Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

People don't wont any connection to the
Levant ... like it is an insult to have ancestery from there....
I don't get it..

this one here is just ridiculous
If you go back in time, western megalithic culture and BB culture are our genetic roots and have nothing to do with Levantines or Africans either.
 
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.



BA_levant had some anatolian neolithic ancestry and some CHG/iran_neo too.

So what?! Obama is half-white, does that make mullatos one in the same as Anglo-Saxons?
 
People don't wont any connection to the
Levant ... like it is an insult to have ancestery from there....
I don't get it..

Oh please! Don't start with that one. Ancient Greeks do not have Levantine ancestry, I don't know how much clearer the paper, or anyone else can make it. Speaking the truth is an insult!?
 
Oh please! Don't start with that one. Ancient Greeks do not have Levantine ancestry, I don't know how much clearer the paper, or anyone else can make it. Speaking the truth is an insult!?

Agree
But sicilians and greek islanders seem to have
It....
They need levant bronze age in mdlp k11 calculator
Do you happen tp know when it got to those areas ?
 
Agree
But sicilians and greek islanders seem to have
It....
They need levant bronze age in mdlp k11 calculator
Do you happen tp know when it got to those areas ?

Must be due to it being a poor calculator. I don't care about what kind of chicanery can be produced by dubious pseudonymous laymen.


Also, as your friend pointed out, Levant_BA are half Anatolian_N/Iran_N.


Flimsy amateur modeling means nothing. The so-called Near Eastern ancestry that comes up, always prefers Anatolian_N & CHG/IN in academic modeling. For Sicilians some preference to Levant_BA could come partly from Moorish contribution. Since Natufian, a major component of Levant_BA, is partly Ancient North African in origin.


Stick to the papers!
 
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.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what Blevins is talking about for that matter.

Of course I am interested in population genetics, otherwise what have I been doing in this hobby for twelve years.

However, if you are implying that I think it's the amount of "steppe" which makes people "European" then you have not understood anything I've written all these years. Modern "genetic Europeans" didn't exist until the Bronze Age. They are a product of the combination of significant amounts of Anatolian Neolithic like farmers, WHG/EHG, and CHG/Iran Neo, plus some minority ancestry.

Never have I attempted to use the particular percentages of any of those ancestral groups to try to deny "European genetic" status to anyone, but I have seen it done many a time, sometimes against Southern Italians, sometimes Greeks, sometimes Spaniards.

IT ALL HAS TO STOP. It is a misuse of population genetics. Differences in the percentage of these component parts don't confer superiority or inferiority in any group. GOT IT?

Now, I think we should get back to the topic of the genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans and use genetic papers to support our positions, not the rantings of a Lebanese Mathematician who apparently doesn't want people to think he's an Arab, or the politically driven Albanian analysis of Balkan history which would seek to make Greeks somehow "other" to Europe, or amateur analyses based on modern populations.

When are some of you going to get the message that even Eurogenes says his modern calculators aren't reliable? Personally, if they're not reliable I doubt the ones based on ancient samples are reliable either. If they were, the results would correlate with all the ones from numerous academic papers.
 
What is you opinion about it: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-mycenaean-and-iron-age-iranian-walk.html

A Mycenaean and an Iron Age Iranian walk into a bar...

What do they have in common? The same type of Near Eastern ancestry? From Iran? Nope, that's a joke. Obviously, they share the same type of steppe ancestry. This probably has some very important linguistic implications.

Wastrel said...

Darn it, site ate my comment!


David: this would indeed be revolutionary.

You say the Mycenaeans were descended from Srubnaya. And that Srubnaya was proto-Iranian. But these two things are obviously incompatible: because we know for certain that Mycenaean was not Iranian, but Greek.

So there are two options: either the Mycenaeans did not speak Greek, or the Srubnayans did not speak Iranian.

