Ancient DNA, admx. history and endogamy in the prehistoricAegean Skourtaniotietal2022

Archetype0ne

Regular Member
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
578
Points
113
Ethnic group
Albanian
Y-DNA haplogroup
L283>Y21878>Y197198
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB56216

[h=3]Project: PRJEB56216[/h][FONT=&quot]The Neolithic and Bronze Age were highly transformative periods for the genetic history of Europe, but for the Aegean -a region fundamental to Europe’s prehistory- the biological dimensions of cultural transitions have been elucidated only to a limited extent so far. We have analyzed newly generated genome-wide data from 102 ancient individuals from Crete, the Greek mainland and the Aegean Islands, spanning from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. We found that the early farmers from Crete shared the same ancestry as other contemporaneous Neolithic Aegeans. In contrast, the end of the Neolithic period and the following Early Bronze Age were marked by ‘eastern’ gene-flow, which was predominantly of Anatolian origin in Crete. Confirming previous findings for additional Central/Eastern European ancestry in the Greek mainland by the Middle Bronze Age, we additionally show that such genetic signatures appeared in Crete gradually from the 17th to 12th centuries BC, a period when the influence of the mainland over the island intensified. Biological and cultural connectedness within the Aegean is also supported by the novel finding of consanguineous endogamy practiced at high frequencies, unprecedented in the global ancient DNA record. Our results highlight the potential of archaeogenomic approaches in the Aegean for unraveling the interplay of genetic admixture, marital and other cultural practices.[/FONT]
 
So the ancient greeks also caried j2b2a from the leak in anthrogenica cool find:cool-v:
 
So the ancient greeks also caried j2b2a from the leak in anthrogenica cool find:cool-v:
Yes, J2b-L283. The three samples from Mygdalia, Arcadia, Greece carry a lineage typical of the EBA-IA East Adriatic Western Balkans (EBA Cetina culture and its derivatives onwards namely its late phase Dinaric culture and IA Glasinac-Mati or to put them in other words: the Illyrian sphere) which is the main vector for the spread of this haplogroup. The samples date to 1600-1450 BCE which coincides with the steppe auDNA addition to prehistoric aDNA from Greece. Some upcoming Eastern European studies will enlighten its pre LCA/EBA entry into the Balkans further ;)
 
So the ancient greeks also caried j2b2a from the leak in anthrogenica cool find:cool-v:

Something I thought was unlikely after the Southern Arc paper results. But this is indeed very cool.

One thing I have noticed is that ancient L283 seems to be very patriarchal, when it comes to burial sites. Usually familial burials of relatives, be it in Montenegro, Croatia, Italy or Greece.
 
Something I thought was unlikely after the Southern Arc paper results. But this is indeed very cool.

One thing I have noticed is that ancient L283 seems to be very patriarchal, when it comes to burial sites. Usually familial burials of relatives, be it in Montenegro, Croatia, Italy or Greece.
The Western Balkans L283 samples from Slovenia to Montenegro (haven't checked Albania) share also MtDNA with each other e. g.
id:I13167 J2b-L283>Y21878 (MNE_LBA_Kotor)
id:I24638 J2b-L283>PH1602>FT115799 (Cro_IA_Lika_Dalmatia)

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U5a1g/

Edit: they were generally in their tribal structure very patriarchal, which also shows in their burial rites, so yes definitely. The appearance of similar MtDNA is just too noteworthy to me (I mean not really surprising of course). The above is just one of many examples.
 
Something I thought was unlikely after the Southern Arc paper results. But this is indeed very cool.

One thing I have noticed is that ancient L283 seems to be very patriarchal, when it comes to burial sites. Usually familial burials of relatives, be it in Montenegro, Croatia, Italy or Greece.

Some of the tumulus in Greece was obvious that related to them. It seems that some of them integrated and show up in shaft graves as well. A lot depend on what graves are opened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Couple hundred years too early for Dorians, cause that could have been a possibility.

All these seafaring makes me think there is a likelihood L283 would have been associated with the sea peoples during the BA collapse (Sardinia, Italy, Western Balkans, Tunis, now Peloponnese).

Also a non-zero chance, despite unlikely, that the Kohanim branch might have been incorporated in Greece, or even the Levant, although the best guess still remains Italy.
 
So the ancient greeks also caried j2b2a from the leak in anthrogenica cool find:cool-v:

What were the J2b-L283 like males like autosomally.
 
This is the same idiot racist who in a youtube video called steppe people "EUROPEANS" in contrast to the Mycenaeans, and says "EASTERN EUROPEANS" came into mainland Greece in the 2nd millennium BC?
 
What were the J2b-L283 like males like autosomally.
Great question :
I don't know we need to wait for the actual paper to be published
All i saw in the leak is 4 j2b2a + 1 G2 all from mygdalia mycenaean greece 1600 -1450 bc
 
Last edited:
What were the J2b-L283 like males like autosomally.

