Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[Milan.M]

Those Greek authors were speaking from the point of view of post-Minoan, post-Mycenaean Crete (Odysseus' narratives were most likely written in the late Dark Ages of Greece, transitioning toward Classical Greece). We know for sure that two of those foreign elements, Akhaians and Dorians, were IE tribes arrived from mainland Greece. Eteocretans, who were probably a minority in Classical times, were called "true Cretans", "original Cretans" or something like that, and I don't think that must be only a coincidence in that they weren't IE speakers and were named "true Cretans".

Yes it is post-Minoan authors and post-Mycenaean but if you read carefully you will notice Eteocretans and Kydones who are counted as original inhabitants and the Pelasgians elsewhere known as pre-Greeks that's all together three different "ethnicities" or communities.
The ancient authors did not care who was IE or not,they weren't linguists to give name accordingly,Eteocretans were named so because were the old inhabitants of Crete probably.
I am not arguing that Eteocretans or Minoans were IE or not.

Eteocretan language may not be related to Minoan after all

The language, which is not understood, is probably a survival of a language spoken on Crete before the arrival of Greeks and may or may not be derived from the Minoan language preserved in the Linear A inscriptions of a millennium earlier. Since that language remains untranslated, it is not certain that Eteocretan and Minoan are related.

 

[Milan.M]

The quote is from this book The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe Ca. 1200 B.C.
https://books.google.com.sa/books/about/The_End_of_the_Bronze_Age.html?id=bFpK6aXEWN8C&redir_esc=y page 65

Couldn't all of these peoples migrated from Anatolia to Europe?

The written sources say otherwise but in my opinion they could if not all some of them,for example i think that Greek language came from there,maybe i am not right about that but i'm more inclined to think that way now.
That's interesting insight in that book.

 

[IronSide]

The written sources say otherwise but in my opinion they could if not all some of them,for example i think that Greek language came from there,maybe i am not right about that but i'm more inclined to think that way now.
That's interesting insight in that book.

They explain the written sources as:

The lack of
archaelogical support for a Phrygian migration from Europe ca. 1200 is
hardly surprising since, as noted previously, Maspero's thesis rested
entirely on statements by two Greek authors of the fifth century. Analysis will
show that the statements in question--one from Herodutos and one from
the Lydiaka of Xanthus--have no value as evidence for Bronze Age history.
Contradicting the earlier Greek view that the Phrygians had "always"
lived in Phrygia, the texts seem to have been occasioned by a late fifth-
century controvercy about the identity of the legendary king Midas.

I wonder where can we find this earlier Greek view? what sources?

 

[Angela]

If we should have learned anything in the last five or so years it's to take the ancient authors' stories with a big grain of salt.

If we want to get a reasonable handle on population migrations in ancient history we have to combine ancient dna with archaeology, with some input from linguistics, but I think it's turning out that genetics will change linguistic analysis more than the other way around.

We should also have learned that admixture runs are very unreliable, if for no other reason than that with every K the clusters reform and new ones can even appear.

 

[davef]

If we should have learned anything in the last five or so years it's to take the ancient authors' stories with a big grain of salt.

If we want to get a reasonable handle on population migrations in ancient history we have to combine ancient dna with archaeology, with some input from linguistics, but I think it's turning out that genetics will change linguistic analysis more than the other way around.

We should also have learned that admixture runs are very unreliable, if for no other reason than that with every K the clusters reform and new ones can even appear.

Got it. I guess I shouldn't think too deeply about the admixture chart.

 

[Cato]

I agree
I have been stating that illyrians originate around noricum ( east austria ) and modern eastern slovenia for a long time.
and yes these illyrians are part of celtic Halstatt
I never heard of the dorians in Dalmatia, but always wanted to know who the illyrians pushed south as they moved south from noricum

More precisely an Illyrian tribe that later, perhaps, mixed with the Dorians came, maybe, from Dalmatia or Illyria in general...a migration from the North-West (of Greece) in the Sub-Mycanean period was detected even by the famous anthropologist J.L. Angel in Skeletal material from Attica

And increase in European Alpine, Dinaric-Mediterranean, and Nordic-Iranian types over their frequencies in Late Helladic III suggests that the amazing Submycenaean type diversity obvious in Plates XLVII to L is a result of the arrival of invaders. 105 (noterobably from the north and northwest judging by the Iron Age crania from Illyria and Classical Macedonians from Olynthus. Cf. 1. L. Angel, in D. M. Robinson, Necrolynthia, Table IV.) Except for too definite an Iranian element the new tendencies in Attica approximate the Alpine and Dinaric (-Nordic) combination which present material suggests as typical of the Dorians, though such a combinationw as probably typical of many North or West Greek and Illyrian-speaking peoples at this time.

