Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

The two Sicilian results alone prove that these qpADM are not proving anything.

Bell Beaker is archaeologically attested in west Sicily only, but not in east Sicily! It's just the opposite of the david's qpADM models!

This happens when amateur geeks replace decades of serious archaeological studies with a lack of knowledge.

Sicilian_East
Bell_Beaker_Germany 0.222±0.077
England_Roman_outlier 0.210±0.134
Mycenaean 0.567±0.163
P-value 0.504442682
chisq 12.285
Full output

Sicilian_West
England_Roman_outlier 0.216±0.121
Mycenaean 0.503±0.135
Unetice 0.281±0.056
P-value 0.808464904
 
I find it interesting how modern Greeks aren't exactly the same as Myceaneans and how modern Egyptians aren't exactly the same as ancient Egyptians. In each case, the ethnic-identity remained but foreign admixture made a significant but not overwhelming impact. Now I expect the same to be true for many ancient/modern ethnic groups.

Even more interesting that this little "foreign" admixture came via the North in Greek case while some Aryan Nordic ubermenschen theories claimed that they became "darker" due to Arab admixture comparing ancient Greeks to North Europeans aka the Brad Pitt type. And in Egyptian case the little foreign admixture came via Sub Saharan Africa while for centuries the Black Master Race defenders claimed Egyptians became more "white" due to Persian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman influence. If anything what these results prove is that, there was a rather tight genetic group, a clear tendency with the ancient civilizations. Those bordering the Mediterranean were clearly predominantly Anatolian/Levant Farmer derived and their farmer DNA got actually diluted in later times. And those Civilization in Mesopotamia and South of the Caspian to Harrapa most likely were more Iran_Neo/CHG derived than modern people of the same region. Contrary to what some people assumed of predominantly "Nordic Proto Persians or Medes".

So two of the most ridiculous agendas in this world have been debunked very hard. The Afro_Centric and White Nordic agendas. It is quite funny tbh.
 
Mass confusion appears to be reigning. What is all this loose talk on other websites about Mycenaeans?

From the paper: 70% of the Mycenaean genome (and the Minoan genome) is Early Neolithic farmer. Then, 4-16% comes from steppe peoples. Let's make the steppe fixated people happy and use the 16% number. That leaves about 14% for eastern Anatolia Iran like ancestry. Is it a change? Yes. Is it a massive change? NO.
 
Yes Stormfront.org is shut down. Anthrogenica is next....they have spread false rumours about me.
 
Yeah, they arrived with their chariots and dragon boats. We all know the Mycenaeans were a cannibalistic tribe who chucked spears, beat their women, and lacked a formal language due to lack of prefrontal development until the master race arrived and made them "superior".
;p

There is no master race. You being part Jewish you should be extra sensitive to that as the Nazis killed you guys in the hopes of breeding a Master race and eliminating inferior races...it's not funny.
 
Yeah, they arrived with their chariots and dragon boats. We all know the Mycenaeans were a cannibalistic tribe who chucked spears, beat their women, and lacked a formal language due to lack of prefrontal development until the master race arrived and made them "superior".
;p
There is no master race. You being part Jewish you should be extra sensitive to that as the Nazis killed you guys in the hopes of breeding a Master race and eliminating inferior races...it's not funny.

davef was ironic.
 
Davidski: "I don't know where the Greeks in my model are from. But they are a little more northern shifted than some of the my other Greek sets"

I think he might be using that Thessaloniki sample that includes apparently mostly local Macedonians? They do look quite 'northern', maybe more northern than some of the Tuscan samples even.

