Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

"That's a very optimistic view. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever in the paper that there's even 1% genetic continuity between present-day Greeks and any ancient Greek population, let alone the MBA northern Aegeans." - Davidski
0BDO2GV.png

That's some serious delusion. Not even 1%? LMAO. I wonder why he is so salty at Greeks. The name of the post too," beware of Greeks bearing gifts" :LOL::LOL::LOL: . That is cringe.
The very paper of this post proves some continuity.
Then this paper "The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421003706 proves continuity, which he even quoted.
Don't know what to say.

I don’t really see anything wrong in what he says:

Last paragraph:

Obviously, it's fair enough to assume that there's been some genetic continuity in the Aegean from the Iron Age, Bronze Age, and even the Copper Age and Neolithic era to the present-day. But the point I'm making is that no one has yet proved this, or even attempted to measure it properly.




Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Greek continuity from the BA cannot be evaluated properly with the crumbs of data that has been made available so far. Data from IA to the Late Middle Ages is completely lacking. We only have a limited amount of BA samples, and modern samples from Greece (very few used in studies for some reason).

The Antonio et al paper on Rome showed how modern results overlapping with IA or BA ones are not necessarily indicative of the former being descendant of the latter, as modern samples there overlap with IA and Republic-era results, but the intermediate periods show significant south-eastern and then north-western shifts. The authors attributed this to migrants from the East Mediterranean first, and from Central Europe later (which was not well-taken here I remember). So the overlap between IA and modern samples was at least partially coincidental. If we had from Rome, only the amount of data we have from Greece, many would now be speaking about genetic continuity from the Iron Age to today.

So far, it can only be said that modern Greeks are among the European peoples who plot near samples from BA Greece. This hints, at the very least, to shared ancestry between modern Greeks and those samples, but this could be due to either modern Greeks descending of those BA populations, or of other populations that had similar ancestry components, or (more likely) both. But it does not prove either possibility. Just like in Rome, it may be that the modern and BA similarity has a more complex explanation.

There are already small hints that favor a similar scenario in mainland Greece, while the islands may have been largely unaffected. We now know that Steppe-related ancestry arrived to the Aegean during MBA, as it is missing from earlier periods. Therefore, new samples from MBA mainland Greece likely represent some of the most Steppe-like prehistoric populations of the region, and such ancestry was almost certainly subsequently diluted through admixture with non-Steppe peoples of the Aegean. In fact, Mycenean samples of the Late Bronze Age already show diminished Steppe-related ancestry, and this trend probably continued through the IA and into Antiquity. So if the latest study showed that modern mainland Greeks can be modeled as the heavily Steppe MBA samples with some additional Steppe ancestry, it is probable that a larger Steppe-related component is required to model them with IA or Classical period Ancient Greeks, which would suggest important influxes from the north in subsequent periods.
 
Many people on these types of forums keep lauding the Empuries samples as some sort of Gold Standard for "Greekness." I believe these colonists came from Phocaea--which was in Asia Minor for crying out loud. Not to mention the fact the this city had already fallen under Persian rule; not to mention the fact that the native Iberian-type people were already Mycenaean-like.
Many of these anthro-nerds are very quick to label any Greek outside modern Greece as "Hellenized" yet in pretty much the same breath will cite the Empuries. Somehow, given the above, only these "pure ancient Greeks" survived trip and settlement across almost the entire Med unmolested LOL
The northern influence is western, not eastern Balkan (not to say that there was no contact with Thracians). Even today the eastern side of the Balkans is more Med than the western.
And rumors don't count for anything.
You can make excuses but nothing progressive to prove your case has ever been found since 2017. Maybe you are right but still but there is no evidence yet.
Iberians were not at all Mycenaean-like even Bronze Age Sicilian were not LOL.
I don't think Anatolian or Iberian admixture would help Classical Greeks come closer to Mycenaeans (assuming they were different) but that is just me.
If those Empuries samples were more northern shifted they would be the Gold Standart for you.
 
