Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Pratt, you're right of course but it seems to be closest to Tuscans and mainland Greeks of all populations on a PCA but with some differences to both. David of Eurogenes made one with non-projected samples:

The Armenoi sample seems to be shifted towards the direction of various Beaker and Corded samples relative to the Mycenaean cluster.


Crete Armenoi is, more or less, in this position. Closer to mainland Greeks.

kqjAev1.png


H0lwXeD.png
 
tell me where the Mycenian charriots and swords came from, and maybe you've got the answer

and the paper tells in what component the Mycenian genome differs from the Minoan genome

Did Ancient Egypt have them at this time?
 
what are you talking about........which post ? ....................
I am against every religious institute that promotes gender-racism

Do you always talk in freaking far left mumbo jumbo platitudes? What, did they send you to feminist re-education camp?

Ok, I'll post a naked male body this time. Beautiful...and I'd do serious bodily injury to anyone who dared to cover it up. Happy now?

The Riace bronzes from Calabria...
72b12846abc260f89b994b578b1d6166.jpg
 
Do you always talk in freaking far left mumbo jumbo platitudes? What, did they send you to feminist re-education camp?

Ok, I'll post a naked male body this time. Beautiful...and I'd do serious bodily injury to anyone who dared to cover it up. Happy now?

The Riace bronzes from Calabria...
72b12846abc260f89b994b578b1d6166.jpg


I will ask again.....what is the post # that has annoyed you?

And what about these statues...........are they relevant to the thread?
 
Hi Angela, how you explain IE language of Myceneas...I was not able to understand it from the paper....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.
 
Your ancestry? Please, post your GEDMatch results. I don't know what the NG test is.

I'm Italian, from central Puglia. I spoke about it in more detail here. NG, is national geographic. But unfortunately, the Helix version doesn't allow you to download the raw data file yet.
 
IMO, Dorians are proto-epirotes

Homer: "There is a land called Crete, in the midst of the wine-dark sea, a fair, rich land, begirt with water, and therein are many men, past counting, and ninety cities. They have not all the same speech, but their tongues are mixed. There dwell Achaeans, there great-hearted native Cretans, there Cydonians, and Dorians of waving plumes, and goodly Pelasgians."

Where the Dorians came from: "the Pelasgians ... were once neighbors of the people now called Dorians, and at that time inhabited the country which now is called Thessalian." (Herodotus)

J2 were predominately the Minoans so cross them off as Dorians and they did not come from the north. J1 did not come from the North either. Neither did E1b1b.

Northern Greece is 16% I2a and 22.5% total I. It is 13% R1b. And 18% R1a. The homeland of the Dorians, according to Herodotus.

Crete is 5-10% R1b-S28 and 5-10% R1b-ht35. 9% R1a. 7% I2a and 12% total I.

There is a good chance the Dorians were I2a, with their homeland in the north.

A good percentage of R1b-S28 were Celtic POWs turned Roman slaves and freed throughout the centuries. R1b-ht35 is anatolian and did not come from the north. Not many are saying R1a are the Dorians. That leaves I2a.
 
In the grid of PCAs posted by Jovialis, we have Minoans plotting with the Anatolian farmers in half of them, whereas they can be found just slightly south and east of Mycenaeans in the other half....could someone explain this inconsistency?

It's not an inconsistency. They are showing the different possible models for the Mycenaeans. You have to read the headings for each one carefully. It's just a representation in a PCA of the exhaustive modeling they did with statistics in other parts of the paper.

Some models are better than others, but in all of them the Mycenaeans are nowhere near the steppe or even the European ML Bronze Age.

In that regard, I would be wary of a lot of comments you see on other sites. After two days of pontificating some posters are saying they haven't yet read the paper, never mind the real meat, which is in all the supporting documentation.

That's like a judge writing his/her decisions before he's read the briefs presented by the parties: stupid and unethical. Anyone guilty of it would be impeached.

And then people wonder why I lose my patience.
 
Your ancestry? Please, post your GEDMatch results. I don't know what the NG test is.

