Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

I would refer you to Jovialis' comment and would just add that Albanians and Tuscans plot "close" to one another but do not overlap. Albanians are to the east of Tuscans; that is due to Slavic ancestry. That's the major difference.

Perhaps I should add that I've never seen an academic study which shows overlap between those two groups.

I have, however, seen amateur postings on peripheral sites like quora which places Tuscans in the same "Circle" as Greeks and Kosovars. It's ridiculous. The latter two descend partly from Slavs and the former emphatically do not, carrying "western" not "eastern" ancestry. It's particularly ridiculous given that, if I recall correctly, the Tuscans even in that graph don't overlap with Kosovars or Greeks and are merely "near" them.

That's even without taking into account that PCAs take into account only two dimensions, and a small percent of total genetic variation.

It's the same nonsense of trying to claim people, and perhaps their accomplishments, who have nothing to do with the Balkans and/or Slavic ancestry.

As to Greeks versus Albanians, I can't at the moment find the link to the graphic but one exists showing Albanian genomes as a circle falling within the broader large spectrum of Greek genetic variation. The Albanians are very near Thessalians.

THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW THAT HAPPENED, so it has nothing to do with your unending wars about who moved where when.

If people don't understand the difference between those two things they have no business discussing genetics.
 
I only asked jovialis
I get the message they do not overlapp:cool-v:
Lets move on:)
 
Perhaps I should add that I've never seen an academic study which shows overlap between those two groups.
I have, however, seen amateur postings on peripheral sites like quora which places Tuscans in the same "Circle" as Greeks and Kosovars. It's ridiculous. The latter two descend partly from Slavs and the former emphatically do not, carrying "western" not "eastern" ancestry. It's particularly ridiculous given that, if I recall correctly, the Tuscans even in that graph don't overlap with Kosovars or Greeks and are merely "near" them.

That's even without taking into account that PCAs take into account only two dimensions, and a small percent of total genetic variation.

It's the same nonsense of trying to claim people, and perhaps their accomplishments, who have nothing to do with the Balkans and/or Slavic ancestry.

As to Greeks versus Albanians, I can't at the moment find the link to the graphic but one showing Albanian genomes falling within the broader spectrum of Greek genetic variation. They are very near Thessalians.

THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW THAT HAPPENED, so it has nothing to do with your unending wars about who moved where when.

If people don't understand the difference between those two things they have no business discussing genetics.

Indeed, Tuscans do not overlap with Albanians, they are to the "west" of them genetically.
 
I only asked jovialis
I get the message they do not overlapp:cool-v:
Lets move on:)

Excuse me, but are you suggesting that posters aren't allowed to respond to a question which isn't directed specifically at them?

I know of no such rule.

Also, perhaps I'm wrong, but I detect a slight hostility here. I get it all the time from some of our Albanian members, but I don't understand why I should get it from you.

Enough said. Let's indeed move on.
 
Of course I understand the difference, what is revealing is your hard headed comprehension of what I am saying. I advise you to watch yourself here.

I am not sure what you are saying, or why Albanians were brought in the game, i only agreed with Taleb about the Anatolian origin of the Mycenaean, and from there Albanians become a subset of Greeks, but it seems that that does not work for Lebanon.

In addition I have a hard headed comprehension.
What do you mean by watch yourself? In what sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
It means watch your attitude. I suggest we move on from this frivolous argument, and get back on topic. Starting with the very next post in this thread.


Also, discussing an Eastern or Northern model origin theory in relation to the Mycenaeans is perfectly fine, since it is relevant to the conversion.
 
0nEoquq.png


q7Srzpc.png


Here is why the Eastern Model may be viable imo:

An excerpt from David Reich's book:

iG2UgcM.jpg


tjbZO7j.jpg
 
Hold on, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth now:
i don't think so. comparing genetic similarities is not the same as trying to creat groups based on them.

I am merely correcting you, by saying they are closest to Anatolian_N, a source population. Again, Steppe is merely a component of Europe, it is also a component of non-Europeans. Anatolian_N is important to both Europeans, and Non-europeans too.

i don't see how that is ruling out that ancient greeks who created greek high culture were more similar to bronze age levant than to "aryan"-steppe.
 
^^Honestly, who cares, other than people trying to make a point of claiming them? What truly defines the levant is absent in Greeks, despite their similarities. It is like saying Dominicans are similar to Spaniards because they both share Iberian DNA. I have already made my points back thread if people want to read them. I am moving on from this.
 