Judging by the screenshots and context of the talk Mainland Greeks, even as south as Peloponnese were up to 40% Steppe admixed (making Logkas the norm rather than the exception, a thing a Greek member pointed out to me some months ago through fstats, think his name was dfst on discord, my memory is really lacking).

unknown.png

unknown.png
 
Have to correct my initial post: it should be four J2b-L283 samples not three. Got confused by someone's post.

MYG 001 YDNA J2b-L283 mtDNA K1a
MYG 008 YDNA J2b-L283 mtDNA K1a
MYG 006 YDNA J2b-L283 mtDNA T1a4
MYG 005 YDNA J2b-L283 mtDNA U8b1a2b
 
they should call it
Adriatic Cetina culture


in the Early Bronze Age (Cetina culture: Ervenik, Podvršje − Matakov brig, Nadin, Krneza − Duševića glavica), in the Early Iron Age (Nadin, mound 13, Krneza − Jokina glavica), in Hellenism (Dragišić, gr. 4 A-C), and finally, for the first time very intensively during the Romanization of Liburnians. Newly discovered cremations in ceramic urns (gr. 3, 13) in burial mound 13 (9th – 6th cent. BC) from Nadin near Benkovac are the first example (after Dragišić) of Liburnian cremation; more precisely, burial mound 13 with 19 graves represents a form of biritualism in the Liburnians. It is also an example of the greatest number of Liburnian burials under a mound, with crouched, extended and cremated skeletons and many ritual remains (traces of fire on the ground and on animal bones: funerary feast?; numerous remains of ceramic vessels (libation?). Although typical Liburnian burial "inherits" many formal and symbolic elements (stone cist, enclosing wall, libation, etc.) from the (Early) Bronze Age (and probably Eneolithic as well), cremation in the Liburnian burial mound 13 from Nadin cannot be explained in terms of continuity from the Early Bronze Age; links are missing, particularly those from the Middle Bronze Age in the study of the cultural dynamics of the 2nd millennium BC in the northern Dalmatia region. Squat form of the Nadin urns with a distinct neck has analogies in the Liburnian (Nin) and Daunian funerary pots for burying newborns (ad encytrismos), and also in the typology of pottery (undecorated or decorated) in a wider region (Ruše, V.Gorica, Dalj/Vukovar, Terni II, Este, Bologna I-II, Roma II, Cumae I, Pontecagnano IA, Histrians, etc.), i.e. in the forms widespread from the Danubian region, Alps, and Balkans to the Apennine Peninsula between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (10th/9th – 8th cent. BC). Although appearance of cremation in the Picenian culture has not been completely clear (Fermo necropolis, burials from Ancona, Numana, Novilara: graves Servici, 29, 39 from Piceno II-III, from the 8th/7th.cent. BC), Liburnian culture is most similar to the Picenian culture in the Adriatic world by the intensity and period of cremation, and form of urns. Specifically, decorated urn in a male grave 52 from Numana from the 9th century BC is analogous to the Nadin urns. This grave from Numana is usually mentioned as an example of trans-Adriatic, Picenian-Liburnian (Balkanic) i.e. Picenian-Histrian relations. Liburnian urns are similar to the urn from the grave in Numana, 495, Davanzali, from the late 9th century by their profilation. "Genesis" of both Liburnian and Picenian cremation is unknown. They are two convergent phenomena, reflecting the "unity" of the late Urnenfelder world of the 10th/9th centuries BC and resulting from cultural-ethnical contacts in a "closed circle" from the Danubian region – southeastern Alpine region – Apennine Peninsula, supported by smaller migrations in the first centuries of the Iron Age, from the trans-Adriatic direction in Picenum (with definite Villanova influence), and in Liburnia probably from the hinterland. In this Adriatic circle in the first centuries of the Iron Age multiple cultural contacts between Liburnians, Histrians and Picenians are for now a good (initial) context for a more detailed interpretation of Liburnian cremation. Despite the aforementioned, it is not necessary to relate directly the structure (ritual, goods) of gr. 52, Numana – Qualiotti to Histrian patterns nor the grave 495, Numana-Davanzali to the Iapodian ones. Cremated Liburnian burial from the Early Iron Age represents a certain continuity and a "reflection" of the late Urnenfelder circle, which was manifested in different ways in the beginnings of the Liburnian, Picenian, and Histrian cultures and elsewhere. The latest excavations on a planned Liburnian-Roman necropolis in Nadin (Nedinum) provided us with new information about the spatial, chronological and symbolical relation (religious, social) between the autochtonous Liburnian and Roman component in the period of Romanization of northern Dalmatia
 
Endogamous high Steppe individuals and Anatolians in the same communal tomb, presenter not able to answer most of the questions that would clarify the findings and goes as far as to say Sardinians brought Steppe ancestry to Crete... very confusing.

Interestingly in the question segment David Reich spoils that the "Eastern" ancestry in Southern Italy comes in the Bronze Age.
 