Good grief, Pratt. For a second I got a flash of Sikeliot ******** like mad for Italian gedmatch numbers and results. :)

Just kidding.

@Messier,
Just what we need, more speculation with no genetic data to support it.
 
I strive to be as objective as possible, and always defer to the facts. :)

But I now see what you're saying about the Mycenaean in regards to the data.

The NG test said my first reference population was Greek, and my second was Tuscan. This is pure speculation, but would this be a possibility for where I would placed on this map?

uKw3x3N.png

Why do you think you plot there, Jovialis? In every PCA I've ever seen, southern mainland Italians from Puglia, Campania, etc. plot in the gap between Tuscans and Sicilians. There used to be a pretty decent PCA on 23andme where you could see where you and your shares plotted, and the only southerners who plotted anywhere close to that were the ones from the Abruzzi.
 
Why do you think you plot there, Jovialis? In every PCA I've ever seen, southern mainland Italians from Puglia, Campania, etc. plot in the gap between Tuscans and Sicilians. There used to be a pretty decent PCA on 23andme where you could see where you and your shares plotted, and the only southerners who plotted anywhere close to that were the ones from the Abruzzi.

EaTeNC6.png


I figured I might be placed there due to these autosomal results.

I recall Salento, from Salento in Pugila had these results.
Geno 2 NG Helix Results:
91% Italy & Southern Europe
5% Southwestern Europe
2% Eastern Europe

1st Ref. Pop. Greek
2nd Ref. Pop. Tuscan (Italy)
 
EaTeNC6.png


I figured I might be placed there due to these autosomal results.

I haven't taken this test Jovialis, so I may not be the right person to ask, but I don't think you're meant to halve the distance.

The other thing is that NG doesn't have a Southern Italian reference sample. If they did, I'm pretty sure that would be your closest population.

Can NG data be input into Gedmatch? I know it accepts both 23andme and FTDNA. If it can, you'll find out through those calculators how close you are to other southern Italians. If not, I don't know what to suggest.

Sorry...Maybe someone else of southern Italian ancestry who has taken that test could give you some guidance.
 
I haven't taken this test Jovialis, so I may not be the right person to ask, but I don't think you're meant to halve the distance.

The other thing is that NG doesn't have a Southern Italian reference sample. If they did, I'm pretty sure that would be your closest population.

Can NG data be input into Gedmatch? I know it accepts both 23andme and FTDNA. If it can, you'll find out through those calculators how close you are to other southern Italians. If not, I don't know what to suggest.

Sorry...Maybe someone else of southern Italian ancestry who has taken that test could give you some guidance.

https://genographic.nationalgeograp...-analytical-data-generated-from-my-dna-sample

How do I access the raw analytical data generated from my DNA sample?


For Geno 1.0 and Geno 2.0 participants the raw analytical output from your DNA sample is available to you as a CSV file. Go to My Profile, select the My Results tab and scroll down to Expert Options. Because this data is sensitive, you must first agree to the terms and then you will have the option to download the file. A download link will automatically appear under the My Test Results section.


For Geno 2.0 Next Gen Participants (but not Geno 2.0 Next Gen Helix co-branded kits) the raw analytical output from your DNA sample is available for purchase through our partner, Family Tree DNA. Go to My Profile, select the My Results tab and scroll down till you see Transfer my Results on the right hand side. Or you can click here.


For Geno 2.0 Next Gen Helix co-branded kit Participants, we are currently exploring options to be able to make this available to you.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been any update on them considering to release the raw data for the Helix version. I initially choose this brand because of the high-accuracy sequencing process they have. It's a shame I can't get the raw data though.

Would the raw data be compatible? I read that sequencing DNA with their proprietary technology, Exome+, is supposed to be different and more advanced than genotyping.
 
There's no question that the Mycenaeans are the first population from Greece to speak the Greek language, which is an Indo-European language. Minoan is another story. I think it's likely it's not Indo-European, but as it has never been translated some linguists claim it might be related. I tend to think not.

The question in a nutshell is when and with whom did the Greek language arrive in Greece? The authors of the paper, including Reich, remain agnostic. They give a nod to the Anatolian hypothesis but then also discuss the fact that the movements seen during the Bronze Age from both the north and the east could support the Greek language being introduced by these later peoples.

