Philjames100
Regular Member
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 124
- Points
- 43
Based on, that Lazaridis did not confirm steppe ancestry for Mycenaean and left the door open for Anatolian route.
From the Lazaridis 2017 supplementary material:
“populations of (Middle/Late Bronze Age) Armenia themselves have some EHG-related ancestry, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHG related ancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it is possible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the east), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia. (p.35)
Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-related populations we infer that they have ~56-63% Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry, which is smaller than the ~74-80% of such ancestry when modeling them without the later populations as a source. This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselves have Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia and Neolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of it into the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrations from the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it. (p.36)
The two alternative scenarios differ in their derivation of the northern (steppe) / eastern (Near East) non-Anatolian Neolithic ancestry in Mycenaeans. In the first one, Anatolian Neolithic first admixed with an eastern population in the Aegean, with subsequent admixture from a northern population. In the second one, the eastern/northern populations admixed east of Greece (in a population related to Middle/Late Bronze Age Armenia), and then the aggregate population admixed into the Aegean. (p.45)
The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. … we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3. 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. (p.47)
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
"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans [Europe_LNBA] most resemble present-day northern/central Europeans, as do Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations, who also resemble populations of the northeast Caucasus, while Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe populations resemble central/northern Europeans."
Lazaridis et al. 2017, Extended Data Figure 7