Last edited:
Yo, Jovialis. I asked you about the quote. The quote didn't even mention continuity. I am not defending Davidski here. As you should know by now we kind of are backing the same horse(hypothesis) here.

The quote stated Myceneans + Anatolians/Levant imigrants + Slavs.
And it all checks out.
As for the 0 genetic continuity from his other quotes, you can see my response to that in the previous post, aka :facepalm: .


RHf00zW.png

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

snbMecd.png


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

Let me know if you want more sources.

PS: 1.22 Million "Orthodox Greeks" came from Anatolia in a single exchange as close to today as 1922. The 400 000 "Turkish Muslims" were mostly Albanians. You do the math 1.2/5.3mln how much dilution that is.

Do you know if by Anatolian migrants he means ancient/pre-turkic conquest Anatolians or the migrants of the population exchange ?
If he means the latter... Probably he doesn't know that the majority of Western Anatolian/Ionian Greeks that were exchanged in 1923 descent from people from all over the Greek speaking world ( mostly from the Aegean Islands and the southern half of the mainland ) that poured there after the 17th century...
 
Do you know if by Anatolian migrants he means ancient/pre-turkic conquest Anatolians or the migrants of the population exchange ?
If he means the latter... Probably he doesn't know that the majority of Western Anatolian/Ionian Greeks that were exchanged in 1923 descent from people from all over the Greek speaking world ( mostly from the Aegean Islands and the southern half of the mainland ) that poured there after the 17th century...

The discussion is about classical Greek samples, some of which cluster with Cypriots.
 
The discussion is about classical Greek samples, some of which cluster with Cypriots.
I think we can say "some of which cluster with Cypriots" if and only if some do after the paper has been published.
For now they are just a rumours for a guy who hasn't shown himself to be trustworthy.
 
I think we can say "some of which cluster with Cypriots" if and only if some do after the paper has been published.
For now they are just a rumours for a guy who hasn't shown himself to be trustworthy.

There were some Anatolians in Classical Greece, Herodotus himself was half Carian. Depends on which place, for example Classical Age Epirus probably had pratically no post-Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry, while many Aegean Islands did.
Were those Anatolians outliers? If not where they limited to only some regions? Which regions? How populous were those regions? In most eastern shifted regions of Classical Greece were those Anatolian-like profiles 50% or 10%? So many questions. I don't think those can be solved. This is why I dislike heterogenous results.
 
The discussion is about classical Greek samples, some of which cluster with Cypriots.

So, using bronze age and some possibly classical antiquity samples with little to no Steppe and then adding a late antiquity/early middle ages NE population like Slavs to suck up all the excess "Steppe" in modern Greek populations ?
I don't doubt that they were important contributors to the genetic makeup of Greeks (and Albanians ) but with so few samples and the, as I understand, inherent difficulty of separating Steppe sources wouldn't it be better to wait at least until the official publication of the upcoming papers ?
 
The "Levantine" canard that anthrogenica/eurogenes that is pushing falls flat against reality. The Sarno et al. 2017 paper that they use even verifies what I have been saying,

"we identify traces of Post-Neolithic Levantine- and Caucasus-related ancestries (Sarno et al. 2017)"

This is not the +20% garbage some bad actor have been peddling.
 
There were some Anatolians in Classical Greece, Herodotus himself was half Carian. Depends on which place, for example Classical Age Epirus probably had pratically no post-Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry, while many Aegean Islands did.
Were those Anatolians outliers? If not where they limited to only some regions? Which regions? How populous were those regions? In most eastern shifted regions of Classical Greece were those Anatolian-like profiles 50% or 10%? So many questions. I don't think those can be solved. This is why I dislike heterogenous results.

That's exactly the point.


It should be noted that Herodotus was considered Greek in his own right. But people with his mixed profile were not at all uncommon in the Greek world.


Not to mention Greeks from Ionia who settled for centuries in Anatolia. It is impossible that they had not at least partly mixed with the Luwians, Lycians, Lydians, Carians.
 