The first of these later two possibilities, which perhaps they lean toward, is a movement from the steppe down through the Balkans, presumably through the area of present day Romania/Bulgaria.

The other possibility they still cannot exclude statistically is a movement from eastern Anatolia near Armenia bringing the Greek language to Greece. That was the position that Drews took, and he even posited about 10% steppe if I remember the book accurately.

They maintain, and rightly, that more ancient samples from the Balkans are necessary, as are samples from the Caucasus, presumably.

Of course, they may have those ancient samples and have analyzed them already, but they have to play coy because there are a lot of people moving through the Reich Lab who need to write papers. It's a university, after all, and it's going to have to run like one. Or perhaps they're really not sure yet. They haven't been wrong yet, and I'm sure they don't want to ruin their winning streak.

Thanks for your valuable insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
@Maciamo

Maciamo ti si clear that Doris=ans never inveded Greece,
the one who invade are the Myceneans,

Lazarides just certified Triantafylides,
and allows the open space of Giannopoulos.

the I1 in Greece I doupt it is Germanic,
All genetists in Greece found and are certain that is paliolithic,
Sarakatsans are heavily in I1 and are consider the pre-glacial population of Greece.
in fact at all the palaiolithic congresses that is discussed,
and there is also one Y-Dna that is still kept in a kind of fog.
But I1 of Sarakatsans is considered the most ancient not only in Greece but in a wider area,

So indeed as Lazarides certified Triantafyllides then we have 11% paleolithic
59% post Glacial
20% Neolithic farmers
only 10 % of we call IE (Yamnaa etc)

on the other hand Giannopoulos believed that Descent Of Myceneans (NOTICE MYCENEANS NOT DORIANS as belived at 1928)
was a massive Huge devastation of IE from Vucedol/Vucocar/Vatin who came from Yamnaa and Steppe.
But it seems that Lazarides measures the same % that Triantafyllides claim
the 7-13% of Myceneans is From Vucedol or ProtoCetina,
so I think Lazrides results just certifies and unites the previous olders Triantafyllides and Giannopoulos,

in fact the question now is could 7-10-13% of Vucedol change the language to IE?
or the neolithic 20%, or ...?

the numbers of Lazarides simply certify the previous works done,
and give result in balance with older searches.

I agree that more Mycenean,
as also Thessalian and Makedonian Neolithic and Bronze age would give better results,
but not in very long from these,

as for North Greece
N Greece was Half NW Greeks and Half Thracians.
N Greece ones run out of men who moved by Alexander
N Greece was raided and habitetd by SLavs and enough mark of them is still here.
Gauls entered Greece but moved to North to end at Galateia,
the Gaulish remnants, especially in Kutsuk Vlachs are from Roman legions and Roman citizens.
The EXTRA SLAVIC mark is cause some Vlachs are from Slavic descent (Antes Romanised Slavs)

considering that Makedonia which is main body of N Greece,
was the land of heaven for Aromani Epirotans and Greeks of Balkans (Bulgaria Romania Albania Serbo-Croatia Istria Austria Hungary Alexandreia France Russia)
after 1860,
and the favorite tactic of Ottoman to break omogenous population was to devaste other populations,
that gives a strong change amore than 25% to be different and more North East and Central European.

as for mtDNA X2.
I am that rare mtDNA:LOL:
but it is possible in Greece to be X2 than to be U,
Do you have any sources on the Greek I1. As an I1 I am interested.

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
Even if the admixture came through the Balkans, rather than from the region around Armenia, we're talking about 13% "steppe", 8% EHG. Big whoops. I wouldn't have thought that was enough for language change but I guess it is.

Hi, Angela! I'm writing here for the first time, but have been reading the discussions here (and above all your posts) with interest for several months. I decided to write here now because I got really excited with the results of this study.

However, as just an amateur with an interest in history, linguistics and population genetics, I'm really in doubt about the likeliness of a scenario I've figured out here, which is the following.

