Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Err nope. Z19851 has an isolated cluster in East Serbia and Bulgaria (TMRCA 1400 ybp between them) which seems distant from this mobile Vlach cluster present in Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs of Bjelica tribe, Arberesh, Greeks. Your Albanian BY4684 has Vlach suffix -ul in his surname. He is at 4/37 with Greek from Gelibolu in Turkey. Meanwhile he is 7/37 with a Greek from Trikkala (that is Vlach). There is a Bulgarian BigY who shares with this Greek cluster 14 SNP's but doesn't share 13. So A lone cousin in Bulgaria 2000 ybp. In short BY4684* seems Thracian nothing to do with Illyrians, as is very likely Z19851. Just Vlachs in Eastern Balkans picked up this one cluster and spread it around Balkans.

This is what I've been talking about so many "Illyrian this Illyrian that" people, you open up a fridge and might find an Illyrian helmet on a can these days.:grin:
By Albanian/Arvanite I meant that these Z19851 carriers were Albanian speakers when they arrived, if they were Vlachs originally is irrelevant to what I meant. The Albanian BY4684 guy has the suffix -uli at the end of his surname, a suffix which isn't too rare and is used when turning the first name of an ancestor into a surname (similar to -aj).

Anyways, who said it's Illyrian?
 
Ossetian is an Indo-Iranian language. That would make it more likely to be an indo-iranian lineage than a "proto-greek" one. Also, Ossetia is barely "north caucauses". Its split on both sides of the mountain border between north and south. You can attempt to distort things in your favour but basic geography is a bit more transparent.

You know what's really interesting? Ossetians have cluster of CTS1273*, BY3880-. Ossetians also have a cluster R-Y5586 (confirmed Y5586+ I heard). Bulgarians have diversity of Y5586 going 4300 ybp, while this Ossetian cluster is not closer to that. Bulgarians also have highest basal diversity of CTS1273. The fact that Bulgarians have highest CTS1273 and Y5586 diversity and the fact that Ossetians (and not any of their neighbors) sport isolated clusters of CTS1273 and Y5586 might not be an accident. It might indicate CTS1273 and Y5586 have expanded in same/similar populations in Bronze Age. Why else thus far only Ossetians have these two isolated clades in the East?
 
By Albanian/Arvanite I meant that these Z19851 carriers were Albanian speakers when they arrived, if they were Vlachs originally is irrelevant to what I meant. The Albanian BY4684 guy has the suffix -uli at the end of his surname, a suffix which isn't too rare and is used when turning the first name of an ancestor into a surname (similar to -aj).

Anyways, who said it's Illyrian?

Other than that guy I don't see any other Albanian having suffix -uli. For ex. Rasuli is Rasul + i. -i is a common Albanian suffix. This one looks like Vlach suffix -ul + Albanian suffix -i.

I don't think it is Arvanite, as this one is very rare in Albanians, there is also some Greek from Malta so some might have older presence in Greek etnos. But this Greek being from Trikkala makes me think it is Vlach because Trikkala had strong Vlach influence. Also ofc. 4 Romanian Basarabi from Sibiu almost certainly belong to this cluster (dys439=13 + dys426=10 crucial STR's for this clade and identical haplotype) so this makes Vlach connection strong for E-FGC71980.

Of Arvanites you'd expect some more common cluster such as FGC11450's which are present in Greeks and which closely cluster with Albanians.
 
Liburnians are no longer considered Illyrians by linguists but part of the celto-italic branch close to venetic. Also you keep defining cetina as the illyrian culture when linguistically what are called illyrians proper do not fit into cetina.

Its totally irrelevent if they identified as illyrians since we are talking about illyrian as a linguist category, aka a language. Many slavophone tribes likewise would not say i am a slav, but that is the term we use to refer to the language group. Likewise, Messapic is satem, and illyrian proper, not Liburnian, was most likely satem. We dont have any writing, but messapic and glosses like Birzimium point to satem.