Jovialis, Reich's mention assumes a PIE homeland in Transcaucasia. Doesn't really have to do with later stages of IE, which even in that Transcaucasian PIE model, you would need a migration north in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, where branches other than the Anatolian (which seems to be the first that diverged) would later evolve and expand with a steppe component. As you can see above the segment that is underlined, he associates that hypothesis with the absence of steppe ancestry in Anatolia, which is actually one of the reasons that makes the eastern model look far less likely. Mycenaeans in contrast to all the Anatolian samples that have been studied, do have that steppe ancestry. So does the Eurobe_LNBA which is included in the model that shares the most drift with Mycenaeans. That other image is not something new by the way, it's how we began this discussion in the past if i recall correctly.
 
^^Honestly, who cares, other than people trying to make a point of claiming them? What truly defines the levant is absent in Greeks, despite their similarities. It is like saying Dominicans are similar to Spaniards because they both share Iberian DNA. I have already made my points back thread if people want to read them. I am moving on from this.

you mean the Natufian? even if it is absent in Greeks, the Natufian in BA_Levantines doesn't seem to have made them more different from Greeks than steppe was. the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either.

It is like saying Dominicans are similar to Spaniards because they both share Iberian DNA.
and why wouldn't that make sense? simply looking at the absence or presence of certain ancestry components doesn't make much sense here. what if a difference of a certain ancestry from 10-20% is similar to a difference from 0-10% of the same or different ancestry? in the end the overall genetic similarity matters unless you value certain ancestries more or less than others.
and again i don't see why saying this should be laying claim on ancient Greeks. it questiones the genetic grouping certain people make, in this case white supremacists, it doesn't create new ones.
 
you mean the Natufian? even if it is absent in Greeks, the Natufian in BA_Levantines doesn't seem to have made them more different from Greeks than steppe was. the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either.


and why wouldn't that make sense? simply looking at the absence or presence of certain ancestry components doesn't make much sense here. what if a difference of a certain ancestry from 10-20% is similar to a difference from 0-10% of the same or different ancestry? in the end the overall genetic similarity matters unless you value certain ancestries more than others.
and again i don't see why saying this should be laying claim on ancient Greeks. it questiones the genetic grouping certain people make, in this case white supremacists, it doesn't create new ones.

How does this make any sense for you to say? Pointing out that people are different determines preference? That's quite inflammatory, and uncalled for.

"the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either."

Of course, well, the Ancient Greeks did have some steppe ancestry though.
 
This discussion has degenereated in a politically driven digression: Taleb is as much a talented mathematician as he is a delusional would be "Greek", and his talking about "aryan" is building up a strawman that no one endorses (not even the neonazis that have an ounce of knowledge about genetics).

It is a complete strawman because if you take "aryan" as meaning full-blooded steppe no one in Europe is remotely close to the original yamnaya, and the most yamnaya-like (as far as I know) are northeastern russians and Balts at around 55%, so it is no wonder that ancient Greeks were closer to ancient Levantines than to pure yamnaya, but if we take the FST between modern populations as a proxy for the ancient, and I dare say it is an accurate enough approximation given the amount of genetic continuity shown by the literature in Europe and the near east, then ancient Greeks were almost surely genetically closer to north-central european populations (exception made for the far northener) than to Levantines, https://molmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.2119/molmed.2009.00094/tables/1

Now, I trust enough in everybody's cognitive abilities to see that it is not an insult towards any ethnicity but it is a mere statement of facts, which I bring up because these discussions about "who has a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical similarities between aryans and semites" are often a waste of time and ill-posed, given that the answer is that it is true that 80% of Europeans do have a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical affinity (if one wants to play according to the rule of the game, I mean), but Europeans aren't "aryan" by any standard if by it one means "yamna-like".
 
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Lazaridis in the original paper left open the possibility that the Greek speakers came down from the Caucasus, traveled across Anatolia, and reached Greece from that direction.

It's not my preferred hyppothesis, but it's certainly possible.

I also don't see what it would change, other than maybe they picked up a little Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo along the way and didn't enter the Balkans as pure "steppe" people. Maybe the analogy would be like Bell Beaker.

Who cares, other than as a matter of intellectual interest, for God's sake, other than the Albanians, who apparently like to think that would make them more "European" than the Greeks. Just another stick to beat the Greeks over the head with, when Albanians are almost indistinguishable from Northern Greeks. (That includes you, Ailchu.)
 
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Lazaridis in the original paper left open the possibility that the Greek speakers came down from the Caucasus, traveled across Anatolia, and reached Greece from that direction.

It's not my preferred hyppothesis, but it's certainly possible.

I also don't see what it would change, other than maybe they picked up a little Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo along the way and didn't enter the Balkans as pure "steppe" people. Maybe the analogy would be like Bell Beaker.

