Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Angela

Angela

Veteran member
Messages
21,793
Reaction score
12,341
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
YEAH! Finally.

See: Lazaridis et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...Mrq8WVAMpP-SfGerriklOb5-JK4PQu2o4hKeBf7fel4E9



"The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1, 2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4, 5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6, 7, 8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1, 6, 9 or Armenia4, 9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."

Admixture analysis- See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature23310_SF1.html

Y dna from page 52 of the supplement:
Y dna from Lazardis et al on ancient Greek dna.PNG

The Bronze Age Anatolia individual:
"This individual wasancestral for the major subclade3 P58 (J1a2b; previously designated3 J1e) and could thus bedesignated as J1a(xJ1a2b)."

"I0070 (Minoan from Lasithi)This individual was derived for mutation M319:15467785T->A (J2a1d) as well as upstream mutationsL26:22942897T->C (J2a1) and M410:2751678A->G, L212:22711465T->C (J2a). He was not foundto be ancestral for any downstream mutations and could be designated as J2a1d. Haplogroup M319was found4 at a frequency of 8.8% in one sample set of 193 present-day Cretans (95% confidenceinterval from the binomial distribution 5.2-13.7%) and 5.4% in another set5 of 168 Cretans (95% C.I.:2.5-10%), but no examples were found in a combined sample set of 171 Greeks from three locationsnear early Neolithic settlements in mainland Greece (95% C.I: 0-2.1%). A re-analysis4 of large set of523 present-day Anatolian males6 revealed only 2 examples of M319 in this population (95% C.I.: 0-1.4%). Thus, it appears plausible that this represents a Y-chromosome lineage that existed in MinoanCrete but was at a lower (or absent) frequency in neighboring mainland Greece and Anatolia and itsoccurrence in present-day Cretans represents continuity with those of the Bronze Age."

"I0073 (Minoan from Lasithi)This individual was derived for mutation L26:22942897T->C (J2a1) as well as upstream mutationsM410, L559, L152 (J2a). He was ancestral for several downstream haplogroups: M322:15469740C->A (J2a1a), L560:21899860C->T (J2a1b1a), M166:21764694C->T (J2a1b2), M68:21878700A->G(J2a1c), M339:2881367T->G (J2a1e), L24:14286528G->A (J2a1h), L88.2:17595842T->C andL198:17595861A->C (J2a1i). He could thus be designated as J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1a, J2a1b2, J2a1c,J2a1e, J2a1h, J2a1i)."

"I9130 (Minoan from Moni Odigitria)This individual was derived for mutations CTS946:7100848A->G (G2a2b2a) and upstream mutationsF3088:20813445G->A and M3397:21605685G->C (G2a). He was ancestral for downstreammutations CTS4803:15833180G->A (G2a2b2a1b1a2a) and Z3423:19251438G->T (G2a2b2a1c1a).He could thus be designated as G2a2b2a(xG2a2b2a1b1a2a, G2a2b2a1c1a). G2a2 Y-chromosomeswere common in Neolithic Europe7, western Anatolia8,9, and Neolithic mainland Greece9. We havealso re-analyzed data from a recent study of central Anatolian Neolithic genomes10, determining thatthey were present there during both the Aceramic phase at Boncuklu (2 G2a2b2b samples) and later atTepecik-Çiftlik (1 G2a2a sample). Plausibly, the Minoan from Moni Odigitria who belonged to thislineage was also related to the same group of early Neolithic farmers as those from Europe, mainlandGreece, and Anatolia."

"I9041 (Mycenaean from Galatas Apatheia in the Peloponnese)This individual was derived for mutations L26:22942897T->C and F4326:23021978A->G (J2a1) aswell as upstream mutations M410:2751678A->G, L559:21674327A->G, L152:22243566C->T,L212:22711465T->C (J2a). He was ancestral for M322:15469740C->A (J2a1a), M260:15025506G->A and M92:21904023T->C (J2a1b1), M166:21764694C->T (J2a1b2), L210:16492197A->T(J2a1b3), M68:21878700A->G (J2a1c), M339:2881367T->G (J2a1e), P81:6739856G->A (J2a1g),L207.1:6753448A->G and L24:14286528G->A (J2a1h), L88.2:17595842T->C andL198:17595861A->C (J2a1i). He could thus be designated as J2a1x(J2a1a, J2a1b1, J2a1b2, J2a1c,J2a1e, J2a1g, J2a1h, J2a1i)."