So your argument about proto-albanian ev13 not being "illyrian" rests on redefining the term illyrian to mean liburnian, which is not correct.

Liburnians were originally Illyrians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Other than that guy I don't see any other Albanian having suffix -uli. For ex. Rasuli is Rasul + i. -i is a common Albanian suffix. This one looks like Vlach suffix -ul + Albanian suffix -i.

I don't think it is Arvanite, as this one is very rare in Albanians, there is also some Greek from Malta so some might have older presence in Greek etnos. But this Greek being from Trikkala makes me think it is Vlach because Trikkala had strong Vlach influence. Also ofc. 4 Romanian Basarabi from Sibiu almost certainly belong to this cluster (dys439=13 + dys426=10 crucial STR's for this clade and identical haplotype) so this makes Vlach connection strong for E-FGC71980.

Of Arvanites you'd expect some more common cluster such as FGC11450's which are present in Greeks and which closely cluster with Albanians.
First you would have to know what his surname meant for you to decide if it was of Aromanian/Vlach origin, from what I know there aren't any Aromanian words that could explain his surname. There are surnames similar to his found in other areas of Albania, making it likely that his surname could be a variant of those surnames.
 
I'm afraid realistic expansion of E-V13 is not going to favor either either Hellenic nor Albanian fixation on Illyrians (largely inherited from Enver Hohxa similar to Romanian Dacian fixation inherited from Ceausescu era). Cetina culture migrated to Central Balkans, while it basically dissapeared in its original territory without any inheritors. However some Dalmatian Illyrians like Liburni being more archaic likely had some older V13 clades. But those in Central Balkans had almost certainly something to do with Vatin culture. Either already in Cetina culture through strong Corded Ware influence from a R-Z280 clade (such as one basal Z280 without relatives for 4500 years found in Serbs) E-CTS1273 had picked up a Satem pre-proto Thracian language or this happened later in Vatin culture and closely related cultures (such as some in Romania).

In late Bronze Age Urnfield invasion (primarily R-U152) and other movements triggered mass movements of a number of E-V13's and others. These movements are well attested, and involve likely Central-Balkan -> South Albania movement as well as Central/East-Balkan-> Greece movement. Subsequently there were likely other migrations into Greece. And ofc some Greek V13's migrated there in Middle Ages.

Btw. according to some historians about 800/700 BC if you asked members of many Illyrian tribes "are you Illyrian?" alot of them would answer to you by "what is that?". And some southern tribes might have answered "ah those are our neighbor tribe but we are not Illyrians". Few centuries later they became Illyrian so don't get too fixated on this idea that Antiquity peoples stretched all the way to Bronze Age. In late Bronze Age Antiquity peoples like Scythians, Sarmatians did not exist in any way under those names.

People said Albanians are Illyrians way before Enver Hoxha. Thunmann and Georg Von Hahn are pretty good examples. Georg Von Hahn did a linguistic approach on this and based on the genetic evidence we have of the Bronze Age J2b2-L283 and R1b he certainly seem to of been right. Nothing compareable to Romanian-Dacian.

You forgot the South Slav obsession with ancient people of the Balkans which is even far worse.

As for asking people back then if they were Illyrian, such a national unity or counsciousness back then did not even exist, they were people scattered in different tribes, such a term was used by their neighbors to describe them or people that spoke a similar language, costumes , culture etc.

Based on the evidence so far both linguistically and genetically, they most certainly shared a common origin at one point.


As for clustering, I have explained before that even the Albanian cluster is huge. Some people of the same population can cluster closer to other populations than some of their own for example yet share more ancestry with their own population obviously, speak the same language, culture etc.

On mytrueancestry I get Kosovar at a distance of 10 which isn't even that of a good match yet I'm a Kosovar.

Clustering is practically irrelevant.

As for all this EV13 talk, the evidence is pretty scarce to reach to any conclusions yet, I can tell you. There isn't enough ancient DNA for that. Your claims are just assumptions.
 
As for all this EV13 talk, the evidence is pretty scarce to reach to any conclusions yet, I can tell you. There isn't enough ancient DNA for that.