Don't understand the point
Modern greek do have slavic admixture
Its not like davidski discover america 😅
 
I think we are missing the point. In looking at the difference between the Mycenaean and modern Greek samples we clearly notice that the modern Greeks have more Steppe and more Eastern Mediterranean ancestry. Now Dawidski claims that some classical Greeks were Cypriot like. We also know that modern Cypriots resemble Ancient Anatolians. So the EEF admixture could have come from Anatolia. It makes sense. Mycenaen Greece was largely in the South of mainland Greece. In the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, the western part of Anatolia became part of the Greek cultural mainframe. Starting 1000 B.C. the Greek world consisted of both sides of the Aegean. The Trojans and other Anatolian people were absorbed into the Hellenic mainframe. Indeed, there may have been ancient Greeks who had Trojan (Dardanian) ancestry. Another factor could be the Dorians. Some historians mentioned that they were descendants of the Trojans. Perhaps they had lots of East Med ancestry.
We have to understand that Greeks have always been in the making. The Greek world of Alexander or Plato was not the exact same world as that of Achilles and Odysseus. And so their genetics was not static, but slowly shifting, adding new elements into their genetic mainframe.

Either way, we have a missing link of the puzzle. We know that some classical Greeks had East Med (Cypriot-like) ancestry. So it is only logical the modern Greeks should have elevated East Med levels compared to the Mycenaeans. It seems to me that the more pieces of the puzzle we have, the closer we get to the modern Greeks.

I also notice on the eurogenes blog that some people have no good understanding of Greek history. Some argued that the East Med in modern Greeks came with the population exchange. While in reality there were whole regions in Greece which did not receive any influx of these Greek refugees from Asia Minor.There are many Greeks who are aware of not having any ancestry from the refugees from Asia Minor. Yet, all Greeks have elevated East Med levels compared to Mycenaens. So do some classical Greeks according to Davinski.
 
At this point I feel Greek Academy of Genetics/Anthropology or its equivalent is to blame. I do not bu*y that they do not have ancient samples from LBA/Classical(Iron)/Late Classical/ Early Middle Ages / Middle Ages etc from such a region with rich historical baggage.

One thing I do not agree with Davidski is that we don't even have 1% proof of continuity. Statistically speaking, getting to an autosomal mix similar to modern Greeks without at least 1% (realistically much much more) Ancient local DNA is impossible (0% probability). That's what I find ridiculous. Finding properly mixed ANE/STEPPE/CHG etc populations to go through the generational permutations without some local component I find impossible to believe.

Is the proof enough for proper continuity atm, or to gauge the level of continuity? Not enough to convince everyone aparently. So what would be proof enough? As many in this thread have pointed out we need more samples analyzed across the timeline from the region. The samples are there, or at least they have to be. When the Greek agencies, anthropologists and geneticist make the data available everything will be clear.

And I guarantee you there will be much more than <1% continuity, as Davidski is claiming right now. Thinking otherwise is disingenuous.
 
At this point I feel Greek Academy of Genetics/Anthropology or its equivalent is to blame. I do not bu*y that they do not have ancient samples from LBA/Classical(Iron)/Late Classical/ Early Middle Ages / Middle Ages etc from such a region with rich historical baggage.

One thing I do not agree with Davidski is that we don't even have 1% proof of continuity. Statistically speaking, getting to an autosomal mix similar to modern Greeks without at least 1% (realistically much much more) Ancient local DNA is impossible (0% probability). That's what I find ridiculous. Finding properly mixed ANE/STEPPE/CHG etc populations to go through the generational permutations without some local component I find impossible to believe.

Is the proof enough for proper continuity atm, or to gauge the level of continuity? Not enough to convince everyone aparently. So what would be proof enough? As many in this thread have pointed out we need more samples analyzed across the timeline from the region. The samples are there, or at least they have to be. When the Greek agencies, anthropologists and geneticist make the data available everything will be clear.

And I guarantee you there will be much more than <1% continuity, as Davidski is claiming right now. Thinking otherwise is disingenuous.