"More sampling of ancient populations is needed to establish the presence (and frequency) ofhaplogroup J in the Aegean and neighboring regions). However, (i) the great time depth of itspresence in the Caucasus/Iran, together with (ii) its low frequency/absence in NeolithicGreece/Anatolia, and (iii) its appearance in the samples of our study, lead us to believe that it mayhave accompanied the genetic admixture (Neolithic Iran/Caucasus-hunter-gatherer related) that seemsto have affected all populations in our study (Supplementary Information, section 2). Thus, the Ychromosometurnover that occurred in central Europe during the Bronze Age7,19 may also haveoccurred in the Aegean, with a different set of incoming lineages."

So we've been saying here for a long time. Perhaps it's time to put some of the more exotic explanations to rest.
 
Last edited:
For those interested in phenotypic data:

The actual snp data is on page 59 of the Supplement.
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature23310-s1.pdf

View attachment 8993

"Present-day Europeans are almost fixed for the derived (light pigmentation) allele G atrs1426654, but the ancestral allele occurred in western European hunter-gatherers3,4. Werecord no copy of the ancestral allele in 9 individuals with at least one sequence. We alsoexamined the rs16891982 SNP in SLC45A2, the second strongest signal of selection inEuropeans discovered in a genome-wide scan3. The overall frequency of the C allele could beestimated as 24% (C.I.: 8-47%) in the Aegean Bronze Age. The frequency of the minor Callele in present-day Greeks is 14% (95% C.I.: 11-17%)5. The C allele has decreased infrequency in eastern Europe6 or Europe in general3 due to likely selection since the BronzeAge, but with the available data, the Bronze Age frequency is consistent with its modernprevalence."

"Classic blond hair has been associated with the C allele in the rs12821256 SNP in KITLG9.We have reads covering this site in 11 individuals and do not detect the C allele."

"The rs12913832 SNP in HERC2 is a major determinant of blue eye color in humans7. Thefrequency of the A allele could be estimated as 86% (C.I.: 64-98%) in the Bronze AgeAegean. The G allele was present in Anatolia since Neolithic times3and our results suggest itspresence in all studied Bronze Age groups at a low frequency."

"These results suggest that ancient Bronze Age individuals from the Aegean and southwesternAnatolia had mostly dark (brown or black) hair and brown eyes. Blue eyes were uncommonas predicted by the lack of homozygotes for the G allele at rs12913832 which is the majorpredictor of this trait, however, this allele did occur in all studied populations (Table S4.1),thus the phenotype would have been uncommon but not unknown in the region. The browneye phenotype is still the most common in present-day Greeks occurring in ~3/4 of them, withthe remainder split between blue and intermediate shades1. Similarly, ~79% of present-dayGreeks have light or dark brown hair, with the remainder split between blond and black."

So much for blonde-blue eyed Mycenaeans.

I guess this reconstruction of the Mycenaean "Griffin warrior" may be pretty accurate, despite all the naysayers.
Facial-Reconstruction-Griffin-Warrior.jpg
 
Nice, the continuity of the groovy Greeks is proven once more. For those "naysayers", Greece strong!
 
Does this article also prove the "Dorian Invasion" in a sense?
 
Minoan and Mycenean culture and people are percieved as different from each other.
The later Mycenean culture is not derived from the Minoan culture.

Yet the genetic difference is small :

However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6, 7, 8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1, 6, 9 or Armenia4, 9.

Did these few EHG shape the Mycenean culture? Where they a small ruling elite?
Well, they had charriots and swords ..

btw, is there a way to go around the paywall?
 