Yes. There is one E-Z1919 Thracian burial (at YFull stands as V13), and one E-CTS1273* Scythian (CTS9320-, Z5018- for sure) of very likely Getae origin looking by his autosomal profile (also R-Z2103 in similar context). Of course the sample is very low but it is what it is atm.

Your claims are just assumptions.

Based on facts, as well as current basal diversity alot can be said. But of E-V13 Cetina connection, that was postulated some time ago my an M35 admin, and I agree with it, in fact some facts speak against any other option.


As for asking people back then if they were Illyrian, such a national unity or counsciousness back then did not even exist, they were people scattered in different tribes, such a term was used by their neighbors to describe them or people that spoke a similar language, costumes , culture etc.

That what I was saying they identified primarily with their tribes. Later in Antiquity some tribes/individuals managed to unite them. For example Burebista united Dacians and Getae under Dacian kingdom, even though those two were not quite the same population, likely sporting different hg's and subclades of hg's. Even in Medieval times or after, in isolated Mountainous places such as Montenegro or Northern Albania tribal identification was primary identification until century ago.
 
R-Z2705 in Greeks?? That is actually very easy to determine owing to dys385, dys393, dys392 being present in (almost) all studies. And the sample is good as well. They pop up in most samples. Surprising they don't in Corinthia (no dys385 but 393 and 392 are of help too).

3/191 Greek Macedonia; 1 x 392=11
4/200 Greek regions , Western Macedonia (2), East Macedonia and Thrace, Hepirus ; 2 x 392=11
2/100 19 STR Greeks; 1 x 392=11
1/39 Greeks Thrace
6/89 Greeks Asia Minor, Smyrna
0/93 Euboea
0/104 Corinthia
2/113 Greek regions, Peloponnese, Central Greece
5/109 23 STR Greeks
3/105 23 STR Greeks Athens; 1 x 392=11
7/290 FTDNA (no Pontic Greeks)
---------------
0/574 Cyprus Greeks


Mainland Greeks 33/1433 = 2.30 % , of those 5 (0.35 % R-BY105603 dys392=11)
Cypriot Greeks 0/574
 
R-Z2705 in Greeks?? That is actually very easy to determine owing to dys385, dys393, dys392 being present in (almost) all studies. And the sample is good as well. They pop up in most samples. Surprising they don't in Corinthia (no dys385 but 393 and 392 are of help too).

One reason may be that the authors avoided people of Arvanite ancestry whenever it was possible. Same thing goes for Euboea.
 
One reason may be that the authors avoided people of Arvanite ancestry whenever it was possible. Same thing goes for Euboea.

That was Tofanelli et al. 2016 "The Greeks in the West", weird how they appear in every sample except two from that study. But authors were Italian so I doubt there was any foul play, especially as Italians did Arberesh study.
 
That was Tofanelli et al. 2016 "The Greeks in the West", weird how they appear in every sample except two from that study.

I know. They specifically mention avoiding Arvanites in the sample: "During the sample collection, attention was given to this issue: individuals who self-reported as Arvanite were excluded from the analysis."

But authors were Italian so I doubt there was any foul play, especially as Italians did Arberesh study.

Why would there be any foul play?
 
I know. They specifically mention avoiding Arvanites in the sample: "During the sample collection, attention was given to this issue: individuals who self-reported as Arvanite were excluded from the analysis."

Ah well that study was about Greek colonisation and Arvanites weren't Greek colonists so it makes sense.

Why would there be any foul play?

I thought you implied someone was avoiding Arvanites, which was the case as you pointed but not for any ulterior motives. :) I didn't read that portion, I'm mostly interested in STR's. That increases R-Z2705 to 2.67 in Greeks based on other samples. 2.41 at FTDNA. 2.75 % from studies.
If not for that I suspect percentage in both Corinthia and Euboea would have been pretty high. In Turkish defter from late 15th century Euboea had lots of Albanian first names.