Well, if: 1) the ancient Mycenaeans had 13% "steppe ancestry"; 2) they don't seem to have been established in Greece much before 2,000 BC, i.e. many centuries after the initial dispersal of Yamna-related peoples; and 3) that 13% percentage looks suspiciously low for such a stunning linguistic and cultural change (even though the Turkish precedent in Turkey is very suggestive here); then can we assume that Proto-Greek introgression possibly had a lot more impact than the EHG/"Steppe" numbers indicate, and that in fact they came directly from the mixed EEF+Steppe and a lot nearer Balkans or Carpathians?

Considering the very large populations of SE European cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye by 4,000-3,000 BC, I wouldn't be surprised if later and probably Indo-European cultures (e.g. Cernavoda, Vucedol) nearby were only half steppe-like or even less, and certainly much less than half EHG. If that's the case, then the demographic impact of Mycenaeans could've been reasonably high, at 25%-30%.

What do you think? Your answer would be very appreciated.
 
These findlings are hardly surprising to anyone who REALLY knows modern Greek culture, customs, folklore and superstitions. This book https://books.google.gr/books/about...ncient_Greek.html?id=D6ghAB1AJR8C&redir_esc=y describes the culture of early 19th century rural Greece, which was lost with the rapid urbanisation that followed.
I don't care at all about "purity", "continuity", etc, (as a matter of fact being a scientist I believe in hybrid vigour :rolleyes:), but I am SO pleased to know that all these closet nordicists are foaming at the moment. Plus, the added bonus of seeing Fallmerayer and his gang of German romanticists with their theories about blond ancient Greeks/Chinese/whatever shot down and crash landing like a giant watermelon.
 
Thus far we have seen:

Lebanese largely share a genetic continuity with Canaanites.

Britons largely shared a genetic continuity with Celts during the Roman Period. Genetics in England changed with the arrival and admixture with groups like the the Anglo-Saxons, and Normans. While the Romans and Vikings only left a marginal genetic impact.

Modern Greeks largely share a genetic continuity with the Mycenaean and Minoans. Moreover, Cyprus, Albania, Sicily, and Southern Italy have similar genetic continuity.

Egyptians retained their genetic continuity throughout the Roman Period. The shift towards more Yoruba admixture occurred during the Middle Ages.

So far it seems to me that the Roman Empire didn’t have a huge impact on changing the genetics of many places it occupied.

As I explained in post #55 above, modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like. I estimated that to increase the EHG from 7% to 20%, it actually requires the contribution of 25 to 40% of non-Greek European DNA, depending on the source populations. Based on modern Y-DNA in Greece, it can be deduced that the Slavs contributed the most (21% of Y-DNA in modern Greece), followed by the Germanics (10%) then the Romans and La Tène Celts (8% together). That's 39% on the Y-DNA side, but overall it's likely to be a bit less than that as the paternal line of invaders tends to outweigh the maternal line. It's probably less the case for the Slavs and Goths, who moved as whole families, and indeed whole tribes, but it would be truer for the Romans, who were mostly administrators and soldiers stationed in Greece, with few Roman women settling there.

In summary, it's true that the impact of the Romans on these populations was relatively minor (1 to 5%), but that is to be expected as the Romans did not send a big number of colonists to places like Egypt, Phoenicia or Britain. The places most heavily colonised by the Romans outside Italy were Gaul and Iberia, particularly the southern parts like Provence and Andalusia. It would be much more interesting to see the population shift before and after Roman times in those regions.
 
So, is there a Greek continuity according to you, yes or no?

As I explained in post #55 above, modern Greeks, and particularly northern Greeks, are quite different from Minoans and Mycenaeans. Don't be deceived by the simple admixtures using ENF, CHG, EHG and the like.
 
afaik charriots and swords appeared in the Carpathian Basin, not the Balkans prior to the appearance of the Myceneans
anyway it is strange that BA Balkan or Carpathian Basin DNA does not appear in the models
No, Aegean swords and chariots are for all intents and purposes carbon-copies of their Anatolian predecessors. This is one of the many reasons the results of the paper shouldn't come as a surprise.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 1158693 times.

Back
Top