Here are some more goodies:
View attachment 8994

Admixture modeling was done every which way. The discussion starts on page 27 of the Supplement.
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature23310-s1.pdf

"The successful models agree that Mycenaeans have most of their ancestry from the Neolithicsubstratum (~74-79%), with the remainder from both the Eastern European/Siberian set ofpopulations (~5-16%), and the Iran/Caucasus populations (~9-18%). These results do not, of coursedetermine whether the non-Anatolian Neolithic-related admixture in Mycenaeans was introduced by asingle population that was itself a mix of the Eastern European/Siberian and Iran/Caucasus sources, orby separate admixtures that reached the Aegean presumably from the north and east. They do,however, show that admixture from only a single of those sources is insufficient to properly model theancestry of Mycenaeans (as the failure of any 2-source model in Table S2.1 indicates)."

"We were concerned that the admixture from these three sources could be driven by heterogeneitywithin the Mycenaean population itself. Mycenaeans do appear to form a tight cluster in PCA (Fig.1b) and to have similar admixture proportions in ADMIXTURE analysis."

"More formally, we tested all (42) = 6 pairs of Mycenaean individuals in our dataset as a Left list,using the All as the Right list. All 6 pairs were consistent with forming a clade with respect to the Allset to the limits of our resolution (p-value for rank=0 ≥0.08)."

So, we're talking about, say, 10% "steppe" admixture. I don't know what they'll say about this later, but this doesn't seem like a typical amount for a population coming straight down from the steppe, does it? Does this leave open the whole "Greeks from the east" scenario?

"Minoans from Moni OdigitriaMinoans from Moni Odigitria in the Heraklion regional unit (south-central Crete) do not form a cladewith any single (N=1) population of the All set. The best single population is Neolithic Anatolians, forwhich rank=0 can be rejected with p=9.13e-05, with all others being rejected much more strongly(p<1e-16). We can model Minoans from Moni Odigitria as a 2-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithicand Caucasus hunter-gatherers or Neolithic Iran (Table S2.4), with most ancestry (~86%) derivedfrom a Neolithic Anatolian-related population."

Minoans from Lashiti:
"We can model them as a 3-way mixture(Table S2.5) of ~84-85% Neolithic Anatolians, ~15% CHG, and <1% MA1 or Mota (the third typeminor ancestry is within 1 standard error of zero). The mixture proportions for Lasithi Minoans arethus practically the same as with the Moni Odigitria Minoans (Table S2.4). The lack of differentiationbetween these two Bronze Age Cretan populations can also be shown by their clustering in PCA."

"Cretan from ArmenoiThis individual has only 42,052 SNPs covered in the HOIll dataset and it belongs to a later period(Late Minoan III A-B ~ 1400-1200 BC) than the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi. It does notform a clade with any single (N=1) population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 0.001). There areseveral models that fit (p-value for rank=1 > 0.05) for N=2 that agree on this individual having mostof its ancestry from Anatolian Neolithic-related population with additional ancestry from easternEuropean/North Eurasian hunter-gatherers (Table S2.7), as also suggested by the shift of thisindividual in PCA relative to other Minoans and indeed even the Mycenaeans (Fig. 1b). Weacknowledge the possibility that there was geographical structure in the Bronze Age Cretanpopulation (the Armenoi sample comes from northwestern Crete; Fig. 1a), or that population changehad occurred between the time of the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi and the time of thisindividual, however, the lack of high quality data does not allow us to test these hypotheses further."

That makes sense to me; in later periods there was some movement north to south.

It seems to me that perhaps more J2 came to Crete and mainland Greece before the Bronze Age proper for the CHG/Iran type ancestry to be so low. That, or like Bronze Age migrations in Europe, they were more male dominated, because the Minoans seem to be largely Neolithic Anatolians, which is what I always suspected and proposed.

Of course, they always think of everything, so they thought of this too.:)

". However, all the Bronze Age populations also have ancestry related to the Caucasusor Iran, consistent with their shift in PCA (Fig. 1b). This shift began in Anatolia no later than theChalcolithic (3943-3708 calBCE)16 and was not evident in Greece by the time of the Final Neolithic(4,230–3,995 calBCE) individual from Kleitos14 that resembled (like all other Greek Neolithicindividuals) Anatolian farmers (Fig. 1b). The newly reported Neolithic individual from Diros Cave inthe Peloponnese (where most of the Mycenaean samples are from) did not have this ancestry as late as5479-5338 calBCE (Extended Data Table 1). (Future studies may show when the transformationoccurred in Greece, but by the time of the Minoan and Mycenaean samples, both populations tracedsome ancestry to this eastern source, as did the southwestern Anatolians from Harmanören Göndürle.