On the first: we know the Mycenaeans ended up speaking Greek. But it's possible that they were an Iranian-speaking invader class who were assimilated by their Greek subjects. Notably, the early attestations come from a scribal class, not the rulers themselves. But there's also no actual evidence of this putative Iranian tribe in Greece. By the time we get names, these are recognisably Greek, not Iranian. And if the Srubnaya invaders spoke Iranian, where on earth - given the already small percentage of steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans - did the Greek come from!?

So it seems much more likely that the other end is wrong: Srubnaya didn't speak Iranian. And Srubnaya didn't speak Indo-Iranian. Rather, Srubnaya must have spoken Graeco-Aryan. Which would be massive, because it would require Graeco-Aryan to be true. But it would also throw out everything we thought we knew about timelines. Because it's generally thought that Sintashta is already Indo-Iranian, centuries before Srubnaya. If Graeco-Aryan still hadn't broken up as late as Srubnaya, then that hypothesis goes out the window - and it's such a neat hypothesis!

What's more, it puts a lot of pressure on the Aryans. Because, in turn, if Srubnaya is ancestral to both Greek and Iranian, but we know Iranian is closer to Indo-Aryan than to Greek, that means that Andronovo cannot be Indo-Aryan yet. At least at first (maybe it develops Indo-Aryan later on). But that doesn't give us long to have the Indo-Aryans already established as a largely-assimilated ruling class in Turkey by 1400BC!!

If the Mycenaeans and Iranians were descended from Sintashta, that would be nice. But if they're both descended from Srubnaya, that throws everything into chaos.

So a third option emerges: how absolutely sure can you be that the common ancestor was Srubnaya specifically, and not an earlier Steppe group?
 
I have no idea what you're talking about, or what Blevins is talking about for that matter.

Of course I am interested in population genetics, otherwise what have I been doing in this hobby for twelve years.

However, if you are implying that I think it's the amount of "steppe" which makes people "European" then you have not understood anything I've written all these years. Modern "genetic Europeans" didn't exist until the Bronze Age. They are a product of the combination of significant amounts of Anatolian Neolithic like farmers, WHG/EHG, and CHG/Iran Neo, plus some minority ancestry.

Never have I attempted to use the particular percentages of any of those ancestral groups to try to deny "European genetic" status to anyone, but I have seen it done many a time, sometimes against Southern Italians, sometimes Greeks, sometimes Spaniards.

IT ALL HAS TO STOP. It is a misuse of population genetics. Differences in the percentage of these component parts don't confer superiority or inferiority in any group. GOT IT?

Now, I think we should get back to the topic of the genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans and use genetic papers to support our positions, not the rantings of a Lebanese Mathematician who apparently doesn't want people to think he's an Arab, or the politically driven Albanian analysis of Balkan history which would seek to make Greeks somehow "other" to Europe, or amateur analyses based on modern populations.

When are some of you going to get the message that even Eurogenes says his modern calculators aren't reliable? Personally, if they're not reliable I doubt the ones based on ancient samples are reliable either. If they were, the results would correlate with all the ones from numerous academic papers.

In 12 years, you have seen from all kinds, about the history of Balkans. Many hypothetical scenarios, and you still believe that all this is driven by politics. I believe is a genuine effort to understand from all the parties involved. As I expressed in the past, I believe that Mycenaean come from Anatolia due to their advanced culture, it will be strange that something like that came from the steppe.
In addition after 2017 low steppe DNa provides additional support to this view.


Use evidence, reason, and logic to contradict my views not what will be my reason to have these views. (it seems Trump has affected all with his way of attacking his opponents).

“Don’t speak about the issue but about your opponents”.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
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

Thanks for putting this up since I can’t post any photos, it seems that we are still where it began in 2017. No additional evidence to conclude about these models.




Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Last edited:
The current ancient Greek autosomal genetic “scorecard” has the Mycenaeans and a few Empuries samples (Classical and Hellenistic) that cluster with them, according to Lazaridis.

