process they have. It's a shame I can't get the raw data though.

    Would the raw data be compatible? I read that sequencing DNA with their proprietary technology, Exome+, is supposed to be different and more advanced than genotyping.

  4. #154
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    blevins13's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-10-16
    Location
    Tirana
    Age
    43
    Posts
    574
    Points
    3,537
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,537, Level: 17
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103>BY611
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7i1

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

    The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

    The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

    The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

    They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

    Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.
    Thanks for your valuable insight.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

  5. #155
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    I1a3_Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-05-17
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    521
    Points
    8,234
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,234, Level: 27
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 Z63*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5b1

    Ethnic group
    Basically British
    Country: USA - Arkansas



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    @Maciamo

    Maciamo ti si clear that Doris=ans never inveded Greece,
    the one who invade are the Myceneans,

    Lazarides just certified Triantafylides,
    and allows the open space of Giannopoulos.

    the I1 in Greece I doupt it is Germanic,
    All genetists in Greece found and are certain that is paliolithic,
    Sarakatsans are heavily in I1 and are consider the pre-glacial population of Greece.
    in fact at all the palaiolithic congresses that is discussed,
    and there is also one Y-Dna that is still kept in a kind of fog.
    But I1 of Sarakatsans is considered the most ancient not only in Greece but in a wider area,

    So indeed as Lazarides certified Triantafyllides then we have 11% paleolithic
    59% post Glacial
    20% Neolithic farmers
    only 10 % of we call IE (Yamnaa etc)

    on the other hand Giannopoulos believed that Descent Of Myceneans (NOTICE MYCENEANS NOT DORIANS as belived at 1928)
    was a massive Huge devastation of IE from Vucedol/Vucocar/Vatin who came from Yamnaa and Steppe.
    But it seems that Lazarides measures the same % that Triantafyllides claim
    the 7-13% of Myceneans is From Vucedol or ProtoCetina,
    so I think Lazrides results just certifies and unites the previous olders Triantafyllides and Giannopoulos,

    in fact the question now is could 7-10-13% of Vucedol change the language to IE?
    or the neolithic 20%, or ...?

    the numbers of Lazarides simply certify the previous works done,
    and give result in balance with older searches.

    I agree that more Mycenean,
    as also Thessalian and Makedonian Neolithic and Bronze age would give better results,
    but not in very long from these,

    as for North Greece
    N Greece was Half NW Greeks and Half Thracians.
    N Greece ones run out of men who moved by Alexander
    N Greece was raided and habitetd by SLavs and enough mark of them is still here.
    Gauls entered Greece but moved to North to end at Galateia,
    the Gaulish remnants, especially in Kutsuk Vlachs are from Roman legions and Roman citizens.
    The EXTRA SLAVIC mark is cause some Vlachs are from Slavic descent (Antes Romanised Slavs)

    considering that Makedonia which is main body of N Greece,
    was the land of heaven for Aromani Epirotans and Greeks of Balkans (Bulgaria Romania Albania Serbo-Croatia Istria Austria Hungary Alexandreia France Russia)
    after 1860,
    and the favorite tactic of Ottoman to break omogenous population was to devaste other populations,
    that gives a strong change amore than 25% to be different and more North East and Central European.

    as for mtDNA X2.
    I am that rare mtDNA
    but it is possible in Greece to be X2 than to be U,
    Do you have any sources on the Greek I1. As an I1 I am interested.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
    Administrator of the Young Family Project
    Genetic genealogy enthusiast

  6. #156
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-03-17
    Posts
    50
    Points
    1,257
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,257, Level: 9
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 93
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Brazil



    [QUOTE=Angela;516150]Even if the admixture came through the Balkans, rather than from the region around Armenia, we're talking about 13% "steppe", 8% EHG. Big whoops. I wouldn't have thought that was enough for language change but I guess it is.

    Hi, Angela! I'm writing here for the first time, but have been reading the discussions here (and above all your posts) with interest for several months. I decided to write here now because I got really excited with the results of this study.