"Bronze Age AnatoliaThe population from Bronze Age southwestern Anatolia does not form a clade with any single (N=1)population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-25). It cannot be modelled as any 2-way mixture(Table S2.8), with the best ones involving a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and either Iran Neolithicor Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This population can be modelled as a 3-way mixture (Table S2.9) of~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), and ~6% Levantine Neolithicancestry. This extra Levantine Neolithic ancestry parallels the PCA (Fig. 1b) that shows that theBronze Age Anatolian sample is to the “east” (towards the Levant) relative to the Minoans andMycenaeans.""
 
It's a new trick merging EHG with WHG in all admixture analysis... what was done with EHG?

By the way if the common difference between Neolithic Greece and pre-Mycenean + Minoan is the CHG and their old languages were not IE but Minoan and Pelasgian, the CHG side is not supporting much a "Caucasian" IE urheimat.

However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6, 7, 8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1, 6, 9 or Armenia4, 9
Click to expand...

Sintashta
 
bicicleur said:
Minoan and Mycenean culture and people are percieved as different from each other.
The later Mycenean culture is not derived from the Minoan culture.

Yet the genetic difference is small :

However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6, 7, 8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1, 6, 9 or Armenia4, 9.

Did these few EHG shape the Mycenean culture? Where they a small ruling elite?
Well, they had charriots and swords ..

btw, is there a way to go around the paywall?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the first sentence but not with the last.

Greeks from the east is still on the table?

"Mycenaeans do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-6). They can only be modelled as a 2-way mixture of Neolithic Anatolia and Chalcolithic orMiddle/Late Bronze Armenia (Table S2.13). This suggests that Mycenaeans could be a mixture ofearly Neolithic people (represented by the Neolithic Anatolian population) and further input from theeast related to populations of Armenia. This seemingly contradicts the results of our earlier modelingas a 3-way mixture of Anatolian Neolithic, Iran Neolithic or Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and EasternEuropean hunter-gatherers or Upper Paleolithic Siberians (Table S2.2), which suggests input fromboth the east (related to Iran) and north. However, populations of Armenia themselves have someEHG-related ancestry16, so it is possible that Mycenaeans received both the Iran-related and EHGrelatedancestry together from a population similar to that which inhabited Armenia. Thus, it ispossible that Mycenaeans received ancestry from these sources separately (from the north and the eastt; Table S2.2), or in a population that had ancestry from both, as in the populations of Armenia.Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasiansteppe16 in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture ofAnatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeanshave more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2). It is possible that there were otherpopulations along the Iran/EHG “northeastern interaction sphere13” than the ones sampled here.

Note that when modeling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic- and Armenia-relatedpopulations (Table S2.13) 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 laterpopulations as a source (Table S2.2). This is due to the fact that populations from Armenia themselveshave Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry16. Since such ancestry existed in both Anatolia andNeolithic Europe, it is likely that any migrations from either east or north would introduce some of itinto the Aegean; thus some Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry may correspond to the preMycenaeaninhabitants of Greece, while some of it may have arrived together with later migrationsfrom the north or east from populations that already possessed some of it.Nonetheless, if it arrived with populations like those of Armenia, it is still inferred that the majority(~56-63%) of the ancestry of Mycenaeans was Anatolian Neolithic-related, and so while non-trivialgenetic turnover occurred in Greece, it was not as significant as in central Europe where ~3/4 of theancestry of the Corded Ware people was of steppe origin1."
 
Big news. Does the northern Iran/Caucus/Steppe mix referenced get explained by Kura Axes seed population?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
Angela said:
Indeed. The Mycenaeans seem to be clustering with Sicilians. Ashkenazi too, so I wonder if it's possible that the Philistines will turn out to be pretty close to Mycenaneans, and the Philistines started the change we see in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
Click to expand...