I understand Angela's objections of course but it doesn't look like a bad model from a historical perspective either since Greece was in continuous relationship with the CHG/Iran-heavy Anatolia (obviously!) and received further input from Northeast Europe. If Armenoi is an indication, the average of Bronze-Iron Age Greece might actually be higher in steppe than those Mycenaean samples showed and as such will probably lower the further northern input needed. The 9% Iran_CHL makes some sense too since those Mycenaeans were (though still harboring a good deal of CHG/Iran) a bit less near eastern influenced than contemporary Greeks, especially from the Aegean. Of course, to repeat that point again, we don't have any Italian samples yet, though considering that Tuscans and South Italians (but not North Italians) get a good chunk of Mycenaean it's not inconceivable to think that similar groups,with increased CHG/Iran, existed in most of Italy at the time too, possibly due to contacts with the Aegean and the Adriatic at the time as Pax wrote.

And as also written, Iberia seems to have received some of that Iran/Caucasus input too (but to a lower extent) if you compare them to the Bronze Age Iberian samples.

On some analyses, like Haak et al, the Greeks seem to have less steppe than the Tuscans, but they have some WHG (2-3 points) which the Tuscans don't have, and these are definitely the northern Greeks of Thessaly. There were virtually no mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the WHG type in Greece (or the Balkans, until you got up to the Iron Gates), so I think this is some of that "extra WHG" which may have accompanied various migrations from the north into Greece in relatively more recent times, but which didn't make their way into Italy.

As you said, it definitely depends on the populations used to model them too. I actually had the Haak paper in mind (apart from some amateur analyses that I know you don't particularly like) when I wrote that Tuscans seem to be a bit more Neolithic and a bit less steppe than (at least some) mainland Greeks, specifically Figure S9.26, C from the supplement. That's my overall impression too, that (Central and Southern) Italians seem to have higher EEF(+WHG) while mainland Greeks seem to have higher steppe+Iran. Probably due to continuing contacts of Greece with Anatolia and North(east) Europe I mentioned that didn't involve much of Italy (in comparison to the Slavs in the Balkans, the "Germanic" input in Italy seems to be quite low based on modern data). The Eurasian PCAs seem to point towards that too, with Italians more on the Neolithic side of things towards the bottom part and the Albanians and Greeks right next to them but a bit more towards the upper, steppe-Iran/Caucasus, side.

Yeah, Myceanean's almost definitely did have some Steppe ancestry (15-20%)

Though to be fair the higher percentage seems to be with later steppe groups that already had increased EEF ancestry. With early steppe groups (i.e. Yamnaya and similar), those samples only got ~13% in the paper (on top of a Minoan-like substrate) and that's part of the reason you need a lot of further northern input since modern mainland Greeks seem to be ~20% Yamnaya-like.
 
That's my overall impression too, that (Central and Southern) Italians seem to have higher EEF(+WHG) while mainland Greeks seem to have higher steppe+Iran. Probably due to continuing contacts of Greece with Anatolia and North(east) Europe I mentioned that didn't involve much of Italy (in comparison to the Slavs in the Balkans, the "Germanic" input in Italy seems to be quite low based on modern data). The Eurasian PCAs seem to point towards that too, with Italians more on the Neolithic side of things towards the bottom part and the Albanians and Greeks right next to them but a bit more towards the upper, steppe-Iran/Caucasus, side.



Though to be fair the higher percentage seems to be with later steppe groups that already had increased EEF ancestry. With early steppe groups (i.e. Yamnaya and similar), those samples only got ~13% in the paper (on top of a Minoan-like substrate) and that's part of the reason you need a lot of further northern input since modern mainland Greeks seem to be ~20% Yamnaya-like.

I put "Germanic" in quotes for a reason. That's the kind of analysis that some amateurs have done in the past. My point was that as some analysts in the past called all more "northern" ancestry in Greece "Slavic", others do the same to Italian regions, i.e. labeling all "northern" ancestry as "German".

As to the second highlighted point, I suppose it depends what you mean by "a lot of further northern input". How much input would you need to increase a component from 13-20?

Oh, I forgot. In Haak, the model they went with shows less steppe in Greeks than in Tuscans. What they have more of is, as I said, additional WHG, which I do believe came from the northeast after the Neolithic.

Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png
 
Even more interesting that this little "foreign" admixture came via the North in Greek case while some Aryan Nordic ubermenschen theories claimed that they became "darker" due to Arab admixture comparing ancient Greeks to North Europeans aka the Brad Pitt type. And in Egyptian case the little foreign admixture came via Sub Saharan Africa while for centuries the Black Master Race defenders claimed Egyptians became more "white" due to Persian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman influence. If anything what these results prove is that, there was a rather tight genetic group, a clear tendency with the ancient civilizations. Those bordering the Mediterranean were clearly predominantly Anatolian/Levant Farmer derived and their farmer DNA got actually diluted in later times. And those Civilization in Mesopotamia and South of the Caspian to Harrapa most likely were more Iran_Neo/CHG derived than modern people of the same region. Contrary to what some people assumed of predominantly "Nordic Proto Persians or Medes".

So two of the most ridiculous agendas in this world have been debunked very hard. The Afro_Centric and White Nordic agendas. It is quite funny tbh.

Exactly. About time, too.
 
Yes, I agree about "Germanic". What I also had in mind were haplogroups potentially associated with the Germanic migrations and the indications for Italians (vs the Balkans) from the Ralph-Coop paper.

Check the figure I posted too; it's from the same paper's supplement. It models the Greek sample as 77.7% EN and 19.8% Yamnaya while the Tuscan one gets 79.9% EN and 17.9% Yamnaya. In that one, the extra WHG needed for Greeks is 0.4% and 0% for Tuscans. Either way, the differences are overall small but you can see some changing proportions of components based on the model.

As for the increase, it would definitely depend on how steppe-heavy the population was, of course. Based on some calculators I've seen, a 10-30% "early Slavic" input (compared to the Mycenaeans) depending on the region, from the Aegean to Macedonia, would make sense.

Edit: Funnily enough, as we know, the steppe input in the Lebanese compared to the Bronze Age Sidon sample is also about ~7%. But it might have gotten all the way down in the Levant in quite diluted form compared to Yamnaya so it might represent a substantial chunk of actual overall ancestry there.
 
Yes, I agree about "Germanic". What I also had in mind were haplogroups potentially associated with the Germanic migrations and the indications for Italians (vs the Balkans) from the Ralph-Coop paper.

Check the figure I posted too; it's from the same paper's supplement. It models the Greek sample as 77.7% EN and 19.8% Yamnaya while the Tuscan one gets 79.9% EN and 17.9% Yamnaya. In that one, the extra WHG needed for Greeks is 0.4% and 0% for Tuscans. Either way, the differences are overall small but you can see some changing proportions of components based on the model.

As for the increase, it would definitely depend on how steppe-heavy the population was, of course. Based on some calculators I've seen, a 10-30% "early Slavic" input (compared to the Mycenaeans) depending on the region, from the Aegean to Macedonia, would make sense.

Yes, I agree in general.

If the Goths and Lombards largely carried U-106 and I1 then there was relatively minor impact from their migrations, as Ralph and Coop et al confirm from IBD analysis, and definitely on a north/east, to north/central and so on cline, they having arrived by taking an end run along the northeastern passage into Italy. I think the majority of the "northern" ancestry in northern Italy and down into Toscana was from the first IE migrations, but also from the "Celtic" migrations both from Central Europe and from Gaul.

I looked at the figure. However, while Haak, Lazaridis, do all sorts of extensive modeling in their supplements, they do that in order to arrive at their conclusions, which is what they put in the paper itself, and which is where you find the graphic in question. It only makes sense, as, in a lot of PCA's, despite the extra WHG which the mainland Greeks have and the Tuscans do not, the Tuscans plot not only west of the Greeks, but slightly north as well.
 
I looked at the figure. However, while Haak, Lazaridis, do all sorts of extensive modeling in their supplements, they do that in order to arrive at their conclusions, which is what they put in the paper itself, and which is where you find the graphic in question. It only makes sense, as, in a lot of PCA's, despite the extra WHG which the mainland Greeks have and the Tuscans do not, the Tuscans plot not only west of the Greeks, but slightly north as well.