    However, as just an amateur with an interest in history, linguistics and population genetics, I'm really in doubt about the likeliness of a scenario I've figured out here, which is the following.

    Well, if: 1) the ancient Mycenaeans had 13% "steppe ancestry"; 2) they don't seem to have been established in Greece much before 2,000 BC, i.e. many centuries after the initial dispersal of Yamna-related peoples; and 3) that 13% percentage looks suspiciously low for such a stunning linguistic and cultural change (even though the Turkish precedent in Turkey is very suggestive here); then can we assume that Proto-Greek introgression possibly had a lot more impact than the EHG/"Steppe" numbers indicate, and that in fact they came directly from the mixed EEF+Steppe and a lot nearer Balkans or Carpathians?

    Considering the very large populations of SE European cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye by 4,000-3,000 BC, I wouldn't be surprised if later and probably Indo-European cultures (e.g. Cernavoda, Vucedol) nearby were only half steppe-like or even less, and certainly much less than half EHG. If that's the case, then the demographic impact of Mycenaeans could've been reasonably high, at 25%-30%.

    What do you think? Your answer would be very appreciated.

  7. #157
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    04-07-11
    Posts
    49
    Points
    7,947
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,947, Level: 26
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 203
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - Z2110
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H28a

    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Greece



    These findlings are hardly surprising to anyone who REALLY knows modern Greek culture, customs, folklore and superstitions. This book https://books.google.gr/books/about/...8C&redir_esc=y describes the culture of early 19th century rural Greece, which was lost with the rapid urbanisation that followed.
    I don't care at all about "purity", "continuity", etc, (as a matter of fact being a scientist I believe in hybrid vigour ), but I am SO pleased to know that all these closet nordicists are foaming at the moment. Plus, the added bonus of seeing Fallmerayer and his gang of German romanticists with their theories about blond ancient Greeks/Chinese/whatever shot down and crash landing like a giant watermelon.

  8. #158
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,694
    Points
    696,707
    Level
    100
    Points: 696,707, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    5 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Thus far we have seen:

    Lebanese largely share a genetic continuity with Canaanites.

    Britons largely shared a genetic continuity with Celts during the Roman Period. Genetics in England changed with the arrival and admixture with groups like the the Anglo-Saxons, and Normans. While the Romans and Vikings only left a marginal genetic impact.

    Modern Greeks largely share a genetic continuity with the Mycenaean and Minoans. Moreover, Cyprus, Albania, Sicily, and Southern Italy have similar genetic continuity.

    Egyptians retained their genetic continuity throughout the Roman Period. The shift towards more Yoruba admixture occurred during the Middle Ages.

    So far it seems to me that the Roman Empire didn’t have a huge impact on changing the genetics of many places it occupied.
    As I explained in post #55 above, modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like. I estimated that to increase the EHG from 7% to 20%, it actually requires the contribution of 25 to 40% of non-Greek European DNA, depending on the source populations. Based on modern Y-DNA in Greece, it can be deduced that the Slavs contributed the most (21% of Y-DNA in modern Greece), followed by the Germanics (10%) then the Romans and La Tène Celts (8% together). That's 39% on the Y-DNA side, but overall it's likely to be a bit less than that as the paternal line of invaders tends to outweigh the maternal line. It's probably less the case for the Slavs and Goths, who moved as whole families, and indeed whole tribes, but it would be truer for the Romans, who were mostly administrators and soldiers stationed in Greece, with few Roman women settling there.

    In summary, it's true that the impact of the Romans on these populations was relatively minor (1 to 5%), but that is to be expected as the Romans did not send a big number of colonists to places like Egypt, Phoenicia or Britain. The places most heavily colonised by the Romans outside Italy were Gaul and Iberia, particularly the southern parts like Provence and Andalusia. It would be much more interesting to see the population shift before and after Roman times in those regions.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  9. #159
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    Diomedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-17
    Posts
    240
    Points
    1,575
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,575, Level: 11
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 275
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Greece



    So, is there a Greek continuity according to you, yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    As I explained in post #55 above, modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like.