Who cares, other than as a matter of intellectual interest, for God's sake, other than the Albanians, who apparently like to think that would make them more "European" than the Greeks. Just another stick to beat the Greeks over the head with, when Albanians are almost indistinguishable from Northern Greeks. (That includes you, Ailchu.)

Speechless, than who cares about genetic and all this research, we are all Homo sapiens, no need of history, no need to know where different cultures and people came from or how they formed.

You have a negative opinion for the Albanians, I am wondering why.

It seems that our interest of self history, since the Mycenaean history affects us as well as you correctly have confirmed appears as stick to you to beat our neighbors. Can that happen?



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
How does this make any sense for you to say? Pointing out that people are different determines preference? That's quite inflammatory, and uncalled for.
unless we aren't discussing historic population movements presence or absence of ancestry doesn't really matter imo. if it's a difference from 10% WHG-admixture in one population to 20% in the other population, or from 0% Natufian to 20% shouldn't matter if we just look at genetic distances in the end anyway.

"the Greeks were not Levantines but they were certainly no steppe people either."

Of course, well, the Ancient Greeks did have some steppe ancestry though.

BA_levant had some anatolian neolithic ancestry and some CHG/iran_neo too.
 
(That includes you, Ailchu.)

includes me in which way? i have not said anything about the route of indo european speakers nor did i ever care about someone beeing more or less "european". imo that's not even possible you either live in europe or you don't. and i think noone proposed that here except if you have the theory that for some people steppe="european". then you would give a reason why Taleb has a point. but no he is just one of those near easterners who want to claim greeks.
 
Last edited:
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Lazaridis in the original paper left open the possibility that the Greek speakers came down from the Caucasus, traveled across Anatolia, and reached Greece from that direction.

It's not my preferred hyppothesis, but it's certainly possible.

I also don't see what it would change, other than maybe they picked up a little Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo along the way and didn't enter the Balkans as pure "steppe" people. Maybe the analogy would be like Bell Beaker.

Who cares, other than as a matter of intellectual interest, for God's sake, other than the Albanians, who apparently like to think that would make them more "European" than the Greeks. Just another stick to beat the Greeks over the head with, when Albanians are almost indistinguishable from Northern Greeks. (That includes you, Ailchu.)
You remember correct Angela. It's in the abstract of all places, "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". But regardless of that, Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA happens to share the most drift with the Mycenaeans, plus, for the Anatolian route to have had some additional merit we would expect to find some steppe ancestry in the numerous Anatolian samples that have been studied to trace that migration, yet we don't.
 
This discussion has degenereated in a politically driven digression: Taleb is as much a talented mathematician as he is a delusional would be "Greek", and his talking about "aryan" is building up a strawman that no one endorses (not even the neonazis that have an ounce of knowledge about genetics).

It is a complete strawman because if you take "aryan" as meaning full-blooded steppe no one in Europe is remotely close to the original yamnaya, and the most yamnaya-like (as far as I know) are northeastern russians and Balts at around 55%, so it is no wonder that ancient Greeks were closer to ancient Levantines than to pure yamnaya, but if we take the FST between modern populations as a proxy for the ancient, and I dare say it is an accurate enough approximation given the amount of genetic continuity shown by the literature in Europe and the near east, then ancient Greeks were almost surely genetically closer to north-central european populations (exception made for the far northener) than to Levantines, https://molmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.2119/molmed.2009.00094/tables/1

Now, I trust enough in everybody's cognitive abilities to see that it is not an insult towards any ethnicity but it is a mere statement of facts, which I bring up because these discussions about "who has a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical similarities between aryans and semites" are often a waste of time and ill-posed, given that the answer is that it is true that 80% of Europeans do have a stronger claim to ancient Greeks based on genetical affinity (if one wants to play according to the rule of the game, I mean), but Europeans aren't "aryan" by any standard if by it one means "yamna-like".


People don't wont any connection to the
Levant ... like it is an insult to have ancestery from there....
I don't get it..
 
includes me in which way? i have not said anything about the route of indo european speakers nor did i ever care about someone beeing more or less "european". imo that's not even possible you either live in europe or you don't. and i think noone proposed that here except if you have the theory that for some people steppe="european". then you would give a reason why Taleb has a point. but no he is just one of those near easterners who want to claim greeks.

Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of your confusion.

Also, don't think I didn't see your comment before you changed it.

Maybe you should stop PROJECTING the fact that differences makes you uncomfortable, and violates your political leanings.
 

This thread has been viewed 1158558 times.

Back
Top