Btw I heard one dys393=12, dys456=13 (Banja Luka) ordered BigY.
 
Err nope. Z19851 has an isolated cluster in East Serbia and Bulgaria (TMRCA 1400 ybp between them) which seems distant from this mobile Vlach cluster present in Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs of Bjelica tribe, Arberesh, Greeks. Your Albanian BY4684 has Vlach suffix -ul in his surname. He is at 4/37 with Greek from Gelibolu in Turkey. Meanwhile he is 7/37 with a Greek from Trikkala (that is Vlach). There is a Bulgarian BigY who shares with this Greek cluster 14 SNP's but doesn't share 13. So A lone cousin in Bulgaria 2000 ybp. In short BY4684* seems Thracian nothing to do with Illyrians, as is very likely Z19851. Just Vlachs in Eastern Balkans picked up this one cluster and spread it around Balkans.

This is what I've been talking about so many "Illyrian this Illyrian that" people, you open up a fridge and might find an Illyrian helmet on a can these days.:grin:
Some Serbs/Montenegrins belonging to A18833 from what I have seen claim to be with origin from Albania (descendants of Skenderbeg etc).

Shoshi and Bobi from Dukagjin should belong to this cluster as well, and they don’t appear to be close to each other either.
 
Some Serbs/Montenegrins belonging to A18833 from what I have seen claim to be with origin from Albania (descendants of Skenderbeg etc).


Shoshi and Bobi from Dukagjin should belong to this cluster as well, and they don’t appear to be close to each other either.


Those are Bjelica tribe. They used to have some Kuci tradition, but obviously they are not Kuchi. Nor do they descend from that area, because Bjelice are attested in their current area (SW Montenegro) in 1430, whereas Kuchi area was first mentioned in 1455 as tribe and they were newcomers back then. But considering these haplotypes pop up n Arbereshe I guess Bjelice have origin from the southeast. Also in their tribal area in 15th century I've noticed few Albanian/Vlach names. Noted was knez Shimrak (from Shin Mark), Bokur (Romanian/Aromanian) etc. There is this cluster A18833, and there is this E-Y172393, Serb from Eastern Serbia and a Bulgarian. They only share 2 SNP's, but unusual value (one of) they do share is dys635=22, practically all A18833 have 23 and from what I've noticed all such Greek, Arberesh haplotypes also have 23, so that makes me think all of these will eventually end up as A18833+. What I call one of these widespread and "mobile" clusters. Not sure what the older value on that STR is as upstream Z19851 clades have both.
 
I have already touched upon this in the following comment, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page51?p=583559&viewfull=1#post583559. Here is the segment that relates again.
"
By the way, the Mycenaean (as in Linear B form), of ancient Greek (Attic) and Ionic "Μυκῆναι ( Mukênai)", is "Mu-ka-nai", therefore more similar. The Doric form would also be "Μυκᾶναι (Mukânai)". And also take into account that the "ai" at the end of all signifies plurality. The singular form would be "Mukêne" (Attic/Ionic), "Mukâna" (Doric), and "Mu-ka-na" (Linear B). Last, the word "Mycenae" simply refers to a powerful citadel/region in north-eastern Peloponnese, neither the capital city of what we have contemporarily termed Mycenaean civilization, nor a historical collective ethnonym. Mycenaean citadels/regions were all independent from each other, while real collective ethnonyms for the Mycenaeans, as preserved through the Homeric Epics, the Hittite records, and the Egyptian records, were the ethnonyms "Achaeans", "Danaans", and "Argives". And besides that, Mycenaeans, which were comprised of what we would call in the Archaic/Classical periods the Aeolians, Achaeans, and Ionians, were not the only Greeks in existence. Dorians were also Greeks, but not originally part of the Mycenaean civilization, since they lived in the Pindus mountain range as pastoralists.".
ok cool, informative. why the "u" instead of "y" ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
ok cool, informative. why the "u" instead of "y" ?
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
It's the way "Mycenaean" is spelled in original Greek mate. Even though today it is written like that in modern Greek as well, the "u" has taken an "i" sound and would sound like the "y" in the English word. This phenomenon is called Iotacism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism.
 