  10. #160
    markoz2
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    afaik charriots and swords appeared in the Carpathian Basin, not the Balkans prior to the appearance of the Myceneans
    anyway it is strange that BA Balkan or Carpathian Basin DNA does not appear in the models
    No, Aegean swords and chariots are for all intents and purposes carbon-copies of their Anatolian predecessors. This is one of the many reasons the results of the paper shouldn't come as a surprise.
    Last edited by markoz2; 04-08-17 at 14:24.

  11. #161
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Leandros's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-17
    Age
    30
    Posts
    90


    Country: Greece



    3 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    More accurate for Greeks. (Except for Michael Fassbender: I like him a lot, but ancient Greek?) Of course, they had to darken Gerard Butler's hair, eyes, skin, and probably fiddle with his nose. They couldn't find a Southern European descended actor to bulk up like that? Whatever...

    They took, as you imply, a lot of license with the Persians. Some of the troops were also decidedly Middle Eastern looking to me, all those black robes etc. Not that the Persians wouldn't have had a lot of troops from all over their Empire, but there was a lot of signalling going on.

    300 was a propaganda piece against Persians(iranians) by the Jews of Hollywood.
    Simple as that :)

  12. #162
    markoz2
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Leandros View Post
    300 was a propaganda piece against Persians(iranians) by the Jews of Hollywood.
    Simple as that :)
    Frank Miller is Irish.

  13. #163
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,380
    Points
    37,785
    Level
    59
    Points: 37,785, Level: 59
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 65
    Overall activity: 19.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    kind of digest:
    8-10% of a warriors elite not organized like Romans has hard work to pass their language to autochtonous pops, I think. But at the time we suppose Mycenians arrived in Greece, I-E whatever its first geographic origin, was spoken in Central Europe by mixed pops; if as I BELIEVE (not KNOW) they arrived through Romania then Central Balkans from the Steppes, they surely had not more than a 40-45% steppic say 25-30% EHG roughly said, rather less. So "Mycenian" # first "Steppic". To complicate things they surely brought with them auDNA already present in Greece and Creta. IBD could help; but EHG were already present there. Finally I think I can guess the Mycenians weighted around 20% or 25% of the total pop.
    at the mergin, I have the impression in South, in lands far from the steppes and from the social organization linked to them, the clannic males system didn't function so totally and that the Y-haplos were sometimes mixed, as if there had been passed partnership accords (!) with (well adapted and skilful?) predecessors (this South the Caucasus, Anatolia, or in Southern Europe where pops seemed having stayed more dense and numerous and less easily controlled by steppes newcomers. Just a feeling.

  14. #164
    markoz2
    Guest


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    kind of digest:
    8-10% of a warriors elite not organized like Romans has hard work to pass their language to autochtonous pops, I think. But at the time we suppose Mycenians arrived in Greece, I-E whatever its first geographic origin, was spoken in Central Europe by mixed pops
    People have thought themselves into a corner. There is no evidence for IE in Central Europe before 500 BC. The later Anatolian samples in this paper on the other hand must have either been speakers of IE or their immediate neighbours.

    Some interpretations like those of Rajib and the Sailer crowd are laughable. Steppe immigrants conquering an indigenous population with primitive weapons, inferior numbers and without imparting even trace amounts of their ancestry to the subdued population to boot.

  15. #165
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsThree FriendsVeteran
    Fustan's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-05-15
    Posts
    96
    Points
    2,171
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,171, Level: 13
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 279
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    IMO, Dorians are proto-epirotes
    Elaborate please. Because this makes no sense whatsoever.

