Jovialis
Advisor
- Messages
- 9,311
- Reaction score
- 5,861
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H6a1b7
Not sure if understand the question. The minons are an ambiguous group within and of themselves, we only call them that because of Sir Auther Evans gave it to them based on the legend of King Minos. We don't know what they called themselves or the full extent of their influence, their boarders, if they had them. Read the book by Eric Cline, they were artisans that traveled far from Crete. Egyptians had minoan artists create works for them as an example. Imo, they are a broad group of pre-indo European people, who were mostly Anatolian_N and a bit of CHG, which matches what is described as the essential components of the Mediterranean Genetic Continuum. The idea they went to south Italy is absolutely plausible, and geneticist are starting to notice they're a plausible component. Btw, which is something we figured out first, while other sites were coming up with hair brained theories.Your wording is a bit ambiguous (was it a "minoan-like" as in literally "minoan-like" or a population that had a more minoan-like substrate/it's ideally better modelled with minoan as a substrate?), anyway, we have in my opinion enough information to have a reasonable picture of the Italian genetic landscape in the iron age, and it would seem that Latium and central Italy was genetically an extention of the Po valley (upcoming samples from Emilia are reported to be identical to Latins as for PCA position), whereas in Apulia there was already some more pull towards the "northeast" med (Greece and Anatolia), and Sicilians from the IA are reported to be identical to Sicilians in the BA. As this picture stands it seems to me that there is little plausible room for some pockets of Minoan-like populations in the Iron age.
The folks at anthrogenica are dumb but not so dumb they forgo any attention to the details of their theories: they have a "pataphysician" approach to archeogenetics, that is they postulate the most absurd and ridicolous facts to make their theories stand, instead of trying to formulate the most parsimonious scenarios, yet they acknowledge that the supposed great mixing of Latins and "east med folks" (a category that doesn't even exist as a cluster, since Anatolians and Caucasians belong to a well defined different cluster than Levantines, but let's keep this remark short) happened too fast: republicans are west med but early Imperials are already "imperial Roman" genetically (and let's overlook the fact that very likely such a genetic profile is just an abstract average of different genetic clusters that likely didn't exist in reality if not for a very few persons, as if one averaged the inhabitants of the USA and believed that such average is really the genetic profile a random American posseses), which is mighty implausible, thus they believe it started in the hellenistic era.
There can be a nugget of truth here: the "east shift" seems to interests the area of intense roman colonization such as Iberia, even south French seem "east shifted" to where they plotted in the IA (and I've read an abstract of an upcoming paper that talks about some "east med" gene flow in south France), so it looks like a late republic/early empire phenomenon, not something that happened in the late empire or antiquity.
We need more samples to draw more secured theories, since as they stand now they aren't enough, but here it is my conjecture: look where Bulgaria_IA plot and where the bulk of Balkanite samples from Serbia plot, they are significantly "east shifted" compared to Bulgaria_IA, and they are east shifted compared to Croat_IA and Slovenia_IA as well, and there are still many samples that cluster around Bulgaria_IA: my impression is that the Balkans' genetic landscale had some width (calling the X axis "length" and the Y axis "width"), and roughly the same width the Aegean BA and IA cluster had, so I think either it was already present in the IA or was caused by interactions with populations rich in caucasus-related ancestry, that is either Anatolians or some eastern Iranics or both.
Anyway, historically the Balkans had tight connections with south Italy, especially what is today Albania and Greece, so my conjecture is that Balkanites (at least southern Balkanites: it would look like northern Balkanites can better be explained as a two way mixture between IA Croat and Slovenia-like and Russian-like ancestries)are east shifted compared to their IA ancestors for processes already happening in the classical age, and it later extended to south Italy (partially due to Messapians and partially to Greeks e.g.) prior to the annexion to the Roman republic or slightly later, and south Italy, if so is the case, became the reservoir of men for Rome, and such ancestry spread during Roman colonization.
I have no idea whether historical demography supports such a picture, but at least I think it's much more plausible than competing theories imo.
Eupedia.com ftw.
ta08:Clemente_2021