Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

I always thought that the Ancient DNA papers are done within 1-3 years, I never knew that it takes so long.
 
Last edited:
Pontic Greeks are similar to modern Lazes but not identical, they can be modelled as Laz plus 10-15% Ionic. We need samples right before the Greek colonization though to be sure.
Pontic greeks were mostly natives by the black sea who became hellenized culturally.
 
Davidski:
''The Medieval samples that I've seen are from North Macedonia. They look like modern Balkan Slavs.
There's a huge genetic shift in Macedonia from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period to the Middle Ages, and it's obviously a Slavic-inspired shift.
But the Slavs are not like Poles or Ukrainians. They're most similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians etc.''

The up-comming paper is going to reveal that Slavs not Dorians or Goths or Celts are the ultimate source of the northern shift of the Balkans if Davidski is right.
 
As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.
 
Davidski:
''The Medieval samples that I've seen are from North Macedonia. They look like modern Balkan Slavs.
There's a huge genetic shift in Macedonia from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period to the Middle Ages, and it's obviously a Slavic-inspired shift.
But the Slavs are not like Poles or Ukrainians. They're most similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians etc.''

The up-comming paper is going to reveal that Slavs not Dorians or Goths or Celts are the ultimate source of the northern shift of the Balkans if Davidski is right.

He has also shared the following though on his blog and anthrogenica:
'' Expect some significant substructures in the Bronze Age Greek world, mostly along the Mycenaean > Crete Armenoi cline.

So not all of the extra steppe admix in Greeks today is from Slavs, or even the Iron Age and Hellenistic periods.''

and:
''Heard some stuff...

- Mesolithic Greeks are like Barcin farmers (or wrongly dated)

- Bronze Age samples range from quite a bit of steppe (clearly more than the current Mycenaeans) to basically none

- Iron Age/Hellenistic/Roman samples are also very heterogeneous, some clearly Anatolian

Let's wait and see.''

So the few mycenean samples we currently have might not be giving us the whole story, even though they are probably fairly representantive for later Greeks.

Having said that, there are in fact more northern shifted Greeks in the bronze age even. Whether steppe is increased in the early iron age by Dorians it will be interesting to see, but i dont expect much difference. Perhaps it will be more evenly distributed among the samples as a result of admixture with northern Greek tribes but who knows.



 
Yes, well, most of what was published on both those sites about the Moots paper on the ancient Romans before it came out turned out to be wildly inaccurate, so, I'll wait until I have the paper in my hands to draw any conclusions.

Crete Armenoi is Tuscan like. So, making it sound like they had a lot of steppe is silly.
 
He has also shared the following though on his blog and anthrogenica:
'' Expect some significant substructures in the Bronze Age Greek world, mostly along the Mycenaean > Crete Armenoi cline.

So not all of the extra steppe admix in Greeks today is from Slavs, or even the Iron Age and Hellenistic periods.''

and:
''Heard some stuff...

- Mesolithic Greeks are like Barcin farmers (or wrongly dated)

- Bronze Age samples range from quite a bit of steppe (clearly more than the current Mycenaeans) to basically none

- Iron Age/Hellenistic/Roman samples are also very heterogeneous, some clearly Anatolian

Let's wait and see.''

So the few mycenean samples we currently have might not be giving us the whole story, even though they are probably fairly representantive for later Greeks.

Having said that, there are in fact more northern shifted Greeks in the bronze age even. Whether steppe is increased in the early iron age by Dorians it will be interesting to see, but i dont expect much difference. Perhaps it will be more evenly distributed among the samples as a result of admixture with northern Greek tribes but who knows.




Who ever said that all extra steppe admix is from Slavs? In fact Slavs are the most northernmost invaders and migrants (or at least in top 2) in the history of Greece so by taking in consideration Venetians, Albanians and others will only deflate the Myceanean-like admixture in Greeks, because they are closer to Greeks than the Northern Slavs are.

Why is ( formerly mainland-Doric colonized) Calabria the closest to Myceaneans? In fact this Thracian seem to be even closer than Greek Islanders.
Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean
0.04095196 BGR_IA
0.04621737 Italian_Calabria
0.04809307 Italian_Campania
0.04995370 Italian_Apulia
0.04999673 Italian_Basilicata
0.05085882 Sicilian_East
0.05100425 Greek_Kos
0.05364111 Italian_Jew
0.05422879 Italian_Abruzzo
0.05499403 Italian_Molise
0.05562512 Greek_Crete
0.05592299 Greek_Izmir
0.05626354 Maltese
 
As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

By the 9th century Bulgarians might have been Serbian-like. IMO Slavs of Bulgaria before they were mixed with locals were Slovenian-like (but not western) genetically but that is just a bet not something I can prove. I believe the autosomal impact of the Celts and Goths/Germanic people was negligible. Especially for Goths.
 
As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

He is just saying that the Slavic samples in the Republic of Northern Macedonia were like modern Serbs and Romanians, I don't know which time but probably the end of the first millennium.
The Celtic migration in Thrace/Bulgaria happened in the Hellenistic period around 3th century BC.
 
Why is ( formerly mainland-Doric colonized) Calabria the closest to Myceaneans? In fact this Thracian seem to be even closer than Greek Islanders.

The Thracian is closer than Greek islanders are because it is Anatolia Neolithic heavy, like the Myceneans(they too had anatolian bronze age admixture just less), compared to islanders and south italians, both of which require aditional steppe and anatolia bronze age admixture to get to their modern position.

Peloponnesians can be modeled with more Mycenean than either islanders or south Italians (as would one expect),but this is not the point, since if what Davidski says is true the ancient Greeks were quite heterogeneous (as you saw he mentioned some samples with clear origin from Anatolia). I dont know what pre greek southern Italy was like before the Greeks came, nor do i know what the majority of the Greeks settling there were like. Looking at modern samples of relatively similar populations will be of little use for the matter at hand. Rhodes was also Doric but their genetic base is mostly anatolia bronze age unlike the more Anatolia Neolithic heavy base of peloponessians (meaning pre slavic Peloponnesians were different than pre slavic rhodians, so them beign in antiquity both Doric means little). Chances are this was the case before the mycenaeans settled there even, but we'll see.

Who ever said that all extra steppe admix is from Slavs? In fact Slavs are the most northernmost invaders and migrants (or at least in top 2) in the history of Greece so by taking in consideration Celts, Venetians, Albanians and other will only deflate the Myceanean-like admixture in Greeks, because they are closer to Greeks than the Northern Slavs are.

Not every single documented migration or presence of peoples in an area leaves a genetic trace, nor does lack of documentation of this sort, mean there was no admixture. I find this sort of speculation tiresome and definitely not in any way illuminating, so how about we wait for the actual data? Im just adding what Davidski said in regards to Greece as you referenced him in regards to the balkans.I dont know if what he says is acurate, or even if my reading of it is, since the information is rather vague. We will see when the relevant data is out.

This should interest you as wel since it is also relevant to the albanians, as the pre-Slavic ancestor of the albanians were likelly similar to the pre-Slavic ancestors of the greeks, seeing as albanians are more southeastern compared to the western Balkan samples we have and do require additional Slavic as wel. I do recall him saying in an anthrogenica thread that most of the preslavic population was similar to the bulgaria iron age sample but with more steppe but i cant be bothered to check rn.

Also for the record i do believe there is substantial slavic admixture in greece. Something like 30% for most of the mainland from a Serbian like source would make sense. Propably more for the north and Albania. But again, useless to speculate, wait for the data.
 
Crete Armenoi is Tuscan like. So, making it sound like they had a lot of steppe is silly.

I dont think he was meaning to make it sound like they had a lot of steppe admixture. If i recall correctly the Armenoi sample had something like 30% steppe which is about as much or slightly less than most mainlanders. Its a low quality sample so calculators are bound to go crazy, but on the pca it looked closer to greeks, or about as close to Greeks as to Tuscans. Ofc he is suggesting that as the upper limit with other samples having no steppe at all. So its unlikelly all classical Greeks had as much steppe. Something between the Armenoi sample and the Mycenaean samples we have would probably still land closer to south italians on a pca.

Anyway i only brought up those rumors as a response to ihypes rumors about the Balkans, since i thought they were relevant. When the studies actually come out we will be able to see for ourselves.
 
30% steppe in Armenoi seems too high, as per the admixture proportions in the paper. Bergamasques are about 30% Steppe, Armenoi is south of Tuscans:

TUYnCiv.png


jGccOmU.png
 
As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

The Serbs are not Slavs!!!!??? This says it all. They are definitely Slavs and have absorbed Balkanite populations, while the Romanians are the opposite.....Balkanites that have absorbed Slavic population.

As for the Dorians, we still have to identify a northern Dorian grave. There is still a huge debate and no general agreement where they came from.
For me Dorians are typically Hallstatt.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Crete Armenoi certainly has more Steppe-related ancestry than Mycenaeans, but Crete Armenoi is also a low quality sample, so it is impossible to know exactly where she plots in a PCA and how much Steppe-related ancestry she has.
 
30% steppe in Armenoi seems too high, as per the admixture proportions in the paper. Bergamasques are about 30% Steppe, Armenoi is south of Tuscans:

TUYnCiv.png


jGccOmU.png

Exactly right. Assuming the analysis of Crete Armenoi is close to correct (given it's not a very good sample) we're talking about 25% or less.

Thanks for producing actual data, which we certainly don't get from those two sites when they're engaging in their wild speculations, unless, of course, it's their own amateurish, often totally wrong "modeling".

That's why I'm not going down this rabbit hole. No time to waste on it. If these new samples are all post Slavic migrations they tell us nothing about how the people of Bronze Age Greece or Iron Age Greece or even Classical Era Greece might have varied autosomally. We need samples from THOSE PERIODS to know that.

Likewise, if that's the case, and as "iluvater" said, we can have no idea what the various settlers of Southern Italy might have been like.

For the record, I still think it's highly unlikely that some of the earliest Greek speakers were "just like Corded Ware". :)

What they do tell us, again, if they're even relaying the information correctly, is that North Macedonians were like Serbians and Romanians at that particular period. I don't get why that's surprising.

Today, Macedonians are barely different from Romanians and Bulgarians. The ones who are more "northern" or "Slavic" in comparison are the Serbs. IF Serbs and Romanians of that time period WERE very similar, what happened? More migration of Slavs into Serbia following that period? More upward flow of Greek like people in Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria? A bigger pool of pre-Slav "locals" in Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Romania? I have no idea and neither can anyone else. NO ONE has a crystal ball, not even Blevins. Only more samples will tell.

If people want to speculate, I suppose they can speculate about that, although, again, given the garbled junk that was posted before the Moots paper came out, I would personally be wary about that.

030619-02-Genetic-History-DNA-Europe-1024x536.png
 
The Serbs are not Slavs!!!!??? This says it all. They are definitely Slavs and have absorbed Balkanite populations, while the Romanians are the opposite.....Balkanites that have absorbed Slavic population.

As for the Dorians, we still have to identify a northern Dorian grave. There is still a huge debate and no general agreement where they came from.
For me Dorians are typically Hallstatt.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
We already have a number of Dorian samples that are pending analysis. Also, there is no huge or academic debate about the Greekness of Dorian Greeks, this is already established. Furthermore, Dorians cannot represent a Hallstatt population, when even their dialect (and Greek in general) is absent of any noticeable Celtic substrate. Genetics will surely validate all these when the relative samples get published, especially when you also consider the Mycenaean and ancient Thracian samples that are already published. They cannot be that different, and my guess is that Dorians will be somewhere in the middle between these two, per geographic distribution. Writing that Dorians are typically Hallstatt is like writing that they are typically proto-Celtic or Celtic, which is of course not true.
 
We already have a number of Dorian samples that are pending analysis. Also, there is no huge or academic debate about the Greekness of Dorian Greeks, this is already established. Furthermore, Dorians cannot represent a Hallstatt population, when even their dialect (and Greek in general) is absent of any noticeable Celtic substrate. Genetics will surely validate all these when the relative samples get published, especially when you also consider the Mycenaean and ancient Thracian samples that are already published. They cannot be that different, and my guess is that Dorians will be somewhere in the middle between these two, per geographic distribution. Writing that Dorians are typically Hallstatt is like writing that they are typically proto-Celtic or Celtic, which is of course not true.

I know your views, but we do not know yet what is true. I expressed my views, I have no intention to take away the Greekness of Dorians.

As for where Dorians came from questions

Read this and close the gap if you know the answer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
I know your views, but we do not know yet what is true. I expressed my views, I have no intention to take away the Greekness of Dorians.

As for where Dorians came from questions

Read this and close the gap if you know the answer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
I am already familiar with that article. In short, there seems to have been a southward migration from northern Greek tribes such as the Dorians sometime during the Bronze Age collapse and Early Iron Age. This is the prevalent view today, and it makes sense linguistically. Listen to what Eric Cline mentions a couple of months ago in this small video that relates, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ2gT9HQy7Q. Also, take note of what is written here, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page87?p=606408&viewfull=1#post606408.
 
As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

Paternally I would say you are incorrect. A good chunk of their fatherlines come from the north east, as some of these types of R1a and I2-M423 have not shown up in the area until < 2000 ybp. Even going back to the age estimates, this still pans out, at least for the relevant downstream I2-M423 guys, it's been demonstrated with the TMRCA. Then there is the IBD sharing that was shown a few years back. The impact of this autosomally may be minor, showing only a minor shift northwards. We know that Yamnaya ancestry predates these events.
 
Paternally I would say you are incorrect. A good chunk of their fatherlines come from the north east, as some of these types of R1a and I2-M423 have not shown up in the area until < 2000 ybp. Even going back to the age estimates, this still pans out, at least for the relevant downstream I2-M423 guys, it's been demonstrated with the TMRCA. Then there is the IBD sharing that was shown a few years back. The impact of this autosomally may be minor, showing only a minor shift northwards. We know that Yamnaya ancestry predates these events.

Where did I ever say that men in the Balkans don't carry R1a and I2-M423?

Where did I ever say that the Slavic migrations didn't occur?

The fact that the I2-M43 "guys" might have arrived as early as the first millennium BC doesn't mean they were Slavs or "Slavic like" autosomally. You have any samples of migrants into the Balkans that early that carry that signature and are autosomally "Slavic like"?

This is once again assumption upon assumption when we don't even know if the leaks are correct.

Plus, do I have to say again how unreliable y dna is as to total autosomal make-up. My father was U-152. People from his area are "completely" North Central Italian autosomally.

Sorry, but to me it's always the same reliance on inappropriate data and then drawing illogical conclusions from it.

Participated in all the discussions on the Moots paper before it was published? This is like deja-vu all over again to quote the great Yogi Berra. :)

You seem like a smart guy. Why do you fall for this bilge over and over again?
 

This thread has been viewed 1158621 times.

Back
Top