Thanks to a YouTube link Demetrios previously shared, there are uniparental results from classical Greece that haven’t been published yet, showing one R1b male.

View attachment 12575View attachment 12576
 

Attachments

  • 80EFFC73-5B05-4318-AB49-89612F369469.jpg
    80EFFC73-5B05-4318-AB49-89612F369469.jpg
    123.5 KB · Views: 111
  • 64E37433-EA62-475F-B003-4DCE5E270A55.jpeg
    64E37433-EA62-475F-B003-4DCE5E270A55.jpeg
    113.5 KB · Views: 108
As I expressed in the past, I believe that Mycenaean come from Anatolia due to their advanced culture, it will be strange that something like that came from the steppe.
In addition after 2017 low steppe DNa provides additional support to this view.
Use evidence, reason, and logic to contradict my views not what will be my reason to have these views. (it seems Trump has affected all with his way of attacking his opponents).
Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
Sorry, but this is just ignorant and has been answered multiple times already. Mycenaean Greek is just a branch of Greek, not proto-Greek nor pre-proto-Greek (which pertains to the hypothetical north/south IE migrational route). Also, when you say that Mycenaeans came from Anatolia it's like saying that the rest of the Greek branches also came from Anatolia, yet in the case of Aeolians we are aware of a west-to-east migration, while in the case of Dorians a north-to-south. Forget the fact that Anatolia lacks archaic Greek toponyms. And no, the results of the 2017 paper present indications for the northern route to have been more likely.

How does a small steppe ancestry support this view? First of all, small or big is relative, because by the time the Mycenaean civilization began, pre-proto-Greek-speaking groups had already been in the Greek peninsula for a number of centuries and would have intermixed with the locals thus diluting the original steppe ancestry and linguistically giving rise to proto-Greek (that has a pre-Greek substrate). Furthermore, it's also relative because the ultimate steppe ancestry of the Mycenaeans is calculated between ~4-16% and the proximal source population of that steppe ancestry that is included in the model that shares the most drift with Mycenaeans, namely Europe_LNBA, is calculated at 21%. Now compare this to the negligible amounts of steppe ancestry found in every pre-IA Anatolian sample that has been studied, hence Reich's statement supporting a Transcaucasian PIE hypothesis. Also, look at this following paper,
"The First Horse Herders and the Impact of Early Bronze Age Steppe Expansions into Asia" (2018), which included Anatolian samples from many different periods.

Last, advanced culture? And why do you need to come from Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age to explain advanced culture? You seem to be focusing so much on the steppe ancestry (that is lacking from Anatolia) forgetting that Mycenaeans originated mostly from pre-steppe and pre-IE Aegean populations. Do you forget the neighboring Minoans who were akin to the Mycenaeans (the best model calculates 79% Minoan_Lasithi) or that the latter were greatly influenced by the former? Even their Linear B writing script was adapted from the Minoan Linear A script. Minoans had created one of the few State societies in the world by the time Greeks were beginning to form. Do you really need to move outside the Aegean to explain advanced culture?

4500px-World_in_2000_BC.svg.png
 
Sorry, but this is just ignorant and has been answered multiple times already. Mycenaean Greek is just a branch of Greek, not proto-Greek nor pre-proto-Greek (which pertains to the hypothetical north/south IE migrational route). Also, when you say that Mycenaeans came from Anatolia it's like saying that the rest of the Greek branches also came from Anatolia, yet in the case of Aeolians we are aware of a west-to-east migration, while in the case of Dorians a north-to-south. Forget the fact that Anatolia lacks archaic Greek toponyms. And no, the results of the 2017 paper present indications for the northern route to have been more likely.

