Minoans with EHG ancestry & Mycenaeans without it!

Moja

Regular Member
Messages
246
Reaction score
97
Points
28
Look at these samples from "The genetic history of the Southern Arc":

mino_atoy.jpg


What do you think about it?
 
Also, Mycenaeans seem to have more "Levant" than the Minoans.
 
Last time we saw it, it was the opposite. Don't know what to say about this paper anymore. Somehow, it just doesn't click in some cases. Minoans lived in Crete, in the southernmost Aegean island, i find it hard to believe this is the case, first geographically-wise.
 
It's been postulated that Phoenicians had trade/contact with the Mycenean world prior to 900 B.C. because of some pottery in Euboea.
 
It's been postulated that Phoenicians had trade/contact with the Mycenean world prior to 900 B.C. because of some pottery in Euboea.

They seem to be from a long time before the Phoenician era -> 1613-1503 calBCE GRC_Mycenaean_Lokris_BA
 
They seem to be from a long time before the Phoenician era -> 1613-1503 calBCE GRC_Mycenaean_Lokris_BA


Re-read my post.
 
Look at these samples from "The genetic history of the Southern Arc":
mino_atoy.jpg

What do you think about it?
Timeline is important. Myceneans were present in Crete before 1450BCE which is roughly when they conquered the Minoan capital of Knossos. Minoans could have easily picked EHG a bit before that.
 
Timeline is important. Myceneans were present in Crete before 1450BCE which is roughly when they conquered the Minoan capital of Knossos. Minoans could have easily picked EHG a bit before that.

minoan_vnv.jpg
 
Last time we saw it, it was the opposite. Don't know what to say about this paper anymore. Somehow, it just doesn't click in some cases. Minoans lived in Crete, in the southernmost Aegean island, i find it hard to believe this is the case, first geographically-wise.

Do you think the data is tampered?
 
The supplementary information (page 234) has 4pc (plus or minus 1pc) EHG for Mycenaeans and only 1pc (plus or minus 1pc) EHG for Minoans.

"The EHG ancestry is ~3-fold lower in the Mycenaean samples than in the Bronze Age samples from North Macedonia and Albania immediately to the north of Greece and~10-fold lower than in Moldova on the edge of the steppe".

"...although steppe-derived ancestry was present in Bronze Age Greece it was quantitively the weakest discernible component, only a little above the practically non-existent Balkan hunter-gatherer ancestry".
 
What is the source of the table? I don't recall seeing it in the paper. Are those samples available in G25 format?
 
What is the source of the table? I don't recall seeing it in the paper. Are those samples available in G25 format?

Go to the Eurogenes blog...latest article by Davidski.

I don't agree with his views but he provides a free link to the supplementary information.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.:awesome:
 

Samples 2-6 are plausible within the “recent”end of that time range. They still paint a picture of very early Mycenean activity in Minoan Crete. The first sample however throws a wrench into everything we think we know. Unless something is wrong with it.
 
Samples 2-6 are plausible within the “recent”end of that time range. They still paint a picture of very early Mycenean activity in Minoan Crete. The first sample however throws a wrench into everything we think we know. Unless something is wrong with it.

The problem is that a large number of Mycenaean samples didn't have EHG ancestry themselves.
 
The problem is that a large number of Mycenaean samples didn't have EHG ancestry themselves.

That’s not a big issue really. You can have adopted Minoans into Mycenean families or mixed communities. It’s the first Minoan sample that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Is this a typo or misread source?
 
The problem is that a large number of Mycenaean samples didn't have EHG ancestry themselves.

I think the better proxy for Steppe for the Myceneans is to use Yamnaya directly not a Direct EHG. The Yamnaya were at first a close to 50/50 split of EHG+CHG but the Southern/eastern flank of Yamnaya territory, IE speakers according to the new Lazaridis et al 2022 paper is that the the proportion of CHG was 17% higher, so the IE coming into Greece were more like 67% CHG + 33% EHG, on average. So lets assume 10% Steppe, the average Mycenean is going to be around 3% EHG, some on the left hand of the distribution are going to have 0. So perhaps use some of the later bronze Age Yamnaya samples that came into the Balkans that were more CHG relative to EHG in terms of Ancestry.

I personally don't see it as a problem. Just IE speakers varied in their relative proportions of CHG + EHG + older EEF Neolithic Farmer ancestry.

Anyway, that is my reading of the Mycenean situation, if I am off in my interpretation of the new paper, open for constructive corrections. Cheers
 
That’s not a big issue really. You can have adopted Minoans into Mycenean families or mixed communities. It’s the first Minoan sample that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Is this a typo or misread source?

There are some other problems, like high amount of Levant ancestry in Mycenaean samples.
I think all of those Minoan samples are too old and they couldn't be related to Mycenaeans.
 

This thread has been viewed 20784 times.

Back
Top