 

[blevins13]

It has been suggested that Dorians were partly mixed with the Illyrians. The Dorian tribe of the Hylleis in particular may was an Illyrian tribe related to the Hylloi of central Dalmatia. Illyrians in turn mixed the Hallstatt folks from the north. If this was true then it can explain in part why Post-Mycenaeans Greeks were more "Northerners"

The Dorian homeland was likely located in Epirus, a region that bordered with Illyria
View attachment 9013

Cato chi e l'autore di questo studio....perche non vedo il nome.....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[davef]

To whoever neg rated me: relax! I did warn that I wasn't stating that modern Greeks don't have Mycenaean ancestry. I just wanted someone to clear up the confusion behind the chart.

 

[Yetos]

They explain the written sources as:



I wonder where can we find this earlier Greek view? what sources?

Makedonians consider Phrygians as their brothers
and mygdonians the Phrygians that left behind,

that is what history writes,

expecting more from geneticks

 

[Yetos]

More precisely an Illyrian tribe that later, perhaps, mixed with the Dorians came, maybe, from Dalmatia or Illyria in general...a migration from the North-West (of Greece) in the Sub-Mycanean period was detected even by the famous anthropologist J.L. Angel in Skeletal material from Attica

That is the problem,

The archaiological found suggest that Myceneans, Not the dorians descent from Vucedol

But the geneticks show oposite,

 

[ΠΑΝΑΞ]

Oh no, I meant by the Hellenic age from the coming of the proto-Hellenes (Myceneans?), I didn't mean the period after Alexander.

I suppose you meant "Helladic" instead of "Hellenistic"
We have "Helladic" for the continent, as well "Cycladic" for the Aegean and "Minoan" for Crete.
So, we have for example at early Bronze Age the early Helladic, early Cycladic, etc, as also Middle and Late with subdivisions to each one (i) (ii) (iii) and on.

I should be more careful the next time.

Next time be more carefull. I almost was ready to downrate you... You test my generosity this time. :grin:

 

[ΠΑΝΑΞ]

Relatively high.

High steppe in modern Greeks compared to what Mycenaean peasants had. Modern Greeks have way more of steppe ancestry than Mycenaean commoners. Look at the PCA graph. Mycenaeans cluster with Sicilians, not with mainland Greeks - who are ca. 1/4 more shifted in the direction of Russians.

Why did you remove my satirical picture (Greek Nationalist's Dilemma)?:

How much fun...


But the true is that is not what "modern Greeks" bother about. I think they mostly have pride for their language mostly.
An other think is the "slavic"genetic imput as mentioned, it profited us and not damaged us.
It is interesting to see how other people (barbarians, Lol) consider about the Greeks.


Hey it;s a catchy thread and running wild... Nice conversation guys, I wish to have more time, thanks.

 

[Dianatomia]

More precisely an Illyrian tribe that later, perhaps, mixed with the Dorians came, maybe, from Dalmatia or Illyria in general...a migration from the North-West (of Greece) in the Sub-Mycanean period was detected even by the famous anthropologist J.L. Angel in Skeletal material from Attica

There are plenty of indications that Greece was being settled by other tribes from the North even in the Mycenean era and the Greek Dark Ages. This is what the authors of this research also have mentioned in the first place. It's just that some people wanted to baptize Mycenean Greeks as the Ancient (i.e Classical) Greeks in general. Surely the two were related. But there certainly may have been some differences.

 

[Dianatomia]

Relatively high.

High steppe in modern Greeks compared to what Mycenaean peasants had. Modern Greeks have way more of steppe ancestry than Mycenaean commoners. Look at the PCA graph. Mycenaeans cluster with Sicilians, not with mainland Greeks - who are ca. 1/4 more shifted in the direction of Russians.

Why did you remove my satirical picture (Greek Nationalist's Dilemma)?:

There is no dilemma in the Greek mindset. Where the Slavs in any way aristocrats in Medieval Greek society? Certainly not. The ones who settled lands of modern Greece were Hellenized, Christianized and thus absorbed into the Greek cultural mainframe. What makes you think that it would have been any different for possible earlier steppe related invasions in Greece?