How does a small steppe ancestry support this view? First of all, small or big is relative, because by the time the Mycenaean civilization began, pre-proto-Greek-speaking groups had already been in the Greek peninsula for a number of centuries and would have intermixed with the locals thus diluting the original steppe ancestry and linguistically giving rise to proto-Greek (that has a pre-Greek substrate). Furthermore, it's also relative because the ultimate steppe ancestry of the Mycenaeans is calculated between ~4-16% and the proximal source population of that steppe ancestry that is included in the model that shares the most drift with Mycenaeans, namely Europe_LNBA, is calculated at 21%. Now compare this to the negligible amounts of steppe ancestry found in every pre-IA Anatolian sample that has been studied, hence Reich's statement supporting a Transcaucasian PIE hypothesis. Also, look at this following paper,
"The First Horse Herders and the Impact of Early Bronze Age Steppe Expansions into Asia" (2018), which included Anatolian samples from many different periods.

Last, advanced culture? And why do you need to come from Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age to explain advanced culture? You seem to be focusing so much on the steppe ancestry (that is lacking from Anatolia by the way) forgetting that Mycenaeans originated mostly from pre-steppe and pre-IE Aegean populations. Do you forget the neighboring Minoans who were akin to the Mycenaeans (the best model calculates 79% Minoan_Lasithi) or that the latter were greatly influenced by the former? Even their Linear B writing script was adapted from the Minoan Linear A script. Minoans had created one of the few State societies in the world by the time Greeks were beginning to form. Do you really need to move outside the Aegean to explain advanced culture?

4500px-World_in_2000_BC.svg.png

Sorry, out of juice, but that was a good post.
 
Sorry, but this is just ignorant and has been answered multiple times already. Mycenaean Greek is just a branch of Greek, not proto-Greek nor pre-proto-Greek (which pertains to the hypothetical north/south IE migrational route). Also, when you say that Mycenaeans came from Anatolia it's like saying that the rest of the Greek branches also came from Anatolia, yet in the case of Aeolians we are aware of a west-to-east migration, while in the case of Dorians a north-to-south. Forget the fact that Anatolia lacks archaic Greek toponyms. And no, the results of the 2017 paper present indications for the northern route to have been more likely.

How does a small steppe ancestry support this view? First of all, small or big is relative, because by the time the Mycenaean civilization began, pre-proto-Greek-speaking groups had already been in the Greek peninsula for a number of centuries and would have intermixed with the locals thus diluting the original steppe ancestry and linguistically giving rise to proto-Greek (that has a pre-Greek substrate). Furthermore, it's also relative because the ultimate steppe ancestry of the Mycenaeans is calculated between ~4-16% and the proximal source population of that steppe ancestry that is included in the model that shares the most drift with Mycenaeans, namely Europe_LNBA, is calculated at 21%. Now compare this to the negligible amounts of steppe ancestry found in every pre-IA Anatolian sample that has been studied, hence Reich's statement supporting a Transcaucasian PIE hypothesis. Also, look at this following paper,
"The First Horse Herders and the Impact of Early Bronze Age Steppe Expansions into Asia" (2018), which included Anatolian samples from many different periods.

Last, advanced culture? And why do you need to come from Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age to explain advanced culture? You seem to be focusing so much on the steppe ancestry (that is lacking from Anatolia) forgetting that Mycenaeans originated mostly from pre-steppe and pre-IE Aegean populations. Do you forget the neighboring Minoans who were akin to the Mycenaeans (the best model calculates 79% Minoan_Lasithi) or that the latter were greatly influenced by the former? Even their Linear B writing script was adapted from the Minoan Linear A script. Minoans had created one of the few State societies in the world by the time Greeks were beginning to form. Do you really need to move outside the Aegean to explain advanced culture?

4500px-World_in_2000_BC.svg.png

What is ignorant here, the answer together with evidence is not supposed to come from you, all you can provide here is your opinion, but not to me but to someone that care to hear it.

In case you are a researcher, than show this research that answers the questions laid down by Lazaridis 2017, don’t waste my time with all this.....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Greece between 1600 BC-1400 BC
Through most of the Middle Helladic period the Greek mainland had resembled, if we may answer Oliver Dickinson’s question in the affirmative, a “third-world” country when compared to Middle Kingdom Egypt or Minoan Crete. The material remains from Greece show no sign of a formal state, a ranked society, or anything other than a simple village economy.