@Ralphie Boy
You write, "Sorry for not including the link. It’s a study arguing for a maritime Neolithic colonization of Europe, moving from the Aegean and Mediterranean on northward through the Greek mainland and then further north. This study shows the apparent clustering of two modern Peloponnesian Greek populations with Sicilians, and closeness to modern Crete and Dodecanese, in one of the maps.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211".
Very nice, i will have to study it more closely. As for the maritime Neolithic colonization of southern Europe, it appears almost certain when you consider that the people of the Aegean were very likely the first who ever developed seafaring traditions, beginning from 130,000 years ago. We actually have suggestive evidence for this. But also think about it, wouldn’t it make sense for seafaring traditions to have been evolved from quite early in the Aegean, where the natural geography (islands, close proximity, high visibility, etc.) might have inspired the people to want to travel by Sea, in order to reach these isolated places? It isn't really a coincidence that the first historical thalassocracies were by the Aegean populations of the Minoans, and then their fellow Mycenaeans.


You write, "The late population genetics pioneer L.L. Cavalli-Sforza I think wrote that earlier migrations were the most important, because of less population density.".

Can't recall, but it is very true, especially in the case of the first Neolithic agricultural communities which definitely saw a significant population growth, in contrast to the earlier hunter-gathering communities which were always more or less at a stable equilibrium, or in other words with near-zero population growth.

You write, "The more recent migrations, like in Medieval times, had less impact because of greater population density of indigenous people. His study found the stronger Neolithic component in the southeast Mediterranean, just like these newer studies, where newer migrations added to but didn’t replace the older genes.".

Indeed.
 
@Ownstyler
You write, "Macedonia and its western regions had many different ethnic groups until the early 20th century, including Albanians (ex: in Loechovo, Drosopigi/Belkameni, Flampouro/Nevogan, etc.).".
I am aware of this mate, still though not as many when compared to the other regions, and most of them were very close to the tri-point modern boundary of Albania, North Macedonia, and Greece, namely the Prespes.

You write, "
It is actually not that low. In Bosch 2006, Katsaloulis 2013, Robino 2004, Parreira 2002 & Kovatsi 2013, R1b-BY611 is ~2% in Greece (Albanians have 10-15%), and a bit higher in the areas I mentioned. It is only absent in the islands.".
Still though, i don't consider ~2% as significant bearing in mind that the general frequencies of R1b-M269 (of which R-Z2103 is the most prevalent) are the following throughout Greece. Although i understand your point.
North Greece (Macedonia & Thrace): 13%
Central Greece (Thessaly, Epirus, Aetolia-Acarnania, Evrytania & Phthiotis): 11.5%
South Greece (Peloponnese, Attica & Athens): 20.5%
Crete: 15%
Aegean Islands: 19%

You write, "
and in West Macedonia (there is a relatively high percentage all around the Ohrid and Prespa Lakes).".
Which again i view as very natural. If by West Macedonia you mostly meant the region surrounding the Prespa lakes, then yes. Sure, up until the beginning of the 20th century the region of Macedonia was home to many people, but a number of population exchanges and other less fortunate things (such as in the case of the Jews in Thessaloniki) have considerably affected the area.

You write, "
On YHRD, a modal R-BY611 is the 4th most common haplotype among >1000 results in Greece.".
Most common R1b-Z2103 haplotype?

You write, "
I meant when the mrca of a possible Greek cluster there. The current mrca of the clade includes all over Europe and even the Middle East. If you don't know of a cluster dominated by Greeks within this branch, you cannot say if this line reached Greece 5200, 3000, or 200 years ago.".
You are right. Do you know of any such Greek cluster within R-KMS67? What is interesting is that other than the Greek R-KMS67*, we also have an Italian who is also from a region with a significant historical Greek presence, namely Reggio Calabria, the second oldest Greek colony of southern Italy, which even today has a considerable Greek minority.