I won't argue on this point too much since overall those populations are so close that it's hard to disentangle some things. My current general impression of the Balkans vs Italy is generally greater steppe+Iran vs EEF respectively with Italy potentially seemingly preserving the heavy EEF Bronze Age structure a bit better than the Balkans did since the latter received further input from the North and East. But we'll see with actual, ancient sampling.

Btw, the figure they used for that graph is from their test with 3 reference populations. Their addition of Nganasan I posted above seemed to improve the model for Europeans, while the further addition of BedouinB did mostly for Sicilians, Iberians, Maltese and Jews. But the last model again shows Tuscans with slightly more steppe than Greeks (though with a decent chunk of "Bedouin").
 
Btw, the figure they used for that graph is from their test with 3 reference populations. Their addition of Nganasan I posted above seemed to improve the model for Europeans, while the further addition of BedouinB did mostly for Sicilians, Iberians, Maltese and Jews. But the last model again shows Tuscans with slightly more steppe than Greeks (though with a decent chunk of "Bedouin").

Also Spanish, French, French_south, Hungarians, Cezchs have Bedouin in that try. Even Norwegians have Bedouin.
When did this Bedouin migration to Norway happen? :)
 
Also Spanish, French, French_south, Hungarians, Cezchs have Bedouin in that try. Even Norwegians have Bedouin.
When did this Bedouin migration to Norway happen? :)

Indeed. :)

I also read a gem of a statement on another board that an Anatolian Iron Age component, i.e. "Etruscan", is hidden in the EEF of the Tuscans, Italians in general, I can't remember.

How is that possible? Such a population would be heavily Iran Neo/Chl, CHG, whatever you want to call it, but the EEF samples come from the EN, often Stuttgart, yes, before there was any real amount of that in EEF? I suppose it might depend on the analysis, but people should be careful in their statements.

To put it in terms of the Geneplaza calculator again, my "extra" Iran type ancestry is lower than that of a lot of northern Europeans. I'll hold my fire on the Levant Neo thing, given the creator's comments about that, but my number is, once again, lower than that of some Central Europeans, or, at least, equal to them. Also, if any Anatolian Iron Age ancestry is hiding in my "eastern farmer", is it also hiding in the almost as high "eastern farmer" of central and northwestern Europeans?
 
Also Spanish, French, French_south, Hungarians, Cezchs have Bedouin in that try. Even Norwegians have Bedouin.
When did this Bedouin migration to Norway happen? :)

Czech, Norwegians don't have Bedouin admixture, I'm not exactly sure what charts were you seeing. There's 1-3% Bedouin admixture in Slovenia, Hungary vs 20-30% In South Italy and European Jews. That's a small difference.
 
Czech, Norwegians don't have Bedouin admixture, I'm not exactly sure what charts were you seeing. There's 1-3% Bedouin admixture in Slovenia, Hungary vs 20-30% In South Italy and European Jews. That's a small difference.

What on earth are you talking about? If you have problems with reading comprehension this may not be the forum for you. If you're ******** again, it definitely isn't.

We are discussing stats from the Reich lab, specifically from Haak et al, as we clearly stated.

There isn't 20-30% Bedouin in any population in Europe. You're either sadly misinformed or ******** again. Since this seems to be a pattern, I would say ********, so take the consequences.
 
Obviously the Bedouin component stands for something else in most cases. Also it doesn't really improve the fits in Europe much except for those four populations (Sicilians, Maltese, Iberians, Jews who get a good chunk of it), unlike the Nganasan which improves the whole of Europe pretty much with an expected bias toward the Northeast. I posted it to compare how the steppe estimate changes between the three analyses.

To put it in terms of the Geneplaza calculator again, my "extra" Iran type ancestry is lower than that of a lot of northern Europeans.

I haven't seen that calculator but by "extra" you mean that it's supposedly ancestry not related to the Caucasus/Iran component in Yamnaya but additional one like of the type the Minoans-Mycenaeans had?
 

This thread has been viewed 1162264 times.

Back
Top