Parts of the mainland, especially if they had important natural resources, were apparently under the control of the ruler at Knossos. Two hundred years later, ca. 1400 BC, the Greek mainland was home to one of the most important kingdoms in western Eurasia. Knossos and the rest of Crete were now under the control of this mainland kingdom, which was also embarking on expeditions to western Anatolia and Cyprus.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Greece between 1600 BC-1400 BC
Through most of the Middle Helladic period the Greek mainland had resembled, if we may answer Oliver Dickinson’s question in the affirmative, a “third-world” country when compared to Middle Kingdom Egypt or Minoan Crete. The material remains from Greece show no sign of a formal state, a ranked society, or anything other than a simple village economy.

Parts of the mainland, especially if they had important natural resources, were apparently under the control of the ruler at Knossos. Two hundred years later, ca. 1400 BC, the Greek mainland was home to one of the most important kingdoms in western Eurasia. Knossos and the rest of Crete were now under the control of this mainland kingdom, which was also embarking on expeditions to western Anatolia and Cyprus.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


I read all your posts in Forum,

and understand what you want to say? I guess you do not even know what you write,
any way,

Crete is considered the first naval power at 3 continents, offcourse this has to be with geogrphic location,
the first full organised for these eras society, and probably the first which had a full organised merchant and exchange model,
and probably the first that had a Judging system, maybe written, the later Greeks put Minoan Judges at Underworld, and monotheistic religions chnge it with God,

Crete was destroy by Thera volcanoe,

so my Question to you is simple
What you you want to prove every time you post?
you think we do not know history or genetics?

and a second question
are you get payed or work for someones?
 
I read all your posts in Forum,

and understand what you want to say? I guess you do not even know what you write,
any way,

Crete is considered the first naval power at 3 continents, offcourse this has to be with geogrphic location,
the first full organised for these eras society, and probably the first which had a full organised merchant and exchange model,
and probably the first that had a Judging system, maybe written, the later Greeks put Minoan Judges at Underworld, and monotheistic religions chnge it with God,

Crete was destroy by Thera volcanoe,

so my Question to you is simple
What you you want to prove every time you post?
you think we do not know history or genetics?

and a second question
are you get payed or work for someones?

Personal questions again!
My reasons for posting here are probably same as yours, genuine interest for history and genetics.
I serve multiple masters (my clients), considering my profession.

Coming back to Greece 1600 BC.

What happened on the Greek mainland shortly before 1600 BC has recently been summarized by Helène Whittaker: Toward the end of the Middle Helladic period we see a fundamental break with the values of Middle Helladic society. There is an opening up to influences from the wider world, and the presence of rich and exotic grave goods indicates that wealth and conspicuous consumption were starting to become important to the expression and reinforcement of social and political status. In particular, using material culture to advertise contacts with the Minoan elites became a new way for members of the emerging Mycenaean elites to show how rich and powerful they were. In the political sphere, we see the development of a powerful military culture that was expressed through the material elaboration of the lifestyle of the warrior.

Drews argue that this was indeed a fundamental break rather than a development: the military culture, that is, was the result not of a process but of an event, a sudden interruption of the longue durée on the Greek mainland around 1600 BC.

The most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of a ranked society and militarism is that shortly before 1600 BC there arrived in the harbors of the Greek mainland military forces and their leaders. The linguistic argument about wheeled vehicles identifies the language of the intruders as Indo-European.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
What is ignorant here, the answer together with evidence is not supposed to come from you, all you can provide here is your opinion, but not to me but to someone that care to hear it.
In case you are a researcher, than show this research that answers the questions laid down by Lazaridis 2017, don’t waste my time with all this.....
Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
First of all, my opinion is meant to be read not heard. Second, the prior comment you wrote didn't even make sense for the most part and i explained to you why. The irony is that you prompted for the use of reason. If you can't find reason in what i wrote then this was a waste of my time.
 