  16. #166
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,802
    Points
    88,500
    Level
    92
    Points: 88,500, Level: 92
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 850
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    As I explained in post #55 above, modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like. I estimated that to increase the EHG from 7% to 20%, it actually requires the contribution of 25 to 40% of non-Greek European DNA, depending on the source populations. Based on modern Y-DNA in Greece, it can be deduced that the Slavs contributed the most (21% of Y-DNA in modern Greece), followed by the Germanics (10%) then the Romans and La Tène Celts (8% together). That's 39% on the Y-DNA side, but overall it's likely to be a bit less than that as the paternal line of invaders tends to outweigh the maternal line. It's probably less the case for the Slavs and Goths, who moved as whole families, and indeed whole tribes, but it would be truer for the Romans, who were mostly administrators and soldiers stationed in Greece, with few Roman women settling there.

    In summary, it's true that the impact of the Romans on these populations was relatively minor (1 to 5%), but that is to be expected as the Romans did not send a big number of colonists to places like Egypt, Phoenicia or Britain. The places most heavily colonised by the Romans outside Italy were Gaul and Iberia, particularly the southern parts like Provence and Andalusia. It would be much more interesting to see the population shift before and after Roman times in those regions.
    Thank you to you and Angela for clarifying this, I totally see the increase of non-Greek European DNA over time. It is very clear when you see where modern Greeks cluster, closer to Eastern Europeans, than theses Mycenaean samples.



  17. #167
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,334
    Points
    45,963
    Level
    66
    Points: 45,963, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 987
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by markoz2 View Post
    No, Aegean swords and chariots are for all intents and purposes carbon-copies of their Anatolian predecessors. This is one of the many reasons the results of the paper shouldn't come as a surprise.
    show me the Anatolian predecessors
    all what has been produced so far is some bronze bar that might resemble a sword to those whit a vivid imagination

  18. #168
    markoz2
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    show me the Anatolian predecessors
    all what has been produced so far is some bronze bar that might resemble a sword to those whit a vivid imagination
    What? Alaca Höyük is quite conservative with regards to the first swords. There are also Maykop and Arslantepe (there's a whole stash dated to >3k BC). Later swords are found in Syria and Transcaucasia, then the Aegean. Not sure where you got the Carpathian thing from. It's just not true.


    Later slashing swords spread in the opposite direction from North Italy.

  19. #169
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    blevins13's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-10-16
    Location
    Tirana
    Age
    43
    Posts
    574
    Points
    3,537
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,537, Level: 17
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103>BY611
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7i1

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

    The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

    The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

    The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

    They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

    Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.
    Looking forward to their next paper, maybe that will clarify more about this intriguing topic and Balkan People.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

  20. #170
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Sorry I didn't get back to you on this Bicicleur; My only excuse is that I totally forgot about it.

    Anyway, I think it's questionable that the intrusive element which appeared in Greece proper around 1600 could have brought chariots with them into Greece if they came from the north.



    As for the bronze swords, in the interest of time, I'll just use Wiki as it accords with everything I've ever read about the subject:

    "Before bronze, stone (such as flint and obsidian) was used as the primary material for edged cutting tools and weapons. Stone, however, is very fragile, and therefore not practical to be used for swords. With the introduction of copper, and subsequently bronze, daggers could be made longer, leading to the sword.Thus, the development of the sword from the dagger was gradual, and in 2004 the first "swords" were claimed for the Early Bronze Age (c. 33rd to 31st centuries), based on finds at Arslantepe by Marcella Frangipane, professor of Prehistory and Protostory of the Near and Middle East at Sapienza University of Rome.[1][2][3] A cache of nine swords and daggers was found; they are composed of arsenic-copper alloy. Among them, three swords were beautifully inlaid with silver.
    These are the weapons of a total length of 45 to 60 cm which could be described as either short swords, long daggers or gladius. Some other similar swords have been found in Turkey, and are described by Thomas Zimmermann.[4]
    The sword remained extremely rare for another millennium, and became more widespread only with the closing of the 3rd millennium. The "swords" of this later period can still readily be interpreted as daggers, as with the copper specimen from Naxos (dated roughly 2800 to 2300 BC), with a length of just below 36 cm, but individual specimens of the Cycladic "copper swords" of the period around 2300 reach a length up to 60 cm. The first weapons that can be classified as swords without any ambiguity are those found in Minoan Crete, dated to about 1700 BC, which reach lengths of more than 100 cm. These are the "type A" swords of the Aegean Bronze Age."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword

  21. #171
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Thank you to you and Angela for clarifying this, I totally see the increase of non-Greek European DNA over time. It is very clear when you see where modern Greeks cluster, closer to Eastern Europeans, than theses Mycenaean samples.