Ha!!! I wonder how Nordicists feel about Mycenaens being closer to Ashkenazim/Sephardic Jews and South Italians! There will be many tears shed on Stormfront over this paper.
 
^ They are crying, losing hope.
 
Actually this article is really important. I even saw it in a Greek news website, y'all.
 
I1a3_Young said:
Big news. Does the northern Iran/Caucus/Steppe mix referenced get explained by Kura Axes seed population?

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

I haven't found any reference to a specific archaeological culture yet.

See above post #11 for info on Mycenaens.

As far as the Minoans are concerned:

"Minoans from Moni OdigitriaMinoans from Moni Odigitria do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-valuefor rank=0 < 1e-6). The best 2-way mixture models (N=2) involve a pairing of Anatolian Neolithicwith an eastern population from Armenia, Iran, or the Caucasus (Table S2.14). We can successfullymodel them as 3-way mixtures composed primarily of these two components with a minor (~2-3%and not significantly different from zero) contribution from the Levantine Neolithic (Table S2.15)."

Minoans from Lashithi:

"This might suggest an earlier formation of the Minoans by arelatively simple admixture of the Anatolia-related substratum with an eastern (CHG-like) population,or back-flow from a Minoan-related populations into the ancestors of populations in the All+ set.Sampling of earlier populations from Crete and eastern populations may find a better surrogate for theeastern ancestry in this population than the CHG."

"Bronze Age AnatoliaBronze Age Anatolians do not form a clade (N=1) with any population of the All+ set (p-value forrank=0 < 1e-17), except with a Chalcolithic northwestern Anatolian13 (p=0.072). The rather low pvaluetogether with the fact that the Chalcolithic Anatolian (Anatolia_ChL) does not cluster with theBronze Age southwestern Anatolians led us to also test statistics of the form f4(Anatolia_BA,Anatolia_ChL; Ancient, Chimp) for all other Ancient populations (Extended Data Fig. 3). These donot reach significance at the |Z|=3 level, but statistics involving Ancient as CHG, EHG, SHG, or MA1approach this level, which appears to be consistent with the more “northern” position of theChalcolithic Anatolian in the PCA (Fig. 1b). Overall, we believe that it is reasonable to think thatthese differences are real, although it is unclear whether they reflect spatial structure (as the twopopulations were sampled ~260 km apart) or a temporal change (as the two populations lived >1,000years apart). A more thorough sampling of ancient Anatolian variation may clarify this. When wemodel Bronze Age Anatolians as 2-way mixtures (N=2), the best models (Table S2.18) involveChalcolithic Anatolians and populations from the Levant (Natufians, Neolithic and Bronze Age Levantines), as do the best N=3 models (Table S2.19). Recall that we could model this population as amixture of Neolithic Anatolians, Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and Levantine Neolithic (Table S2.9).
 
davef said:
Ha!!! I wonder how Nordicists feel about Mycenaens being closer to Ashkenazim/Sephardic Jews and South Italians! There will be many tears shed on Stormfront over this paper.
Click to expand...

They're not the only ones.

Whatever will a certain person do if it turns out that Sicilians are indeed very close to ancient Greeks?

It doesn't bear thinking about!!! :)
 
"The amount ofsteppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group(“Yamnya/Afnasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA), which is in harmonywith our finding of ~7% EHG ancestry in Mycenaeans, as this group has about half of its ancestryfrom the EHG1,8,16. The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age(Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher stillwhen the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used asa source, reflecting the fact that these have substantial European/Anatolian Neolithic-relatedancestry1,8,20 which dilutes their EHG-related ancestry further. We cannot distinguish which of thesepopulations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe,from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration fromcentral Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/NeolithicBronze Age)."

"Thus, while we cannot distinguish between the differentsource populations of ‘northern’ ancestry, our results do not depend strongly on the sampledpopulations, as quantitatively similar estimates of their impact on Mycenaeans are inferred when weeither use any of them, or use none of them, but simply infer ancestry from an unsampled “ghost”population from either the eastern European-Iran continuum that formed the early populations of thesteppe1,10,13, or the steppe-European farmer continuum of the Middle/Late Bronze Age8,20."