First of all, my opinion is meant to be read not heard. Second, the prior comment you wrote didn't even make sense for the most part and i explained to you why. The irony is that you prompted for the use of reason. If you can't find reason in what i wrote then this was a waste of my time.

I said use evidence, reason, and logic. The first one is evidence for the topic at hand. Based on evidence we can reason using logic.

It seems that you don’t have new evidence, with what was available in 2017 , Lazaridis was not able to conclude.
On the other side you are certain on the Northern Model. Beyond this point any exchange is repetion of the same.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Personal questions again!
My reasons for posting here are probably same as yours, genuine interest for history and genetics.
I serve multiple masters (my clients), considering my profession.

Coming back to Greece 1600 BC.

What happened on the Greek mainland shortly before 1600 BC has recently been summarized by Helène Whittaker: Toward the end of the Middle Helladic period we see a fundamental break with the values of Middle Helladic society. There is an opening up to influences from the wider world, and the presence of rich and exotic grave goods indicates that wealth and conspicuous consumption were starting to become important to the expression and reinforcement of social and political status. In particular, using material culture to advertise contacts with the Minoan elites became a new way for members of the emerging Mycenaean elites to show how rich and powerful they were. In the political sphere, we see the development of a powerful military culture that was expressed through the material elaboration of the lifestyle of the warrior.

Drews argue that this was indeed a fundamental break rather than a development: the military culture, that is, was the result not of a process but of an event, a sudden interruption of the longue durée on the Greek mainland around 1600 BC.

The most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of a ranked society and militarism is that shortly before 1600 BC there arrived in the harbors of the Greek mainland military forces and their leaders. The linguistic argument about wheeled vehicles identifies the language of the intruders as Indo-European.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


If you ever read my posts, surely you knew what happen,
But No, YOU NEVER READ, the only you want us to do is REAPEAT, REPEAT,

your questions are answered many times,
once again, Read the book of Giannopoulos,
and Georgiev about Hellenic language (proto-Hellenic)

Minoan and Minyan world
greece1500bc.jpg



Mycenean world
1200px-Mycenaean_World_en.png




proto Greek world, the Hellenic,

260px-Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png




and since you never read, I will raise the scale to make it easy to your eyes.


The Minoan eruption was a major catastrophicvolcanic eruptionthat devastated theAegean island of Thera (now called Santorini) in around 1600 BCE.[1]It destroyed the Minoan settlement at Akrotiri, as well as communities and agricultural areas on nearby islands and the coast of Crete with subsequent earthquakes and tsunamis.[2] With a VEI magnitude between 6 and 7, resulting in an ejection of approximately 60 km3 (14 cu mi) of dense-rock equivalent (DRE),[3][4] the eruption was one of the largest volcanic events on Earth in human history.[5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

Now you have your answers,


at the bellow photo you can see the THERA VOLCANIC ASH (pozolane called Theraiki gi, Θηραικη γη) at today Crete

%CE%9B%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF%2B%CE%B8%CE%B7%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%8A%CE%BA%CE%B7%CF%82%2B%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82.jpg
 
I said use evidence, reason, and logic. The first one is evidence for the topic at hand. Based on evidence we can reason using logic.
It seems that you don’t have new evidence, with what was available in 2017 , Lazaridis was not able to conclude.
On the other side you are certain on the Northern Model. Beyond this point any exchange is repetion of the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
The thing is that i am also using evidence, and it's what i have been citing all along. Furthermore, no, i am not certain of the northern route, but it is a matter of weighing information. The reason i am confident in it isn't only due to genetics that seem to favor it, but linguistics and archaeology as well. Some of that information has already been shared in the past in this thread, while other information hasn't. Regardless, as aforementioned a couple of days ago, interdisciplinary analysis is very useful in these kind of questions.
 

This thread has been viewed 1158571 times.

Back
Top