I can't imagine that this is an issue for the Greek nationalists as you say. Rather, it is an issue for Nordicist who insist that aristocracy in Greece somehow was Nordic, while all the evidence points to the opposite. Don't get me wrong. I can certainly imagine that steppe related invaders were rougher, and could have been more war-like etc. But they were certainly not more refined and baptized as aristocrats just for the sake of it. Some invasions could have been peaceful, some less so. But at the end of the day, they accepted the superior indigenous culture and were soon absorbed. Creating a slightly new blend with a little bit more steppe related admixture. All the rest is a delusion.

 

[Sile]

More precisely an Illyrian tribe that later, perhaps, mixed with the Dorians came, maybe, from Dalmatia or Illyria in general...a migration from the North-West (of Greece) in the Sub-Mycanean period was detected even by the famous anthropologist J.L. Angel in Skeletal material from Attica

I do not see it that way..............if you want to favour the scenario you present then one must agree also that vucedol culture was proto-illyrian as some have suggested, but consensus states that the origin of illyrians is basically noricum and as far south as istria.
this leaves the question of who lived in modern croatia and bosnia in the bronze-age.
To me the illyrian push going south reaching macedonia by the time of Phillip II would indicate that the illyrians could not have been direct neighbours of the macedonians before 400BC as they would have clashed earlier................note: no illyrian joined Phillip or alexander's armies
The push going south ( beginning in the bronze-age could only have happened due to celtic pushing of illyrians in noricum ( which is why we see Halstatt as a celtic-illyrian mix ), the illyrian who where not absorbed into celtic society where moving south and must have pushed someone south of them. A scenario could be that these where dorians...............who in turn entered mycenean greece .
Vucedol culture is the key .............was it proto-illyrian, proto-dorian or neither
This is my theory

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Read Eupedia, first and let me know what you think, do you believe z2103 is Doric?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

I will answer. It isn't.

 

[Angela]

Z2103 is yet as it was, in the steppes, so it can't be trusted the IE expansion to it. Instead R1a is relied to EHG (all IE samples have it much or less) and they are related to the demuc expansion in Asia, the Indo-Iranian one. I see that Greek -polis is the same as Indic -pur. Both branches share a lot of cultural cases... where it's possible to look at the first IE cities? in Arkhaim

Do you actually believe this stuff?

 

[Cato]

Cato chi e l'autore di questo studio....perche non vedo il nome.....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

from this book

http://ita.calameo.com/read/000150262f61a760a117a

I don't know if it's completely reliable, i don't know him but what he wrote seems plausible

I do not see it that way..............if you want to favour the scenario you present then one must agree also that vucedol culture was proto-illyrian as some have suggested, but consensus states that the origin of illyrians is basically noricum and as far south as istria.
this leaves the question of who lived in modern croatia and bosnia in the bronze-age.
To me the illyrian push going south reaching macedonia by the time of Phillip II would indicate that the illyrians could not have been direct neighbours of the macedonians before 400BC as they would have clashed earlier................note: no illyrian joined Phillip or alexander's armies
The push going south ( beginning in the bronze-age could only have happened due to celtic pushing of illyrians in noricum ( which is why we see Halstatt as a celtic-illyrian mix ), the illyrian who where not absorbed into celtic society where moving south and must have pushed someone south of them. A scenario could be that these where dorians...............who in turn entered mycenean greece .
Vucedol culture is the key .............was it proto-illyrian, proto-dorian or neither
This is my theory

I don't know much about Yugoslavian archaeology but i believe that when Hallstatt Illyrians settled south encountered other Illyrians (may we can call them Southern Illyrians) maybe driving them south in Epirus where they intermingled with Dorians ?? (who knows)...i doubt that there were Greek tribes there in the north at that time.

There are plenty of indications that Greece was being settled by other tribes from the North even in the Mycenean era and the Greek Dark Ages. This is what the authors of this research also have mentioned in the first place. It's just that some people wanted to baptize Mycenean Greeks as the Ancient (i.e Classical) Greeks in general. Surely the two were related. But there certainly may have been some differences.

Every barbarian European wanted to live in Mycenaean Greece, it was the California of the times

 

[PaschalisB]

Since everyone talks about Dorians, I believe they brought E-S2979 into Greece judging from the subclade's distribution (mainly in southern Greece as well as Albania, the Balkans and Central Europe)

 

[Diomedes]

The Greek way, that is to say the Greek civilization was the greatest in that area. It comes to me as a surprise to believe that some people reckon that a foreigner who was hellenized would keep the old, yet barbaric ways.