"While both ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ 2-way mixture models fit the data statistically, we were curiouswhether a more complicated model could provide additional insight, so we tested 3-way mixturemodels with Anatolia_N or Minoan_Lasithi as the substratum population and both steppe-related‘northern’ ancestry (Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA, or Europe_LNBA) and Armenia-related‘eastern’ ancestry (Armenia_MLBA or Armenia_ChL). The results are presented in Table S2.26.Anatolian Neolithic/Minoans make up the majority of the ancestry (~59-90%) in all these models.Most of the coefficients for the ‘northern’ and ‘eastern’ ancestry are positive, suggesting that there ismigration from both sources, but many of these positive coefficients do not significantly differ fromzero (explaining why the simpler 2-way mixture models fit the data adequately without taking intoaccount a 3rd ancestral source). Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon.Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++"

"However, we do notice that the model79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individualsfrom mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece mightidentify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA modelrepresents the true history."

There's a large section on the implications for language change...too large to copy and paste. It starts on page 49.

Certain people won't be at all happy.
 
This is such an exciting paper, science is awesome.

From Page 4:

"We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region(Extended Data Fig. 7)"

Figure 2:

nature23310-f2.jpg


Extended Figure 7:

nature23310-sf7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Angela said:
"The amount ofsteppe ancestry is about ~13% when the Early/Middle Bronze Age group(“Yamnya/Afnasievo/Poltavka-related”) is used as a source (Steppe_EMBA), which is in harmonywith our finding of ~7% EHG ancestry in Mycenaeans, as this group has about half of its ancestryfrom the EHG1,8,16. The proportion is slightly higher when the Middle/Late Bronze Age(Steppe_MLBA) group (“Srubnaya/Andronovo/Sintashta-related”) is used as a source, and higher stillwhen the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age populations from mainland Europe (Europe_LNBA) are used asa source, reflecting the fact that these have substantial European/Anatolian Neolithic-relatedancestry1,8,20 which dilutes their EHG-related ancestry further. We cannot distinguish which of thesepopulations was a source for Mycenaeans (whether there was a migration directly from the steppe,from populations related to the Early, Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe, or an indirect migration fromcentral Europe from steppe-influenced populations that were formed there during the Late/NeolithicBronze Age)."

"Thus, while we cannot distinguish between the differentsource populations of ‘northern’ ancestry, our results do not depend strongly on the sampledpopulations, as quantitatively similar estimates of their impact on Mycenaeans are inferred when weeither use any of them, or use none of them, but simply infer ancestry from an unsampled “ghost”population from either the eastern European-Iran continuum that formed the early populations of thesteppe1,10,13, or the steppe-European farmer continuum of the Middle/Late Bronze Age8,20."

"While both ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ 2-way mixture models fit the data statistically, we were curiouswhether a more complicated model could provide additional insight, so we tested 3-way mixturemodels with Anatolia_N or Minoan_Lasithi as the substratum population and both steppe-related‘northern’ ancestry (Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA, or Europe_LNBA) and Armenia-related‘eastern’ ancestry (Armenia_MLBA or Armenia_ChL). The results are presented in Table S2.26.Anatolian Neolithic/Minoans make up the majority of the ancestry (~59-90%) in all these models.Most of the coefficients for the ‘northern’ and ‘eastern’ ancestry are positive, suggesting that there ismigration from both sources, but many of these positive coefficients do not significantly differ fromzero (explaining why the simpler 2-way mixture models fit the data adequately without taking intoaccount a 3rd ancestral source). Interestingly, the proportion of ‘eastern’ and ‘northern’ ancestry inTable S2.26 are anti-correlated (r=-0.95) suggesting again that they both capture the same underlyingphenomenon.Table S2.26: 3-way mixture models. Left = (Mycenaean, A, B, C). The Right set is All++"

"However, we do notice that the model79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individualsfrom mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece mightidentify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA modelrepresents the true history."

There's a large section on the implications for language change...too large to copy and paste. It starts on page 49.

Certain people won't be at all happy.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, what is the reason to be unhappy.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top