I think you are being a little bit hard on Greek academies.
Not many academies have done extensive research on DNA of the inhabitants of the Bronze Age in their region. Where would Greek universities get the funding for these kinds of research post 2010 Greek economic crisis? Not that simple. There were many Greek cities in Albania or Turkey. They could easily extract ancient Greek DNA.
 
I think you are being a little bit hard on Greek academies.
Not many academies have done extensive research on DNA of the inhabitants of the Bronze Age in their region. Where would Greek universities get the funding for these kinds of research post 2010 Greek economic crisis? Not that simple. There were many Greek cities in Albania or Turkey. They could easily extract ancient Greek DNA.

Correct. But as you know the cost of sequencing genomes and Y-DNA deep test has exponentially plummeted since 2010.



Meanwhile the first genome sequence "At the lower bound, it would seem that this cost figure is at least $500 million; at the upper bound, this cost figure could be as high as $1 billion. The truth is likely somewhere in between." --- "The originally projected cost for the U.S.'s contribution to the HGP was $3 billion; in actuality, the Project ended up taking less time (~13 years rather than ~15 years) and requiring less funding - ~$2.7 billion." --- "based on these data, NHGRI estimated that the hypothetical 2003 cost to generate a 'second' reference human genome sequence using the then-available approaches and technologies was in the neighborhood of $50 million."

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Sequencing-Human-Genome-cost
SequencingCost_per_Mb_%20Feb2019.png

NHGRISequencing_Cost_per_Genome_Aug2020.jpg


If amateur projects can raise funds to sequence genomes as a hobby. I do not see how a 200 bln GDP economy can not fund 50k-100k projects.

Besides that point. I get what you mean.
 
I think you are being a little bit hard on Greek academies.
Not many academies have done extensive research on DNA of the inhabitants of the Bronze Age in their region. Where would Greek universities get the funding for these kinds of research post 2010 Greek economic crisis? Not that simple. There were many Greek cities in Albania or Turkey. They could easily extract ancient Greek DNA.

I totally agree with this. First comes the funding. The Greeks don't have to prove anything to Daviski or the regional Balkanites that are desperately trying to prove that they were here even before the Greeks and they are pure. There were a lot of artists, pottery artisans, sculptors, goldsmiths that came from all over the known world to Athens and the other major urban centers of the Ancient Greek World. I am sure that they were admixed with the locals. They all contributed to the Ancient Greek culture and were absorbed into the mainstream. I am sure that in the mountainous villages of Greece and elsewhere you can find pure locals but in the urban centers fat chance.

Also all of these studies and the commercial ancestry sites use reference groups that are at least 3 generations local on both sides to filter out recent migrants. It is not just Pontic Greeks and Cappadocian Greeks that cam over from what is now Turkey although some people like to concentrate on those. There were Greek speaking people from the Aegean Coast of Turkey and Constantinople, Eastern Thrace and Northern Thrace (East Romylia). All of those bring a different genetic makeup.
 
Not heavily ..:rolleyes:
But it is for sure there ( slavic admixture)
Lowest in maniots and geting higher as you go north...
Historically there were slavic tribes in greece
They were not able to change the language completely like in bulgaria with the thracians
But they left genetic mark ... :unsure:

Let us wait for this paper and see were classical greek samples will be autosomally...

P.s
I do agree with you though that if he claim that is not even 1 % continue with ancient greeks
That is crazy ( i guess i mised that thing)
and he need to woke up and see reality

Yes, that was the point I was making. I think to deny some Slavic ancestry in some Greeks, especially in the north is wrong. But to broadly say Modern Greeks are basically a two-way mix of Slavs and recent-Cypriots, while questioning even 1% of continuity to the ancient past, is just weird, and dubious.
 
Yes, that was the point I was making. I think to deny some Slavic ancestry in some Greeks, especially in the north is wrong. But to broadly say Modern Greeks are basically a two-way mix of Slavs and recent-Cypriots, while questioning even 1% of continuity to the ancient past, is just weird, and dubious.


Here is a dna paper who extriminate fallmayer theory :)

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718
 

This thread has been viewed 1161901 times.

Back
Top