    My understanding is that the Greeks used for that plot are the Greeks of Thessaly, who are not, in my opinion, representative of all Greeks.

  22. #172
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Sometimes the authors of papers must wonder why they bother. I know I sometimes wonder why I bother to quote the papers.

    Once again, from the paper and one of my posts at the beginning of this thread:

    ""Cretan from ArmenoiThis individual has only 42,052 SNPs covered in the HOIll dataset and it belongs to a later period(Late Minoan III A-B ~ 1400-1200 BC) than the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi. It does notform a clade with any single (N=1) population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 0.001). There are several models that fit (p-value for rank=1 > 0.05) for N=2 that agree on this individual having most of its ancestry from Anatolian Neolithic-related population with additional ancestry from eastern European/North Eurasian hunter-gatherers (Table S2.7), as also suggested by the shift of this individual in PCA relative to other Minoans and indeed even the Mycenaeans (Fig. 1b). We acknowledge the possibility that there was geographical structure in the Bronze Age Cretan population (the Armenoi sample comes from northwestern Crete; Fig. 1a), or that population change had occurred between the time of the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi and the time of thisindividual, however, the lack of high quality data does not allow us to test these hypotheses further."

    If Nick Patterson signs onto that, then that's the way it is.

    Of course, that won't stop some modelers from trying to spin stories from it.

  23. #173
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Falco's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-08-17
    Posts
    28
    Points
    1,688
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,688, Level: 11
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 162
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

    The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

    The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

    The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

    They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

    Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.
    I think this excerpt from Mathieson et al 2017 could be relevant here:
    "One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and that the earliest known diverging branch – Anatolian – was spread into Asia Minor by movements of steppe peoples through the Balkan peninsula during the Copper Age around 4000 BCE, as part of the same incursions from the steppe that coincided with the decline of the tell settlements.

    If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of characteristic steppe ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula, and then in Anatolia. However, our genetic data do not support this scenario. While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic.

    This pattern is consistent with that seen in northwestern Anatolia and later in Copper Age Anatolia, suggesting continuing migration into Anatolia from the East rather than from Europe.

    An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral to many of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family. On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus."

  24. #174
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    I think this excerpt from Mathieson et al 2017 could be relevant here:
    "One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and that the earliest known diverging branch – Anatolian – was spread into Asia Minor by movements of steppe peoples through the Balkan peninsula during the Copper Age around 4000 BCE, as part of the same incursions from the steppe that coincided with the decline of the tell settlements.

    If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of characteristic steppe ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula, and then in Anatolia. However, our genetic data do not support this scenario. While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic.

    This pattern is consistent with that seen in northwestern Anatolia and later in Copper Age Anatolia, suggesting continuing migration into Anatolia from the East rather than from Europe.

    An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral to many of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family. On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus."
    It's indeed relevant imo. That's why we need more Balkan area adna, and the adna from the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia as well. The lack of such data is why the authors of the instant paper could not exclude the possibility that a movement from Anatolia, a la Drews, brought the Greek language into Greece.

    More generally, as I will address below, if the steppe peoples contributed rather small amounts of ancestry to the people living in the Balkans, those latter people had very little steppe ancestry to pass on.

  25. #175
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770
    Points
    7,659
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,659, Level: 26
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 491
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Pratt View Post
    It originally appeared on Lazaridis' twitter account as a reply to @PreznitCamacho, @PaIeodeadlift and other two.

    https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/...31776372498434



    Yes, Northwest I think.
    Don't forget the involvement of @bronzeagemantis aka Bronze Age Pervert


Page 7 of 65 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •