Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Literally 90 % of content in these forum debates regarding the Y-DNA and autosomal admixture is made from the perspective of posters ethnicity, then also hg's etc.

So Shamiri, a Persian, is trying to appropriate J2a for his own ethnicity/civilisation. So J2a in Greeks is not Minoan related but rather should have arrived to there with some Persian-like proto-IE group. Has it occurred to Shamiri that proto-Persians are just an offshoot of Central Asian Nomadic proto-Iranics who invaded the Iranian Plateau 3000-3500 years ago, settled and mixed with the J2a carrying and other natives. Persians carry a minority autosomal Steppe Iranic/Andronovo element, mostly represented by Persian R1a Z93 clades.

J2a clades already diversified 15 k + years ago, and it's clear that vast majority of Greek J2a has no relation to IE's, but it does to Minoan, and other movements.

Though as there are so many J2a clades, some of them had different paths such has one Turkic/nomadic clade.

Minoans had J-M319 for ex., I believe there are modern Cretans who are at least predicted as M319+. M319 itself is pretty old.
 
If this is still Lazaridis' opinion, then it doesn't match with Georgievs North Eprirus proto-Greek theory.
Lazaridis simply wrote that both models are currently on the table, not that he supports an Anatolian over a Northern route. He says we need more samples. Furthermore, in the very supplementary information of the paper we read, "However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA model represents the true history.". All of these indicate a Northern route.

Second, even if we indeed had an Anatolian route instead of a Northern, this still wouldn't negate linguistic evidence nor the proto-Greek model of northwestern Greece. Even in that case proto-Greeks could end up in northwestern Greece, and it would actually be the most likely scenario even in that Anatolian route hypothesis.

Third, it isn't just genetics and linguistics but also archaeology that corroborates a Northern route, whether we are to refer to the "Četina phenomenon" or the "Balkano-Lower Danubian" complex, therefore further corroborating the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA model mentioned above by the paper. Then, as Lazaridis also writes, the thing that lets open the possibility for both a Northern and an Anatolian route has to do with the autosomal profile of pre-Greeks, and whether they were Anatolia_N or Minoan-like (Anatolia_N+Armenia). Take note that the second is also similar to many of the Anatolian autosomal profiles, something that is also hinted by the paper which even states that it existed in Anatolia from at least ~3,800 BCE, plus the following, "
ADMIXTURE analysis (Extended Data Fig. 1) shows that both Minoans and Mycenaeans possess a ‘pink’ genetic component (K=8 and greater) as do Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians, Neolithic Central Anatolians from Tepecik-Çiftlik, a Chalcolithic northwestern Anatolian, and western Anatolians from Kumtepe. This component is maximized in the Mesolithic/Neolithic samples from Iran and hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Extended Data Fig. 1). It is not found in the Neolithic of northwestern Anatolia, Greece, or the Early/Middle Neolithic populations of the rest of Europe, only appearing in the populations of the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age in mainland Europe, introduced there by migration from the Eurasian steppe.". Last, we also have linguistic indications for an Anatolian pre-Greek presence in Greece as i have written in previous posts, therefore also corroborating the Minoan_Lasithi component over the Anatolia_N one, indirectly. The paper also suggests it with the following, "This analysis shows that all Bronze Age populations from the Aegean and Anatolia derived most (~62–86%) of their ancestry from an Anatolian Neolithic-related population (Table 1). However, they also had a component (~9–32%) of ‘eastern’ (Caucasus/Iran-related) ancestry. It was previously shown that this type of ancestry was introduced into mainland Europe via Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe who were a mix of both eastern European hunter-gathers and populations from the Caucasus and Iran; our results show that it also arrived on its own, at least in the Minoans, without eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry. This ancestry need not have arrived from regions east of Anatolia, as it was already present during the Neolithic in central Anatolia at Tepecik-Çiftlik (Supplementary Information, section 2)."
 
Has it occurred to Shamiri that proto-Persians are just an offshoot of Central Asian Nomadic proto-Iranics who invaded the Iranian Plateau 3000-3500 years ago, settled and mixed with the J2a carrying and other natives.
Edit: Mistaken post, i deleted it. (3000-3500 years ago pertains to 1500 BCE)
 
The Doric steppe/germanic thing in southern Greece is not going to happen, let it go.
You cannot expect an ancient Lakonian to plot north or even close to a Northern Thracian. And speaking of regional differences the Iron Age Thracian is from Northern Bulgaria, were there any regional differences in Thrace?
 
The Doric steppe/germanic thing in southern Greece is not going to happen, let it go.
You cannot expect an ancient Lakonian to plot north or even close to a Northern Thracian. And speaking of regional differences the Iron Age Thracian is from Northern Bulgaria, were there any regional differences in Thrace?
To whom are you responding? By the way, i agree with you as we discussed this one and a half month ago. To answer your question, yes, there were different branches of Thracians and specifically northern Bulgaria was inhabited by the branch of Moesi. Although, Dzhulyunitsa (where the sample was found) is probably at the borders of Moesia and Thracia proper. Furthermore, the supplementary information of "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018) doesn't provide any additional relevant information. Just the following:
"
I5769 / No 8 (Iron Age, grave 9) - Sub-adult female. This Iron Age burial was found in an oval pit in sq. 3611. The skeleton in flexed position and is turned to the east. Orientation of the body is SE-NW, with the head to SE. The grave inventory consists of ornamental beads and 21 metal (probably copper) ornaments smaller than 5 mm.".
Maybe we can corroborate a specific identity by considering and comparing the burial practices of Thracians proper and Moesi with the above description, though i am unfamiliar with that subject.
 
To whom are you responding? By the way, i agree with you as we discussed this one and a half month ago. To answer your question, yes, there were different branches of Thracians and specifically northern Bulgaria was inhabited by the branch of Moesi. Although, Dzhulyunitsa (where the sample was found) is probably at the borders of Moesia and Thracia proper. Furthermore, the supplementary information of "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018) doesn't provide any additional relevant information. Just the following:
"
I5769 / No 8 (Iron Age, grave 9) - Sub-adult female. This Iron Age burial was found in an oval pit in sq. 3611. The skeleton in flexed position and is turned to the east. Orientation of the body is SE-NW, with the head to SE. The grave inventory consists of ornamental beads and 21 metal (probably copper) ornaments smaller than 5 mm.".
Maybe we can corroborate a specific identity by considering and comparing the burial practices of Thracians proper and Moesi with the above description, though i am unfamiliar with that subject.
It would be great to know how the southern ones plot.
 
It would be great to know how the southern ones plot.
It would be great, and i am sure that within this decade plenty of relevant samples will be published. But in the absence of samples i always tend to hypothesize based on respective geographical distribution, and thus i don't imagine Thracians proper (even the ones close to the coast) being much different than maybe having a little drift to the south.
 
No, Minoans are largely indigenous to the Aegean (~62–86%), with the exception of that "eastern" (Caucasus/Iran-related) or CHG (Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer) autosomal component mentioned in the paper that ranges between ~9-32%. Their linguistic classification is another matter, and currently hypothetical. The similar autosomal profile of the Greek mainland to that of Crete, is a purely genetic matter, and yes, prior of the IE proto-Greek arrival and its subsequent branches that moved south, much of the central and southern Greek mainland seems to have had an Anatolian linguistic presence (be it IE, pre-IE, or Hurro-Urartian). As for Hurro-Urartians, they lived in a broad region encompassing northern Syria, eastern Anatolia, and Transcaucasia. Plus, i believe you have misunderstood what i shared in relation to the Mycenaeans being modeled as a mix of Minoan_Lasithi and Europe_LNBA. Minoan_Lasithi doesn't pertain necessarily to actual Minoans from Crete, but a similar autosomal profile that existed on the mainland.

It's possible LinearA contains a form of Kartvelian. I'm going to propose a paper on this issue.
Note that Crete and Kart-velian have the same consonants, this may not be a chance coincidence.
 
It would be great, and i am sure that within this decade plenty of relevant samples will be published. But in the absence of samples i always tend to hypothesize based on respective geographical distribution, and thus i don't imagine Thracians proper (even the ones close to the coast) being much different than maybe having a little drift to the south.
That's how I see it too.
 
The Doric steppe/germanic thing in southern Greece is not going to happen, let it go.
You cannot expect an ancient Lakonian to plot north or even close to a Northern Thracian. And speaking of regional differences the Iron Age Thracian is from Northern Bulgaria, were there any regional differences in Thrace?

How do you explain urnfield burials......?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
It's possible LinearA contains a form of Kartvelian. I'm going to propose a paper on this issue.
Note that Crete and Kart-velian have the same consonants, this may not be a chance coincidence.

But is that an endonym or an exonym? Egyptian sources, two of which even have approximate transliteration of entire sentences in what they said was the language of Cretans, named Crete Keftiu. Wasn't it likely that the Minoans themselves called their island something like Keftiu​ instead of Crete?
 
I am only aware of the Greek paper that i mentioned in this thread some four months ago. As has already been mentioned, some of those samples have been shown in a preliminary presentation almost two and a half years ago, and will be part of an actual publication that is expected in the next two-three years. Here is the small exchange that i had with the scientist who made the presentation.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page79?p=597576&viewfull=1#post597576
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page80?p=597717&viewfull=1#post597717
Now, the paper will probably include Greek samples from a number of periods. I say this because the scientist confirms in his message that there are additional samples for analysis, plus, in the preliminary presentation which you can watch here
, and specifically on the relevant table shown at 14:17, Greek samples from four different timelines and locations are shown. Namely, a Neolithic (6000 BCE) sample from Peloponnese, an EBA/MBA (3300-1600 BCE) sample from Lefkada, many samples from the Classical Greek (478-430 BCE) city of ancient Ambracia, and two Byzantine Greek (11th century CE) samples from Heraklion in Crete.

Eurogenes says a Mycenaean R1b-M269 sample exists and might be released in an upcoming study later this year, and that there’s no R1a yet in Mycenaean samples.
 
Eurogenes says a Mycenaean R1b-M269 sample exists and might be released in an upcoming study later this year, and that there’s no R1a yet in Mycenaean samples.
You just reminded me to update you on something i learned on Monday and had totally forgotten about it. After our little exchange on Saturday, i decided to re-watch the aforementioned preliminary presentation by Nikos Psonis, and at the end of it i learned something that i hadn't grasped the first time i watched it. Psonis actually states after 23:52 that a future publication will show the relationship between Archaic/Classical Corinth and its colony of ancient Ambracia. So i decided to clarify if this is what he meant by additional samples back in February and sent him a new message. I also asked him whether the non-Ambracian aforementioned samples of the table at 14:17 will be included. Here is a translation of his answer.

"
Hello Demetrios,

The samples from Ambracia are in the same project as the ones from Corinth. The sample from Lefkada is pending publication (expected at the end of the year) as part of an anthropological/archaeological study, but it didn't have much DNA and we were only able to detect its sex (male). The rest (he meant the one Neolithic Greek and two Byzantine Greek samples from the table at 14:17) were part of pilot studies to check for protocols. These last ones aren't expected to be published soon but only in the future with additional samples. It is a time consuming and above all costly process.

Good luck,
Nikos"

I then asked him whether the Lefkada sample would be appropriate for PCA analysis, and whether it was from the EBA/MBA burial mound cemetery of Lefkada in Steno and Skaros, considering its date (3300-1600 BCE). Here is a translation of his answer.

"
It is from a new excavation that will be published along with the sample. I don't have permission from the archaeologists to say more. There was very little DNA for any analysis other than gender identification.

Sincerely,
Nikos
"

So, to sum things up. There is a publication that will include at least one low-quality EBA/MBA sample from Lefkada at the end of the year. And then there is a paper that will certainly include numerous Archaic/Classical Greek samples from ancient Ambracia and Corinth, expected in the next two-three years.

As for Eurogenes, i can only hope he has good sources. I wouldn't say no to more Mycenaean samples, and if any of them indeed possess an R1b-M269 paternal haplogroup it wouldn't surprise me personally. But till now it appears these are only rumors awaiting confirmation by a publication.
 
You just reminded me to update you on something i learned on Monday and had totally forgotten about it. After our little exchange on Saturday, i decided to re-watch the aforementioned preliminary presentation by Nikos Psonis, and at the end of it i learned something that i hadn't grasped the first time i watched it. Psonis actually states after 23:52 that a future publication will show the relationship between Archaic/Classical Corinth and its colony of ancient Ambracia. So i decided to clarify if this is what he meant by additional samples back in February and sent him a new message. I also asked him whether the non-Ambracian aforementioned samples of the table at 14:17 will be included. Here is a translation of his answer.

"
Hello Demetrios,

The samples from Ambracia are in the same project as the ones from Corinth. The sample from Lefkada is pending publication (expected at the end of the year) as part of an anthropological/archaeological study, but it didn't have much DNA and we were only able to detect its sex (male). The rest (he meant the one Neolithic Greek and two Byzantine Greek samples from the table at 14:17) were part of pilot studies to check for protocols. These last ones aren't expected to be published soon but only in the future with additional samples. It is a time consuming and above all costly process.

Good luck,
Nikos"

I then asked him whether the Lefkada sample would be appropriate for PCA analysis, and whether it was from the EBA/MBA burial mound cemetery of Lefkada in Steno and Skaros, considering its date (3300-1600 BCE). Here is a translation of his answer.

"
It is from a new excavation that will be published along with the sample. I don't have permission from the archaeologists to say more. There was very little DNA for any analysis other than gender identification.

Sincerely,
Nikos
"

So, to sum things up. There is a publication that will include at least one low-quality EBA/MBA sample from Lefkada at the end of the year. And then there is a paper that will certainly include numerous Archaic/Classical Greek samples from ancient Ambracia and Corinth, expected in the next two-three years.

As for Eurogenes, i can only hope he has good sources. I wouldn't say no to more Mycenaean samples, and if any of them indeed possess an R1b-M269 paternal haplogroup it wouldn't surprise me personally. But till now it appears these are only rumors awaiting confirmation by a publication.

If it’s true that R1b-M269 was found among Mycenaeans Eupedia did a good job figuring it could be there. Here is a quote from the Eupedia R1b page:

”The Mycenaeans might have brought some R1b (probably also Z2103) to Greece”

So the upcoming sample could be Z2103, and this sub-branch is prevalent in the modern Balkans?



 
If it’s true that R1b-M269 was found among Mycenaeans Eupedia did a good job figuring it could be there. Here is a quote from the Eupedia R1b page:

”The Mycenaeans might have brought some R1b (probably also Z2103) to Greece”

So the upcoming sample could be Z2103, and this sub-branch is prevalent in the modern Balkans?
The rumors suggest two R1b-M269 Mycenaeans. An R1b-Z2103 (which could corroborate an association with the Catacomb culture - West Yamnaya), and one that wasn't R1b-Z2103. Therefore supposedly two different clades. Here are the relevant rumors.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11538-Genetic-origins-of-the-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans&p=604799&viewfull=1#post604799
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11538-Genetic-origins-of-the-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans&p=604822&viewfull=1#post604822
 
You are banned for one week, for this ethnic slur.

Thanks, you gave me time for writing an article about the origin of Mycenaeans:

https://www.academia.edu/43450201/...ian_Sea_the_original_land_of_Mycenaean_Greeks

I wondered how you considered it as a ethnic slur, by Greeks I just meant those ones that I talked to them in this thread, anyway I apologize if I offended anyone.

I actually meant most of what we know about the Greek culture originated in Greece and we shouldn't search for them in other lands, the only thing which came from another land was an IE language.
 
Literally 90 % of content in these forum debates regarding the Y-DNA and autosomal admixture is made from the perspective of posters ethnicity, then also hg's etc.
So Shamiri, a Persian, is trying to appropriate J2a for his own ethnicity/civilisation. So J2a in Greeks is not Minoan related but rather should have arrived to there with some Persian-like proto-IE group. Has it occurred to Shamiri that proto-Persians are just an offshoot of Central Asian Nomadic proto-Iranics who invaded the Iranian Plateau 3000-3500 years ago, settled and mixed with the J2a carrying and other natives. Persians carry a minority autosomal Steppe Iranic/Andronovo element, mostly represented by Persian R1a Z93 clades.
J2a clades already diversified 15 k + years ago, and it's clear that vast majority of Greek J2a has no relation to IE's, but it does to Minoan, and other movements.
Though as there are so many J2a clades, some of them had different paths such has one Turkic/nomadic clade.
Minoans had J-M319 for ex., I believe there are modern Cretans who are at least predicted as M319+. M319 itself is pretty old.
It has nothing to do with Persians, this is Pars (Persia), modern Fars province in Iran:

51g_fars.jpg


Armenians, Azeris, Kurds, Gilakis and other people who live in the northwest of Iran have never considered themselves Persians, in the ancient times ancient Greeks didn't live far from this region. Ancient Greek writers, like Strabo, talk about Greek culture in this region too.
 


From your article:

"In a genetic study titled 'Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans' by Iosif by Lazaridis et al. (2017), we read: The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran."


You left out the next sentence:

"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."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/


As I said in the other thread, Lazaridis 2017 models the Mycenaean samples as either 13.2% Steppe_EMBA (Steppe Early/Middle Bronze Age), or 17.5% Steppe_MLBA (Steppe Middle/Late Bronze Age), or 19.8% Europe_LNBA (Europe Late Neolithic/Bronze Age), and the rest as 'Minoan'. (Table 1 'Proximate Sources')

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly


According to Eurogenes the Mycenaean samples can be modelled as 21% Sintashta/ Corded Ware or Srubnaya, and 79% Minoan:


https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/steppe-admixture-in-mycenaeans.html


And:

"The existence of Eurasian steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans (either directly from the north, or indirectly from the east) suggests the possibility that the Indo-European linguistic ancestors of the Greeks also came from the Eurasian steppe as was likely for central/northern Europe. The finding that up to ~1/2 of the ancestry of some populations of south Asia could also be derived from steppe populations provides a unifying factor for the dispersal of a substantial subset of Indo-European languages.” (p.49)

Lazaridis et al. 2017, Supplementary Material


The following is from the Antonio et al. 2019 paper on Rome:

“Here we present 127 genomes from 29 archaeological sites in and around Rome, spanning the past 12,000 years. We observe two major prehistoric ancestry transitions: one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age. […]

The Iron Age and the origins of Rome

The second major ancestry shift occurred in the Bronze Age, between ~2900 and 900 BCE… We collected data from 11 Iron Age individuals dating from 900 to 200 BCE (including the Republican period). This group shows a clear ancestry shift from the Copper Age, interpreted by ADMIXTURE as the addition of a Steppe-related ancestry component … we modelled the genetic shift by an introduction of ~30 to 40% ancestry from Bronze and Iron Age nomadic populations from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, similar to many Bronze Age populations in Europe. [...]

The Iron Age witnessed a striking shift in the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups compared to previous periods, indicative of large-scale immigration before the Iron Age (our dataset did not contain any Bronze Age individual from central Italy). Five of the seven male individuals in this time period belong to the R-M269 (R1b1a2) group, which is not observed in the nine earlier male samples. Unlike the general R-M343 (R1b) haplogroup, the R-M269 subgroup is thought to be tightly associated with Steppe related ancestry, as it was absent in ancient individuals in western Europe before 3,000 BCE but found in all Bronze Age Yamnaya males from Russia (c. 3,500-3,000 BCE), >90% males associated with the Beaker-complex in Bronze Age Britain (c. 2,700-2,500) and nearly 100% of males in Iberia after 2,000 BCE. Therefore, the appearance of R-M269 at high frequency (5 out of 7) in central Italy is consistent with the arrival of Steppe ancestry detected based on autosomal SNPs, via migration of Steppe pastoralists or intermediary populations in the preceding Bronze Age.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/11/06/366.6466.708.DC1/aay6826_Antonio_SM.pdf


And this is from Narasimhan et al. 2019 ('The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia'):

"By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and southeast Asia. Following the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, they mixed with people in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who spread via Central Asia after 4000 years ago to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the unique shared features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages. (…)

The main population of the BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex) carried no ancestry from Steppe pastoralists and did not contribute substantially to later South Asians. However, Steppe pastoralist ancestry appeared in outlier individuals at BMAC sites by the turn of the second millennium BCE around the same time as it appeared on the southern Steppe. Using data from ancient individuals from the Swat Valley of northernmost South Asia, we show that Steppe ancestry then integrated further south in the first half of the second millennium BCE, contributing up to 30% of the ancestry of modern groups in South Asia. (…)

We add more than one hundred samples from the previously described Western_Steppe_MLBA genetic cluster, including individuals associated with the Corded Ware, Srubnaya, Petrovka, and Sintashta archaeological complexes … Our analysis suggests that in the central Steppe and Minusinsk Basin in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, Western_Steppe_MLBA ancestry mixed with about 9% ancestry from previously established people from the region carrying WSHG-related to form a distinctive Central_Steppe_MLBA cluster that was the primary conduit for spreading Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry to South Asia. (…)

from 2100–1700 BCE we observe outliers from three BMAC-associated sites carrying ancestry ultimately derived from Western_Steppe_EMBA pastoralists, in the distinctive admixed form typically carried by many Middle to Late Bronze Age Steppe groups (with roughly two thirds of the ancestry being of Western_Steppe_EMBA origin, and the rest consistent with deriving from European farmers). Thus, our data document a southward movement of ancestry ultimately descended from Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists that spread into Central Asia by the turn of the 2nd millennium BCE. (…)

Steppe Ancestry in South Asia is Primarily from Males and Disproportionately High in Brahmins


the introduction of lineages from Steppe pastoralists into the ancestors of present-day South Asians was mediated mostly by males. (…)

the fact that traditional custodians of liturgy in Sanskrit (Brahmins) tend to have more Steppe ancestry than is predicted by a simple ASI-ANI mixture model provides an independent line of evidence, beyond the distinctive ancestry profile shared between South Asia and Bronze Eastern Europe mirroring the shared features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, for a Steppe origin for South Asia’s Indo-European languages prior to ~2000 BCE. (…)

while our analysis supports the idea that eastward spread of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry was associated with the spread of farming to the Iranian plateau and Turan, our results do not support large-scale movements of ancestry from the Near East into South Asia following ~6000 BCE (the time after which all ancient individuals from Iran in our data have Anatolian farmer-related ancestry even though South Asians have very little). Languages in pre-state societies usually spread through movements of people, and thus the absence of much Anatolian farmer-related ancestry in the Indus Periphery Cline suggests that the Indo-European languages spoken in South Asia today are unlikely to owe their origin to the spread of farming from West Asia.

Our results not only provide negative evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia, but also positive evidence for the theory that these languages spread from the Steppe. While ancient DNA has documented westward movements of Steppe pastoralist ancestry providing a likely conduit for the spread of many Indo-European languages to Europe, the chain-of-transmission into South Asia has been unclear because of a lack of relevant ancient DNA. Our observation of the spread of Central_Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE provides this evidence, and is particularly striking as it provides a plausible genetic explanation for the linguistic similarities between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian sub-families of Indo-European, which despite their vast geographic separation, share the Satem innovation and Ruki sound laws. (…)

Our analysis also provides a second line of evidence for a linkage between Steppe ancestry and Indo-European languages. Steppe ancestry enrichment in groups that view themselves as being of traditionally priestly status is striking as some of these groups including Brahmins are traditional custodians of literature composed in early Sanskrit. A possible explanation is that the influx of Central_Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the mid-2nd millennium BCE created a meta-population with varied proportions of Steppe ancestry, with people of more Steppe ancestry (or admixing less with Indus Periphery Cline groups) tending to be more strongly associated with Indo-European culture. Due to strong endogamy, which kept groups generally isolated from neighbors for thousands of years, some of this population substructure persists in South Asia among present-day custodians of Indo-European texts.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/


Regarding Iranian origins, see also:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-mycenaean-and-iron-age-iranian-walk.html

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
 
Last edited:



From your article:

"In a genetic study titled 'Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans' by Iosif by Lazaridis et al. (2017), we read: The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran."


You left out the next sentence:

"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."


It doesn't make a big difference, there could be also some migrations from Siberia and eastern Europe to Eurasian steppe or Armenia, Mukanians (Mycenaeans) migrated from this region in the northwest of Iran which is close to both Armenia and Caspian steppe to Greece.
 



From your article:

"In a genetic study titled 'Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans' by Iosif by Lazaridis et al. (2017), we read: The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus and Iran."


You left out the next sentence:

"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."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/


This is known as lying by omission.
 

This thread has been viewed 1158712 times.

Back
Top