Endogamous high Steppe individuals and Anatolians in the same communal tomb, presenter not able to answer most of the questions that would clarify the findings and goes as far as to say Sardinians brought Steppe ancestry to Crete... very confusing.

Interestingly in the question segment David Reich spoils that the "Eastern" ancestry in Southern Italy comes in the Bronze Age.

Like I said...what is David Reich doing with the likes of this guy?
 
So the ancient greeks also caried j2b2a from the leak in anthrogenica cool find:cool-v:

You have to consider that many people entered Greece from different directions both in the transition from the Middle to the Later Bronze Age and from the Later Bronze to the Iron Age.

So the question is which relationship had these Cetina-related migrants with other migrants from Eastern Europe and the Carpatho-Balkans? How much of the Cetina-related people survived into the developed later Mycenaean period? Where they directly related to the Proto-Greeks, or a completely different IE people coming from a very different place?

Like in the LBA-EIA transition, we know that Protovillanovan related and Italian-Mediterranean groups came to Greece, plus Urnfielders from different groups (like Middle Danubian and Channelled Ware/G?va-related). The latter while having a tremendous initial impact, just like Brnjica too, being later pushed back and seem to have played little to no role in the later Greeks.

He said it in the presentation, there were multiple strains of increased steppe ancestry and West Asian ancestry. So its porbably not just one group bringing increased steppe, not just one group which brought increased West Asian ancestry, but multiple, different people at different times.

The most interesting part is how, if we look at the significant and clearly Greek-related increase of steppe ancestry, the more Anatolian shift could happen. Both in Greeks and later Thracians. And my suspicion is it happened the same way in Thracians, Greeks and later Romans: By a constant trickling in from the demographic centres in Anatolia and the Near East, which provided constantly migrants which settled especially in the urbanised environment, the trade posts and their networks, coming primarily as tradespeople, workers and slaves, later in other roles as well, once areas being completely integrated.

Like both Thracians, Greeks and Romans did actually colonise areas in Anatolia-Levante and experienced, apparently, backflow from their cousins into their main regions. That's my current prediction, will be seen how it turns out.

The second factor is that the newcomers from the North regularly placed themselves in the centres too, which might have left some regions more untouched in which locals did survive and made themselves mix with the Anatolian-Levantine newcomers themselves. In any case I see so far no strong argument for any kind of tribal migration for the Anatolian influence, but rather migrants and backflow.
 
You have to consider that many people entered Greece from different directions both in the transition from the Middle to the Later Bronze Age and from the Later Bronze to the Iron Age.
So the question is which relationship had these Cetina-related migrants with other migrants from Eastern Europe and the Carpatho-Balkans? How much of the Cetina-related people survived into the developed later Mycenaean period? Where they directly related to the Proto-Greeks, or a completely different IE people coming from a very different place?
Like in the LBA-EIA transition, we know that Protovillanovan related and Italian-Mediterranean groups came to Greece, plus Urnfielders from different groups (like Middle Danubian and Channelled Ware/G�va-related). The latter while having a tremendous initial impact, just like Brnjica too, being later pushed back and seem to have played little to no role in the later Greeks.
He said it in the presentation, there were multiple strains of increased steppe ancestry and West Asian ancestry. So its porbably not just one group bringing increased steppe, not just one group which brought increased West Asian ancestry, but multiple, different people at different times.
The most interesting part is how, if we look at the significant and clearly Greek-related increase of steppe ancestry, the more Anatolian shift could happen. Both in Greeks and later Thracians. And my suspicion is it happened the same way in Thracians, Greeks and later Romans: By a constant trickling in from the demographic centres in Anatolia and the Near East, which provided constantly migrants which settled especially in the urbanised environment, the trade posts and their networks, coming primarily as tradespeople, workers and slaves, later in other roles as well, once areas being completely integrated.
Like both Thracians, Greeks and Romans did actually colonise areas in Anatolia-Levante and experienced, apparently, backflow from their cousins into their main regions. That's my current prediction, will be seen how it turns out.
The second factor is that the newcomers from the North regularly placed themselves in the centres too, which might have left some regions more untouched in which locals did survive and made themselves mix with the Anatolian-Levantine newcomers themselves. In any case I see so far no strong argument for any kind of tribal migration for the Anatolian influence, but rather migrants and backflow.

I think that if we want to see ancient greek e-v13
Remains ( which i do even though its not my haplogroup at all)
We need ancient greek samples from early iron
Age to hellenistic period
 
I think that if we want to see ancient greek e-v13
Remains ( which i do even though its not my haplogroup at all)
We need ancient greek samples from early iron
Age to hellenistic period

Yes, the question is whether it did come with the Transitional Period Urnfielders or whether it was coming from later Thracian contacts only. That's the main question, possible single/early/outlier samples not withstanding. Like contacts were there earlier, which means single mercenaries, traders, slaves etc. could have been there before in the LBA period of the Mycenaeans.
 

This thread has been viewed 56538 times.

Back
Top