You write, "
The Greek and Bulgarian samples currently under E-BY3880 have no calls for two important subclades below: E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. They might very well fall into one of those two. Only the Italian sample is certainly E-VBY3880*. ".
Which again, the Italian sample is placed at a known Greek colony in Sicily, namely Messina, which is in fact next to the aforementioned Reggio. I personally see this as corroboration.
 
Last edited:
@Kelmendasi
You write, "Nope it doesn't, by this logic it should've expanded also from Albania. CTS1273* has shown up in the Balkans, the result I'm referring to is my maternal uncle, they are from the Dibra-Librazhd area. Not every CTS1273* sample has been uploaded to Yfull.".
I can only evaluate what i see uploaded. Even if there is actually a CTS1273* that is found in the Dibra-Librazhd area, i would very much like to see it. In any case though, it still doesn't negate its proto-Greek connection, it only corroborates it. It could very well be a palaeo-Balkan IE line out of which proto-Greek sprang. You also have to consider that in fact, the widespread proto-Greek region is very close to the Librazhd area.


As for the other point, the thing is that the logic of hailing from northern Caucasus is actually based on the prevalent hypothesis that proto-Greek expanded from Catacomb. And in general, most if not all IE groups likewise. We don't know of any similar expansion toward northern Caucasus from the Balkans during 2500 BCE.


You write, "The Jewish sample isn't Ashkenazi iirc, he is from Turkey, but it's highly likely that his paternal side came from Europe. Y-DNA has shown that the Khazars have nothing to do with modern day Ashkenazis.".

In the thread i am referring to, @Aspurg writes that id:ERS1789480 is from an Askhenazi individual.

Furthermore, the origin of Askhenazi Jews is a whole topic of its own, but there have been hypotheses that place their origin on the eastern Pontic mountains (very close to Pontic Greeks in fact) of Turkey as well as southern Europe, in addition to Levantine origins of course. In any case, it is known that Khazars had embraced the Jewish religion, therefore it's not that unreasonable to consider that some might have migrated and joined the Ashkenazim of Eastern Europe once their Khaganate had fallen.


You write, "The fact that CTS1273 has little to no diversity in the Caucasus or surrounding areas make it extremely unlikely for it to have origin there, the most likely scenario is that CTS1273 originated in the Balkans but a branch migrated to the Eastern European steppe area, where it was assimilated.".

This isn't corroborated at all archaeologically or linguistically, other than genetics the evidence shows quite the opposite rather. The fact that it is also widespread throughout Europe, points to the migrations of Indo-Europeans that began from northern Caucasus or the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

You write, "Y30977 does have pretty clear origin in the Balkans. It's most diverse in the Western Balkans, most frequent in the Balkans and it's basal clades show up most in the Balkans as well. Unlike, CTS1273, Y30977 doesn't seem to have been picked up by IE speakers, it remained in the Balkans for longer.".

I don't see any E-Y30977* sample, therefore i don't know how you come to such a conclusion. You are obviously referring to its daughter clade E-Y37092*, which has been found in Greece and Montenegro. It would be nice to know the background of the American E-Y30976* (which is the sister clade of E-Y37092), since E-Y30976 seems to have an Eastern European/Caucasian distribution, and it formed likewise 4100 ybp.

You write, "You need to specify which clades you're referring to, the BY3880 guy is actually Z5018* it's just that his analysis hasn't finished. Z5018 has a TMRCA of ~3,700ybp and seems to be most diverse in areas north of Greece. As for Y37092, this branch remained in the Western Balkans so it's possible that Proto-Greeks picked it up when they arrived in the Balkans.".

I am referring to E-BY3880*, which is present in an Italian of most likely Greek origin. Again, we don't have a E-Y30977* sample to be certain about E-Y37092*'s original regional source, but it does look to have a Pontic-Caspian IE source when you also consider the distribution of the related E-Y30976.
 

This thread has been viewed 1161921 times.

Back
Top